October 31, 2007

10/31: 2/5 Can't Get Here Quick Enough

Watching the Dem WH '04 debates we remember thinking that the longer the Dem primary lasted, the better it would be for the eventual nominee. With no GOP primary to cover, every debate was two straight hours of Pres. Bush bashing and the free media gained by the candidates was incalculable. Watching 10/30's Dem debate we came to the conclusion this primary can not end quick enough for the Dems ... especially if Hillary Clinton eventually prevails. Every male candidate on the stage last night attacked her relentlessly. And the GOP debates are no different. As strong a candidate as HRC is, and as able as her staff is, we have to wonder just how much damage the constant attacks from all seven Dem candidates and all five GOP candidates will do in the coming months.

DEM DEBATE: The City Of Sisterly Unlove

Like everyone else, bloggers noticed that 10/30's Dem debate in Philadelphia was a 'Get Hillary Clinton' session from the beginning. TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta blogs: "OK, this is now everybody -- and I do mean everybody -- against Clinton. It makes her look brave for just standing there, this small determined woman being attacked by three men on either side of her, two male moderators, and the entire male Republican field. Each of the critics on his own would be more effective, but taken as whole, the optics of this are uncomfortable."

For most of the evening, Clinton received passing marks from the netroots, until Tim Russert pressed her on immigration. MyDD's Todd Beeton blogs: "The consistent thread throughout the debate was clearly Clinton's "double talk." Both Obama and Edwards attacked her on it early on and she exhibited signs of it in a couple of answers, but she might have escaped unscathed if not for her response to the illegal immigrant driver's license question. There, she basically proved the criticisms true."

Edwards won the Daily Kos debate straw poll (as always), but this time that assessment was shared by most others watching the debate. Candidate specific debate reactions include:

DEBATE BIDEN: A Noun, A Verb, And Joe Biden Walk Into A Bar

• Crooks and LiarsLogan Murphy: "Senator Joe Biden came away with one of the more memorable lines from tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC when he took a shot at President Bush and went after Rudy Giuliani and his lack of qualification to be president."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "My favorite part so far was Biden's tirade against Giuliani, calling him the most unqualified person ever to be President. I don't like Biden, but I loved that answer."
• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta: "Joe Biden says he's not running against Clinton, but to be the leader of the free world, then makes the toughest, most direct case against Rudy Giuliani by any candidate on the stage, while still managing to get in a few jokes and laughs from the audience."
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "Okay, I may have to endorse Biden after this tear against Rudy. Right, the least qualified man running for president since George Bush. Actually, this whole answer is pretty great. Not really being in the race is sorta liberating."

DEBATE CLINTON: A Licence To Kill?

• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "Perhaps she was frayed from being the sole target of attention tonight, but Hillary showed some flaws tonight. This wasn't her best debate, perhaps because she was constantly defending herself from a gang of men: her opponents and Tim Russert.
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "She sounded like she agreed with NY Governor Spitzer that illegal immigrants should have drivers licenses. ... But, then Clinton said she didn't agree with Spitzer ... So, I think she thinks that Spitzer is trying to do the right thing...but she doesn't agree with him...or something like that. ... that immigration answer from Hillary Clinton was bizarre. I still don't know what she said."
• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta: "Mark my words: Chris Dodd's attack on Clinton for supporting "the privilege of a driver's licence" for illegal immigrants, even though she said that's not, in fact, what she supports, is going to have legs.
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "Not sure what I think about the Hillary/drivers' license exchange. It does seem like a typically bogus hedge. ... Here's the thing with Hillary. Not always inspiring answers. But, man, she never flubs an answer. Simply unflappable. Like a machine. And I mean that as a compliment."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "There's no question that Hillary's answer was unusually spineless, especially since she had had plenty of time to think about this. ... Still, is this really a killer moment? If it is, the bar has really gotten pretty low. I doubt very much that Hillary is going to win or lose the election based on straddling the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. In a Republican primary maybe, but not a Democratic one."
• a Daily Kos commenter: "HRC made her first obvious mistake of the campaign on the immigration issue. Her position on the issue was secondary to the fact that, as Edwards promptly noted, she changed it in 2 minutes."
• another dKos commenter: "I think this will prove to anyone paying attention that hillary is absolutely not viable as a presidential candidate. period. She will never treat us like adults. She will always have the mommy attitude that she'll do what's best for us and she doesn't have to treat us with the respect to be honest and let us decide for ourselves."

DEBATE DODD: Expecting That Nativists For Pot Endorsement Any Day Now

• IA Independent's Chase Martyn: "Dodd engaged Clinton in what may have been her worst moment of the night, when he forced her to very obviously equivocate on the issue of giving driver licenses to undocumented immigrants in New York. This fit perfectly into the theme of Clintonian "doublespeak" that defined the majority of the debate. But it also put Dodd in the unfortunate position of attacking a policy that has strong support among many progressive bloggers ... Still, the increased attention will work to his advantage."
• Daily Kos' Miss Laura: "I have to give Dodd a quick shout out for drawing attention to the problem of mass incarceration for minor drug crimes."
• a Daily Kos commenter: "Had my conversion moment tonight when I heard Dodd came out for decriminalization. That's all I needed to hear - he's my candidate! Yay!"
• another dKos commenter: "I was MUCH more disturbed by Dodd on immigrants ... Dodd came off less like a "leader" and more like my stodgy, old, angry uncle - basically, it seemed like he was pandering on that, and to all the wrong people."

DEBATE EDWARDS: If Anyone Played Rocky Last Night...

• Andrew Sullivan: "The winner was clearly Edwards. He was concise, aggressive, completely right about Clinton and always on point. He seemed unafraid to take her on, while Obama was still playing a too-careful defense."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Edwards is having a good night."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I think Edwards had a better debate than Obama did, especially when it came to scoring points at Clinton's expense, although I don't think either of them "won it" per se."
• TNR's Noam Scheiber: "Edwards struck me as more compelling, for two reasons. First, his delivery was far more confident and focused. Edwards cut immediately to the issue of Clinton's honesty and kept pounding her over and over again."
• Matthew Yglesias: "I wasn't really watching after the first half hour or so, but it seemed to me that Edwards was doing a better job than Obama of landing blows on Clinton and that something about the dynamic of so many different candidates slamming HRC was weird."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "John Edwards had the strongest showing, pounding Clinton as the status quo candidate. ... Edwards repeatedly presented himself as the most credible "change" candidate."

OBAMA: Float Like A Butterfly, Sting Like A ... Butterfly

• Matthew Yglesias: "Insofar as people fear that Obama may not have the requisite instinct for the jugular, I don't think he was allaying that fear."
• TNR's Noam Scheiber: "Obama backed into his attack almost apologetically ... he said at the outset, sounding a little jittery. ... He looked relieved after his opening salvo and conspicuously didn't invoke Clinton's name during his next few responses. It was a though, having finally proved he could challenge Clinton to her face, he was eager to resume his usual posture."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Obama doesn't looks so comfortable on the offensive. Obama responded somewhat bumpily, painting himself as the underdog in a complicated Rocky metaphor that went, um, right over my head."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "If this debate was about Obama stepping it up, as his own telegraphing and the media anticipation led us to believe, he didn't, and that's only good for Edwards."
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "Obama says he's going to end the bickering between parties. Which will easily be accomplished, I suppose, when the wingnuts crush him like a bug."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Was this the new, more aggressive Obama? Yes it was! I'd say he landed a few jabs, but nothing serious. He needs to work on his aggression skills."
• Andrew Sullivan: "As someone who thinks Obama is still the best bet for real change in this election, I kept feeling underwhelmed by his performance. You wait for him to go in for the kill ... and ... he ... never ... quite gets there."

DEM DEBATE II: A General Election Preview

Conservative reaction to 10/30's debate include:

• The Corner's John O'Sullivan: "In the last moments Hillary began to crash ... What this little thing demonstrates is that immigration is the issue that the Democrats know is their Achilles Heel. ... Is there any reason why the GOP as a whole should not now come down firmly on the side of a genuine immigration reform that would reduce immigration, legal and illegal, emphasize skills and English language proficiency more than at present, and force employers to obey the law."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "A Republican strategist watching would have been heartened by the naive liberalism on display tonight-heartened, at least, as long as he didn't focus on the fact that the one adult on the stage is the one who's probably going to win."
• O'Sullivan again: "What depresses me about tonight's debate is not merely that Hillary Clinton is the strongest and most adult person on the stage-it's also the possibility that the same thing might at least look true if she were parachuted into the GOP debate."

OBAMA: Happy Gays Are Here Again

In the wake of the Donnie McClurkin fiasco, the netroots are still trying to determine why Barack Obama has continued to fall behind Hillary Clinton after his initial announcement bump. Open Left's Chris Bowers explains that originally he had hoped Obama could form "a combination of the Jesse Jackson coalition in 1988 and the Howard Dean coalition of 2003" or as Bowers calls it "the coalition of non-whites and non-Christian Democrats."

Bowers declines to guess why Obama's support has fallen among the non-white side of the coalition but does guess as to why he hasn't caught on among "the progressive creative class." Bowers writes: "Frist, he kept attacking extremist liberal strawmen, which is basically an attack on the progressive creative class. Second, he kept talking about unity and reaching across the aisle during a time when conservatives and Republicans were repeatedly shooting down consensus legislation in the Senate."

Also articulating their Obama doubts, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum blogs: "When you get down to it, I guess I'm sympathetic toward Hillary but really, really wishing that Obama would give me a good reason to change my mind and support him instead. But he just never does. ... And his Kumbaya campaigning schtick leaves me cold. Worse than that, in fact: it leaves me terrified that he just doesn't know what he's up against with the modern Republican Party and won't have the instinct to go for the jugular when the inevitable Swift Boating commences."

Matthew Yglesias links to Drum and comments: "In particular, if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, I want to see a Democrat who will, enthusiastically, smear him ... Someone who's in it to win it, and isn't trying to prove anything other than his (or her) ability to win the election. Hillary Clinton is that person and I'm not so sure Barack Obama is."

At The Huffington Post, Rod McCullom blogs: "If you're wondering why the Barack Obama campaign is losing traction among black voters .... look no further than the meta-messaging presented in the New York Times interview with Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny. ... The senator rehashed his all-too-familiar "change" rhetoric and says "now is the time" to distinguish himself from the Democratic front runner and accused her of trying to ... obfuscate ... and avoid the big issues. ... Blah, blah, blah. It's like going to the club on a Saturday night and watching another guy publicly announce that "now is the time" to put his arm around the neck of a hot babe standing nearby--or, in our case, a hot man--and ask for a kiss. Geez, just grow a pair and just do it."

Also, AMERICAblog is selling Obama t-shirts with slogans including: "Obama cured me! (of wanting to vote for him)"; "Happy Gays are here again"; and "Bigots for Obama."

GIULIANI: One Of Many

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt hosted Yale prof. and Rudy Giuliani foreign policy advisor Charles Hill on his show 10/30 to "counter the idea that anyone thinks for Rudy." When Hewitt asked if Hill's recent NY Sun quote was designed to distance Giuliani from Norman Podhoretz, Hill responded:

The intention to the questions that were being asked was simply to clarify that Mayor Giuliani has a lot of advisors, and Norman Podhoretz is one of the senior advisors. And we really admire the work that he's done, the thought positions that he's taken, deeply felt and well worked out. We want to hear from his, and we do on a regular basis. But he's one of many advisors that are part of the process that we go through.

In other Giuliani blogging, Robert Bluey thanks Giuliani for hist Law of the Sea Treaty opposition, The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru gives Giuliani a pass on campaign finance reform, and Right Wing News fails Rudy on immigration.

HUCKABEE: Keeping Huck In The Tent

RedState's Erick Erickson explains his "problem with Huckabee" by first quoting the former AR governor: "CEOs get paid 500 times what the average worker does, but they are not necessarily 500 times smarter or harder-working, and that is wrong." Erickson follows up: "I've asked Mike Huckabee about this statement - it's one he made in a Human Events editorial meeting I participated in. He said, at the time, that the government should not get involved in setting wages. But it's only a little step from preaching what he's preaching, to getting elected and doing something to take action."

More Erickson: "Mike Huckabee is a good man. And he is a social conservative. But next to social conservatives, I'm willing to bet that the entrepreneurial class is the second largest voting block in the Republican coalition. And they do not like economic populism, which is what this amounts to."

Other conservatives, however, are beginning to come to Huckabee's defense. Evangelical Outpost's Joe Carter reminds readers that Ronald Reagan "reneged on a campaign promise and signed into law the single biggest tax increase in the state's history" and adds: "If the Club for Growth had been around in 1980, Reagan might not have become President. The influential fiscal conservative group would surely have done everything in their power to prevent the Gipper from gaining the nomination. They would have attempted to derail Reagan's campaign just as they are now doing to Gov. Huckabee."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff links to Carter's analysis and comments: "the shots being directed at Huckabee now that his popularity has increased seem unfair. Specifically, the suggestion that, except on social issues, Huckabee is a populist liberal in the Bill Clinton mode strikes me as far-fetched. ... Republicans looking for the strongest economic conservative probably won't find their man in Huckabee, and it's natural for Huckabee's rivals to hammer his lack of purity in these matters ... Conservatism may be a shrinking tent, but I hope there's room in it for Mike Huckabee."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: There Is Only One Finite Resource On Any Campaign

TAPPED's Mark Schmitt links to Garance Frane-Ruta suggestion that a scheduler is a lower-level staff position and responds:

I don't know a lot about campaigns, but I know one thing: the scheduler is not, or should not be, a "low-level staffer." The scheduler is key. He or (usually) she controls the campaign's most important and finite asset: the candidate's time. Media buyers, "strategists," pollsters are a dime a dozen, and they all come with big egos and big price tags. A great scheduler, however, one who can balance all the political and personal obligations, and use the candidate's time in a savvy way that positively reinforces the message, is a brilliant and rare thing.

LEST WE FORGET: Does This Mean Knowing Is No Longer Half The Battle?

Townhall's Matt Lewis links to news that 'G.I. Joe' will stand for "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity" in Paramount Pictures new film and quips: "Even our cartoons are losing their sovereignty."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:39 PM

October 30, 2007

10/30: Friends No More

On 12/5/06 DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas surveyed what was then the Dem WH '08 primary calendar and proclaimed: "If Obama runs, he wins." Ten months later, on the tail of problems surrounding Social Security and a gospel controversy, Markos blogs: "Unfortunately, the more he stumbles, the bigger the Clinton blowout could be. Her juggernaut advances steadily while her opponents flail. We truly are losing a real choice this primary season, and that's not a good thing."

We do not think that Markos' prognostication skills should be derided here. Kos believed that Obama would run a very different kind of campaign than he actually wound up running. So did we. We thought Obama would embrace the netroots as allies and use their help to defeat Clinton. Instead, Obama has rejected their combative style of politics and has prioritized other constituencies at almost every turn. Now, if Obama is going to win the nomination, it is going to be without their help. And frankly we do not see how that is possible. It is not that the netroots are kingmakers for Dem primaries, but if you are going to run against an establishment candidate, we can't imagine anyone succeeding without their help.

OBAMA: Other Than That Barack, How Did You Enjoy The Show?

All might have been forgotten or forgiven between Barack Obama and the netroots over gospel singer/'gay-basher' Donnie McClurkin's appearance at an Obama Columbia, SC, gospel concert 10/28, but the fact that McClurkin emceed the event and reportedly "turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting" became the last straw for many in the community. Reactions include:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Obama's anti-gay religious right activist used the opportunity Obama gave him last night to preach his hate to thousands of African-Americans. That's just great. And the white preacher who Obama picked to help explain to the audience that gays aren't minions of Satan? CNN reports that he said nothing at all -- just a short little prayer, then he left. ... So, in the end, Obama let his "best" and "favorite" artist slam gays to thousands of African-Americans, in his name, and neither he nor his hand-chosen white gay preacher said anything in response. Class act, that Obama campaign."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "It's an all-out implosion by the Obama campaign. This truly is indefensible."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Obama's not a homophobe, he is probably more comfortable around gay people than any presidential candidate and he has a great record on LGBT rights. It is a significant incident though, because it's about priorities. ... This looks like Obama is giving a wink and a nod to bigots. ... It's not about positions and it never has been about positions, it's about constituencies and identity, and prioritizing your values. And it's not an accident, it's a choice."
• Atrios: "A fascinating thing about Democratic politics is that progressive activists, especially those in marginalized groups, are expected sit down and shut up and take it because they're supposed to be smart enough to know that nods and winks to bigots are just crass political maneuvers that candidates make to court votes."
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "Obama's message of hope and bipartisanship stays positive by letting proxies do his dirty work for him. Sorry, no sale here."
• Pastor Dan at Daily Kos: "I tried to defend -- or at least recontextualize -- Barack Obama's association with Donnie McClurkin the other day, but the latest revelations are just too much. Clearly, Obama has thrown his lot in with defending a bigoted fathead. I kept hoping that he would take the appropriate steps to distance himself from said bigoted fathead, without much luck. If anything, he's even more tightly wrapped up in McClurkin now."

Obama's campaign did not help their cause by giving MSMers a three-page memo which included the following in all caps: "MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES AND HAS CRITICIZED CHURCH LEADERS WHO DEMONIZE HOMOSEXUALS." AMERICAblog's John Aravosis responds: "So David Duke's only problem, per the Obama campaign, is that he vilifies the happy Jews and the happy blacks? Keep digging, guys. Obama keeps making clear that he hasn't learned his lesson, he doesn't understand what he did wrong, and he will continue to coddle those who attack our community so long as it wins him votes and money."

The memo even led Open Left's Chris Bowers to stop defending Obama: "This isn't simply a mistake, despite what I first wrote. If the Obama campaign is not only keeping McClurkin as the headliner of the concert, but also issuing memos defending his views, producing videos endorsing McClurkin before the event, and then allowing McClurkin to emcee the event, it is pre-meditated, not a mistake."

OBAMA II: Kicking A Campaign When They're Down

The netroots do not have a problem with Barack Obama's social security policy prescription (restructuring the cap on payroll taxes), but his rhetoric acknowledging there is a social security problem that needs to be 'fixed' is antithetical to netroots thinking on the issue. Atrios explains:

I imagine some readers who haven't been hanging around these parts for all that long might have justifiably been puzzled at the reaction to Obama's decision to try to make dealing with Social Security his signature attack on Clinton. It's true that Obama didn't assert that there was some huge crisis. But the fact remains that he put the idea out there that Social Security had a "problem" which needs to be fixed and that any serious presidential candidate needs to address the issue in clear detail. So what's the big deal?

Beating back George Bush's plan to kill social security was probably the first major victory for the broadly defined netroots movement. ... Beating back the steady stream of misinformation about the nonexistent crisis was done throughout the blogs, on Media Matters, etc. ... So, anyway, having someone suggest that Social Security is a problem which needs to be dealt with by any serious candidate is like the bat signal for people like me. There is no problem with Social Security. None at all. Whatever broader fiscal time bombs exist have absolutely nothing to do with Social Security.

Those with similar reactions include:

• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "If Obama is hoping for an issue to gain traction with vis a vis Hillary, he's really muffed it picking Social Security. In itself the idea of removing or significantly restructuring the 'cap' on payroll taxes is a good one, at least one with a lot to recommend it. ... But what Obama is doing is buying into the false idea that Social Security is in some sort of crisis."


• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "We spent most of 2005 fighting the Bush administration and its minions in Congress on this very issue, and battled the media and the politicians on this very frame. There is no social security crisis that must be "fixed". Sure, the system could be improved to be less regressive, but what the hell is Obama doing using scare-mongering language on social security?"


• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "That Obama is using the need to shore up Social Security as an attack on Clinton, well, this makes me want to say that I'm disappointed that Obama is abandoning the politics of hope. ... On another level, I just feel bad for progressive Obama supporters. It's simply awful to watch a person that you thought was great and progressive betray and embarrass you for political gain, and move into a more authoritarian direction.


• The Huffington Post's Dave Johnson: "Obama is running ads reinforcing the right's bamboozlement that Social Security is running out of money! ... I know that Senator Obama's heart is in the right place and he has no intention of harming Social Security. But this ad is a mistake that could backfire. Please stop running this ad and please change the language."

OBAMA III: What Was Your Favorite Moment Of The Obama Era?

The combination of the McClurkin/social security issues has inspired some in the netroots to write post-mortems for his campaign already. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "I once wrote a post titled something like "if Obama runs, he wins". The fat lady hasn't sung yet, so I might still prove prescient. But I'd be shocked if I was."

Later Kos adds: "This is truly an epic flameout by the Obama campaign, engaged in actions that are completely indefensible. ... Obama isn't the be-all savior for what ails our country. No one is. If there's a message I thought we were successfully delivering in the netroots is that it was up to US to move this country in the right direction since we couldn't depend on our so-called "leaders". This sort of hero worship of several of our candidates (Edwards, Obama, and even Hillary) is somewhat creepy to begin with, but serves little more than to set up the inevitable disappointment."

Open Left's Matt Stoller congratulates the netroots for avoiding the Obama swoon: "I'm really proud of how we stood up for our values and ourselves, and didn't rationalize away Obama's pandering. It's how a healthy movement should act. ... It's an important precedent to set, that values are the driving force behind what we do, not incoherent notions of strategy. That is what divides us from DC insiders, that we react badly to acts of betrayal, that we don't let our leaders throw us or our gay brothers and sisters under the bus. That is what brings us strength and credibility, that we stand for something and lead."

Finally, Open Left's Chris Bowers explains why he should have seen Obama's "eventual downward slide" coming:

• Barack Obama was never going to run as a partisan progressive or Democrat, and was always going to chastise progressives in right-wing frames whenever he was challenged by the left. His past statements showed a pattern of this behavior that should have been obvious.
• Given his relatively high support compared to his name ID, and his natural base among both working class African-Americans and the under-50, progressive "creative class" of the Democratic Party, he clearly had the best chance to defeat Clinton from the start of the campaign. In fact, he might have had the only realistic chance.
• Unless the underwent a dramatic transformation, bullet point #1 was always going to destroy Obama's chances with the under-50, progressive "creative class" in #2, which would in turn destroy his ability to defeat Clinton. The only candidate with a clear shot to defeat Clinton was always going to repeatedly undercut and otherwise press the "self-destruct" button on his own coalition. In the end, the result would be Clinton domination as the Obama coalition scattered among the rest of the field.

CLINTON: It Takes A Woman

Garance Franke-Ruta links to analysis showing Hillary Clinton's campaign has more women in 'senior positions' than most other Dem campaigns and comments: "[I]t's not like there was some huge population of female strategists out there the various campaigns were competing for and Clinton just happened to snap them all up. Clinton created, on her own, a cadre of female strategists to serve her political needs, by spotting talent in the women around her and promoting them up the political food chain. No other candidate can say, for example, that their campaign is being managed by their female former scheduler."

Matthew Yglesias links and adds: "It also might be worth noting in this regard that I think almost everyone would agree that Clinton's had the best-run campaign -- free of mistakes, and seemingly drawing blood on those occasions when they've felt the need to attack."

EDWARDS: Trading Up?

John Edwards continued opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement is popular among the netroots. Jonathan Tasini blogs at The Huffington Post: "Aside from the ethical and moral opposition to so-called "free trade," Edwards is making a very smart political choice for the Democratic Party. I recently pointed out a nationwide poll that showed that a majority of REPUBLICAN voters oppose so-called "free trade." Do we need to put flashing lights on that fact for those Democratic Party leaders who would still prefer to side with the corporate insiders, as opposed to the voters?"

David Sirota adds at Working Assets: "The move, consistent with Edwards' economic populist campaign, drives a wedge right through the heart of the Democratic presidential primary. ... You can be sure we'll be hearing a lot of noise about how this deal is supposedly great for average Americans and Peruvians alike. But remember, no major labor, human rights, anti-poverty, environmental, consumer protection or religious group in either the United States or Peru have endorsed the deal."

GOP LANDSCAPE: Or Maybe The Fed Is Really That Unpopular

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini links to Rasmussen data showing Hillary Clinton beating Ron Paul 48% - 38% in a head-to-head matchup and remembers: "At this point in '04, the named Democrat (Kerry, Dean, Clark, etc.) was losing to Bush by 10-15 points; the generic Dem by 6-7 points. The Republican field is similarly muddled this time, and not a lot of people are paying attention to the Republican race. So the Republican nominee has a good opportunity to pick up ground against Hillary post-February 5, who remains largely untested in this campaign. ... Hillary not breaking 50% against a guy who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve is a leading indicator of her fundamental weakness in the general election."

GOP FIELD: Ceding Taxes To Rangel?

The Corner's Larry Kudlow looks over Rep. Charlie Rangel's (D-NY) tax plan and blogs: "Mr. Rangel's willingness to buck his party and consider a lower capital-gains tax is another reason why I believe the House's top taxman deserves just a little more praise, and a little less criticism, than he's been getting from my brethren. ... And by the way, where are the Republicans on full-scale tax reform? We also need to hear from the Republican presidential candidates on their ideas for full-scale tax reform. Let's get specific, fellas. ... The time has come gentlemen."

GIULIANI: Not Ready To Trust Him Yet

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru pushes back against Frank Rich and Matt Frank claims that Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton do not differ on abortion: " They're wrong. Giuliani favors restrictions on federal funding, real parental-consent laws, and bans on partial-birth abortion, and Clinton doesn't." Also at NRO, Giuliani foreign policy advisor David Frum looks at Giuliani's record cleaning up New York and predicts social conservatives and Giuliani are just "friends who haven't met yet."

Hot Air's Allahpundit isn't ready to buy Frum's argument: "I won't deny that there's something to Frum's analysis. Rudy took on the entrenched liberal interests in New York, a city that was nearly written off as ungovernable before his tenure, and won. ... [but] he's given us reasons to suspect that he'll govern as a sort of tough liberal who could go in almost any direction, and he has given us reasons to fear that no matter how conservatively he may govern, he'll derail himself and let us down with some kind of personal scandal. ... Maybe Rudy is a social con's friend. If so, he has some courting and convincing to do yet."

THOMPSON: Sun Rises In East, Sets In West

Fred Thompson pollster John McLaughlin tells NRO's Jim Geraghty that "Immigration is big in Iowa." More from McLaughlin via Geraghty: "The mainstream media ran down our immigration plan last week, saying it was unrealistic and too tough. Our voters love it. We've gotten nothing but positive response."

IA CAUCUS: Hold The Phone

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal looks at the Univ. of IA's new poll showing Hillary Clinton edging Barack Obama 29% to 27% and Mitt Romney beating Rudy Giuliani 36% to 31% and notes: "[I]t used an open-ended vote question, the same screening questions and sampled from a list of telephone numbers drawn from listed telephone directories (i.e. not a registered voter list and not using a random digit dial methodology). ... The problem with that is that it projects to a "likely caucus goer" universe of nearly half the adults in Iowa -- more than a million. ... So this poll is sampling a considerably broader population of Iowa adults than has turned out to attend past caucuses."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're Surprised No One Thought To Blame Bloggers

Tyler Cowen links to a Stanford study showing gerrymandering has not led to increased polarization, and then summarizes another polarization hypothesis from a Harvard study:

[P]olitical extremists are most active when they fear that the extremists from the other side might win. Each candidate requires those extremists for support and resources, and when a candidate wins he or she then must polarize to some extent. If you think of the extremists as motivated by fear of the other side, in a lopsided district they are more likely to stay at home and keep their mouths shut, thereby allowing the candidate to straddle the center. It's a close race that brings out the partisans and gives them some measure of ex post control.

LEST WE FORGET: The Boys Are Definitely Right About #3

The Corner's Michael Ledeen passes on a story from a "overseas penpal" about a Spanish teacher who divided up her class to debate whether 'computer' ought to be a feminine or masculine noun. The boys argued computers were female because: 1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic; 2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else; 3. Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long term memory for possible later retrieval; and 4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.

The women countered: 1. In order to do anything with them, you have to turn them on; 2. They have a lot of data but still can't think for themselves; 3. They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the time they ARE the problem; and 4. As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you had waited a little longer, you could have gotten a better model.

Ledeen reports: "The women won."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:44 PM

October 29, 2007

10/29: Not So Fast, Pundits

The recent Mike Huckabee polling surge has caused many pundits to announce -- perhaps prematurely -- that the GOP presidential contest is now a five-person race. The Weekly Standard'sFred Barnes disputes that premise in a new editorial entitled, "The Two-Man Race: Only Rudy and Mitt Have Credible Scenarios." Barnes' editorial has provoked an interesting discussion in the blogosphere, with a number of prominent bloggers agreeing with his assertion that the GOP nominee will most likely be Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney.

GOP FIELD: The Big Five? More Like The Big Two

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt (an avowed Romney supporter) agrees that the GOP race is now a contest between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney: "The reality is dawning that a vote for anyone other than Romney or Giuliani is a diminished vote, one that assists either Romney or Giuliani. A vote by a [John] McCain supporter for McCain instead of his or her second-choice Giuliani hurts the mayor. A vote by a pro-life activist for Mike Huckabee helps Giuliani by not helping the pro-life Romney. Clarity over the nature of the race and the dead-end nature of the Huckabee/[Fred] Thompson/McCain efforts should begin to impact the early races in a decisive fashion through November."

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall also sees a two-person race: "I'd discount [McCain's campaign] as a collapsed candidacy, Thompson's as a joke waiting for its punch line." Marshall links to a New York Times article depicting South Carolina as the pivotal contest in the GOP race and writes, "South Carolina is where the white evangelicals -- en masse -- come into play. If Rudy can't win there, the importance of his strong plurality showings on the national level probably fade quickly, both as an indicator and as a reality, since Romney will likely pick up the support of others who throw in the towel. If Rudy can win there it probably means the lifers will trade their principles on abortion for beefed up aggression abroad."

NRO's Rich Lowry is not ready to rule out Thompson and McCain just yet, but he agrees that Giuliani and Romney are the frontrunners: "It's not a five-man race. There are four candidates who can possibly win, and only two of them (Rudy, Romney) have clear paths to the nomination."

GOP FIELD II: Because Everyone Loves Rankings...

Right Wing News'John Hawkins emailed 225 conservative bloggers and asked them to rank the 5 candidates they would most like to see as the GOP nominee and the 5 candidates they'd least like to see as the GOP nominee. Among this group of bloggers, Fred Thompson is the most desired GOP nominee and Ron Paul is the least desired:

Most Desired GOP Nominee 1.) Fred Thompson 2.) Rudy Giuliani 3.) Duncan Hunter 4.) Mitt Romney 5.) Mike Huckabee 6.) John McCain 7.) Tom Tancredo 8.) Ron Paul 9.) Alan Keyes 10.) John Cox

Least Desired GOP Nominee 1.) Ron Paul 2.) Alan Keyes 3.) John McCain 4.) John Cox 5.) Tom Tancredo 6.) Rudy Giuliani 7.) Mitt Romney 8.) Duncan Hunter 9.) Mike Huckabee 10.) Fred Thompson

GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert links to the poll results and observes, "Rudy Giuliani continues to poll very well, even in groups that one might consider rather conservative, like those reporting in to John's survey."

Not every conservative blogger finds Giuliani palatable, however, as The Right Angle's D.R. Tucker demonstrates: "With all due respect to Rudy Giuliani, the prospect of the former New York mayor becoming the GOP Presidential nominee for '08 is simply too much to bear. ... The fact that a liberal Republican such as Giuliani has even made it this far is an ignoble indictment of the extent to which we have abandoned our commitment to Reagan principles. By all rights, Giuliani should be a discredited candidate on the level of Ron Paul, not a frontrunner in many polls."

In a separate post, Hawkins ranks the GOP candidates based on their positions on illegal immigration:

1.) Tom Tancredo 2.) Duncan Hunter 3.) Ron Paul 4.) Fred Thompson 5.) Mitt Romney 6.) Rudy Giuliani 7.) John McCain 8.) Mike Huckabee

Hawkins: "Keep in mind that I am a staunch foe of illegal immigration, opposed the Kennedy/Bush amnesty bill, and am steadfastly opposed to comprehensive illegal immigration reform, amnesty, or rewarding illegal aliens for breaking our laws. The closer a candidate is to my position on the issue, the higher grade I gave him."

GIULIANI: Getting Good With Brownback?

Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent quotes a statement by Sam Brownback's Iowa political director suggesting that Brownback is warming to the idea of endorsing Giuliani. Sargent observes: "So, here a top political supporter of Brownback is saying that Brownback and 'many of his supporters' think Rudy has the best chance of defeating Hillary, and hence may be able to overlook his pro-choice views. If true, that suggests that Rudy's argument may be working among at least some social conservatives."

Josh Marshall is not surprised: "I've told a number of people over the last few days that for all the talk of this evangelical third-party candidacy if Rudy gets the nomination, I'll believe it when I see it. Sam Brownback, a big pro-lifer, appears to be laying the groundwork for a Rudy endorsement. It makes a hypocrite of one or the other of them. Probably both. But I bet you'll see others making their peace as well, especially if Romney doesn't, can't make the sale."

Meanwhile, NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks it's a bit too early to assume that Brownback will endorse Giuliani: "I'm not going to pretend that I know what's going on in Sam Brownback's head, regarding his meeting with Rudy Giuliani, but I think that until the Kansas Senator utters the words, 'I endorse,' the outrage is a little early."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein is fed up with people calling Giuliani pro-choice: "It's great fun to taunt social conservatives with the fact that the Republican front-runner is 'pro-choice' and 'supports abortion rights.' But we're getting to the point where claiming so much is just, well, not factual. 'Pro-choice' politicians don't 'reassure' Sam Brownback that they'll appoint 'strict constructionist' justices to the Supreme Court following the model of John Roberts, as Giuliani did yesterday. ... Giuliani has become anti-choice, and the only way to protect and expand reproductive rights at the federal level is to elect a Democrat to the White House."

MCCAIN: Give Him A Break, People

On Friday, Blogometer quoted Mickey Kaus' statement that he doesn't buy McCain's new position on immigration:

"I'm continually amazed by the Cheap Date Conservatives I run into who think McCain has somehow convincingly changed on immigration."

Soren Dayton thinks Kaus is being unfair to McCain: "How does this not apply to the entire field?...You have Romney supporters running around saying that their candidate, whose position isn't even recognizably pro-life, is the candidate for pro-lifers. You have Thompson doing a complete 180 (540?) in a matter of months on immigration. People are giving the candidates free passes on this stuff. Why is Kaus so surprised this time? At least McCain is honest about it."

CLINTON: The Incumbent?

Digby believes that the GOP candidates are running against Hillary Clinton in order to portray themselves as agents of change trying to defeat an unpopular incumbent: "I don't know if anyone's noticed, but George W. Bush is being disappeared from the presidential campaign and everyone's running against incumbent Hillary Clinton ... we see a very odd subliminal narrative taking shape in which the blame for the nation's failures of the last seven years is being shifted to Clinton (and the 'do-nothing' Democratic congress) as if the Codpiece hasn't been running things since 2000."

MyDD's Todd Beeton shares Digby's concern and writes: "I wish Democrats would do more to tie all of the GOP candidates to Bush, making the case that a vote for any of them would be akin to voting for Bush's third term. Instead, the Republicans are pretending Bush doesn't exist and, if we're not careful they just may get voters, on some strange subconscious level, to believe it."

OBAMA: Taking The Gloves Off

Sunday's New York Times article about Obama's announcement that he will begin to go after Hillary more forcefully generated a lot of discussion in the blogosphere. Andrew Sullivan welcomes Obama's newfound aggression and writes: "Obama needs to be far more aggressive -- but not hostile to Clinton. She just isn't right for this critical moment in American history, too inherently divisive to bring this country back together in an extremely perilous time, too cautious to effect real change, and still too spooked by Republicans to do what is needed in Iraq. There's still time to stop her. But it's running out."

NRO's Jonah Goldberg is more dubious about Obama's strategy: "So Obama is announcing, once again, that he's going to highlight the differences between Hillary and himself. Good for him. I hope he does. But, he's said this before. Isn't it possible that there really aren't many differences between the two of them? Or any difference that may exist aren't necessarily helpful to Obama? What, beyond the war vote, are these grand differences?"

Kevin Drum is also dubious, and suggests that Obama try a new strategy: "This is good, but I have my doubts that trying to be 'clear with the American people' on these particular subjects is going to do the trick. As Obama says, Hillary Clinton is 'very deft politically,' and I don't think that's going to change. We've already seen Obama try to get some mileage out of the rather narrow differences he has with Hillary over Social Security, Iraq and Iran, and there's just no there there. There are differences, but they're too small to build a campaign on. What Obama needs is a brand new issue."

In a later post, Drum suggests two issues that Obama could embrace:

(1) Propose that the United States unilaterally offer to reopen its embassy in Tehran. Ditto for Cuba and North Korea (and Bhutan, I suppose, though I don't really know what the deal is with them). Make the point that we live in dangerous times, and diplomatic relations should be used as a way of more effectively dealing with the world, not as a way of making self-righteous statements of approval or disapproval about specific regimes.
(2) Propose a specific list of Bush administration executive orders that he would rescind. No shilly-shallying, just a flat promise to revoke them. Possibilities include the orders governing torture, military commissions, and FISA. If he wanted to be even bolder, he could categorically promise to halt the use of presidential signing statements.

OBAMA II: Anatomy Of A Campaign Mistake

Open Left's Chris Bowers writes a long, thoughtful post about the Rev. McClurkin fallout: "The Obama campaign made a couple of mistakes that resulted in getting caught in a discussion it would rather not have and which no presidential campaign is equipped to handle gracefully. I don't think that this means Obama is any less dedicated to reaching out to any of these groups, and I certainly don't think it means Obama's campaign is bridging any major divides within the progressive ecosystem. I think it means that the Obama campaign screwed up with inadequate vetting, and it has justifiably pissed off a lot of members of the GLBT community. Sometimes, a rose is just a rose, and a mistake is just a mistake."

Andrew Sullivan agrees: "I don't think the use of an anti-gay Gospel singer on a muscial tour is a big deal. I don't believe it was done deliberately. Which means it was a staffer mistake. Here's one key test for the Obama campaign: has that staffer been fired yet? Who has been held responsible and fired for such an unforced error? If we are to be reassured that Obama can do what Bush can't: hold people responsible for mistakes, we need to know who did this and when they were let go."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's All About The Nuances

The Politico's Ben Smith, on the Clinton-Obama matchup:

"What we have here, again, is a primary in which there are virtually no differences between the candidates on paper; and so the contrasts between their approaches to issues, and the nuances of their answers to question, become surrogates for the questions of character and capability on which voters will wind up deciding. That's the heart of Obama's case here -- that Clinton's caginess, not the substance of her views, makes her unready to lead; Clinton's attacks on Obama's foreign policy answers is a similar form of attack."

LEST WE FORGET: It's A Good Day To Be A Boston Sports Fan

Matthew Yglesias: "So when I sat down to watch the Redskins-Patriots game yesterday afternoon, I was under no illusions that the ultimate outcome of the game would be anything other than a Skins defeat, but wow, what domination. I had read, of course, about how good the Pats were and seen the highlight reels, but this was the first game of theirs of watched this season and it was a thing to behold -- I find myself seized by a vague, nameless horror so mystical and well-nigh ineffable that I almost despair of putting it in a comprehensible form. Good luck, Colts...."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:53 PM

October 26, 2007

10/26: Say No To Amnesty: The Sequel

When historians look back on the major political battles of 2007, "amnesty" may be the word that stands out the most. First wielded by conservatives as they sought to kill the comprehensive immigration bill, the term is now being used by the netroots as they seek to stop the Senate from granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies.

CLINTON: Where Do You Stand On Telecom Immunity?

Yesterday, the leading liberal bloggers sent a letter to Sen. Harry Reid and the Senate Judiciary Committee in which they encouraged them to "join Sen. [Chris] Dodd's leadership efforts to stop legislation that would allow [telecommunications] companies to escape liability." Dodd, who has seen his popularity among the netroots skyrocket after declaring that he would filibuster the bill, also launched a whip count on his website.

Hillary Clinton is taking heat from the netroots for failing to join Dodd in forcefully condemning the bill. When asked about the bill, Clinton said:

"I haven't seen it, so I can't express an opinion about it, but I don't trust the Bush administration with our civil rights and liberties, so I'm going to study it very hard, and as matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Clinton's ridiculous statement on amnesty for telecom companies is generating mockery and disdain from all sides."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- more than anyone else currently in the Senate?... By making an unquivocal statement and bring attention to the matter, she could create a groundswell of public support that puts pressure on other Senate Democrats to respect the rule of law. Then again, maybe that's the problem."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis took a break from bashing Barack Obama over his ties to Rev. McClurkin in order to praise him for supporting Dodd's filibuster: "In the 'good' Obama news category, he announced that he's supporting Senator Dodd's filibuster of the telecom immunity bill (the bill that would give Verizon, AT&T and other companies immunity for having helped the government illegally spy on innocent Americans). And that's good. Hillary, on the other hand, is being less good, and folks are being urged to contact her and urge her support for the filibuster."

OBAMA: Stuck In A Moment He Can't Get Out Of

The firestorm in the blogosphere surrounding Obama's decision to campaign with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin continues unabated. Yesterday, The Huffington Post's Michael Roston published "an open letter signed by 16 LGBT and black religious leaders [that] says that Obama is reaching out to bring blacks and homosexuals together." The letter states that "Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters."

Aravosis immediately criticized the letter and repeated his call for Obama to fire McClurkin. He cited the following passage in the letter as "the most important":

At the same time, while Obama has said that he 'strongly disagrees' with Pastor McClurkin's comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin.

Aravosis: "Great, so we're to believe Obama would not exclude anti-Semites or racists from his campaign either? Well, would he? Someone needs to ask him that question - Senator, are you saying that you would welcome anti-Semites and racists into your campaign, even though you strongly disagree with them, because you believe in some kind of big tent of bigotry?"

Other liberal bloggers were similarly critical of the Obama campaign's response:

• Atrios: "Because anti-gay bigots exist in the African-American community, it's okay for Obama to embrace them? Not understanding."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Seriously, could Obama's campaign come off looking more inept with their handling of the McClurkin mess? It sure doesn't inspire confidence."
• Matt Stoller: "If there were a comedy of errors involving racism, homophobia, paternalism, single-issue groups and Bob Shrum, this is what it would read like."

GOP FIELD: It's Now The Big Five

NRO's Jim Geraghty explains "How Each of the Big Five Can Win The Nomination":

• Mike Huckabee: "First, he has to do very well in Iowa. Huck's got to make a heck of a splash, win outright, or place a close second or third. From there, he's got to do something to maintain that momentum in New Hampshire, even though it's not the most fertile ground for his type of appeal. By 'something,' I'm thinking a respectable double digit finish. Then move on to South Carolina and win."
• John McCain: "If the field narrows to Giuliani, Huckabee, and himself, he can probably close the deal as the consensus candidate, the man who won't infuriate social conservatives or fiscal conservatives, the man acceptable to both the Club For Growth and the Family Research Council...To get there, he needs Thompson and Romney, the two guys who can also contend for that, 'I Can Unite the Party' title, to stumble early."
• Mitt Romney: "For now, his mission is to just 'keep on truckin', although it would be nice for his national poll numbers to get up a bit...Losing either Iowa or New Hampshire will hurt him badly -- probably not enough to drive him out of the race, but blowing a longtime, and pretty significant lead will get him compared a lot to this year's New York Mets."
• Fred Thompson: "For now, he's just got to meet expectations in Iowa, which is to place a respectable second or third...I have an easy time picturing the race coming down to Rudy and Not Rudy, and the Not Rudy candidate winning in the end as Republicans conclude they're just not comfortable with a candidate with Giuliani's flaws on abortion, guns, and gays. It's in Thompson's interest that he be seen as the most viable Not Rudy candidate as quickly as possible."
• Rudy Giuliani: "When you've led all the national polls, most by quite a bit, for much of the year, you're sitting pretty...Besides sweeping his most friendly territory on [Feb. 5th] -- NY, NJ, CT, CA, Delaware, Illinois -- Giuliani needs the Not Rudy candidate to come out of the Not Rudy mini-primary bruised."

MCCAIN: Let's Chat

McCain participated in a conference call with a number of conservative bloggers yesterday in which he discussed torture, Iran, Judge Southwick, and the DREAM Act. Reactions were respectful, if not overwhelmingly positive, although Power Line's Paul Mirengoff declared that McCain's comments "left me thinking that maybe I supported the right guy in 2000 after all."

Soren Dayton writes: "The theme of the call really seemed to be communication. John McCain has made clear repeatedly that he would do more than the Bush administration to communicate. He would talk more about Iraq. About the deficit. About immigration. About global warming. About judges. He believes that he would be able to get through to people if he just explained. In that sense, he seems much more like Reagan or (Bill, but not Hillary) Clinton."

During the call, McCain criticized Giuliani's statement that he wasn't sure whether waterboarding was torture. Townhall's Matt Lewis reported that McCain "compared this statement to Mitt Romney's saying he would consult lawyers before striking an Iranian nuclear facility as both examples of 'inexperience'."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey adds: "McCain says that waterboarding is opposed by most of the retired military generals, and he considers it torture. It's a matter of keeping the moral high ground and understanding what kind of country we have."

Although McCain left for Iowa before the DREAM Act vote took place, Mirengoff reports that "McCain told us that he would have voted against cloture (i.e., in favor of preventing a vote) because he 'got the message' this summer that Americans want the border secured before we 'go on to the rest.' McCain would deem parts of the border secure when the governor of the relevant state so certifies."

While McCain's apparent change of heart on immigration satisfied Mirengoff, Slate's Mickey Kaus was not convinced: "But if--as border fence opponents constantly remind us--nearly half of illegal immigrants are here because they overstay visas, not because they sneak cross the border, why should the governors of border states be the ones who decide if the borders are secure?...I'm continually amazed by the Cheap Date Conservatives I run into who think McCain has somehow convincingly changed on immigration."

McCain also defended his participation in the "Gang of 14" compromise on judicial nominations. Jim Geraghty quotes McCain: "And I'm glad we didn't use the 51 vote standard that we would have had under the nuclear option, now that we see the obvious consequences for a Democratic president and a Democratic majority."

MCCAIN: Digging Up The 60s

McCain's new Woodstock ad has spurred an interesting blog conversation about the cultural divide that has helped define modern American politics. Soren Dayton calls the ad "clever" and writes, "Is John McCain signaling sympathy and awareness of the cultural DNA of the culture wars? Is this a way to get past the seeming divide between McCain and social conservatives?"

On the left, Matt Stoller notes that the ad "is generating good buzz among Republicans because it combines Hillary Clinton, Woodstock, drug use, the culture wars of the 1960s, and Vietnam...The GOP has lived off of the fumes of the civil rights backlash for a decade or so, and their whole mythology is built around fighting a liberal establishment that transparently doesn't exist."

Atrios links to the ad and writes, "I really don't understand that generation. I cannot imagine that 40 years from now I'll view every single political issue through the lens of some brief period in my youth. I don't even do that now."

Matthew Yglesias responds: "The real reason people of a certain age see everything through the prism of the Baby Boom Youth Experience is, obviously, that there are just so damn many baby boomers that they're able to get away with it. The cohorts right before and right after the baby boomers are just too small to form an insular and self-referential circle. My generation is really big, and someday we'll be as annoying as the boomers are today, but for now too many of us are too young and obscure to inflict it on others."

THOMPSON: Growing On Andrew?

It's been clear for a while now that Andrew Sullivan favors Barack Obama and Ron Paul in their respective primaries, but is Fred Thompson beginning to win him over? Andrew quotes a statement by Thompson in which the candidate appears to break with Cheney's view of executive power:

Thompson agreed that he didn't share the views of Vice President Cheney when it comes to the supremacy of the executive branch.

"No, I think the constitution in times of war, especially, is very definitive about that," he said. "The president is the commander in chief, but the Congress has the power of the budget. The power of the purse. So everything has to go through that prism. So it's divided power in the constitution. Our founding fathers divided that up. Divided it up at the federal level, the idea being that things like Watergate should be made very difficult to happen. So no one branch of the government can misuse power."

Sullivan: "I have to say: he's growing on me."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Power of the Press

Matthew Yglesias points to a Noam Scheiber post on the influence of press coverage and observes:

"...[If] Huckabee finishes a reasonably close second to Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus...[w]ill that be covered as 'Romney wins, on to New Hampshire!' or will it be covered as 'Huckabee Surging, Chaos on the Religious Right!'? The choice of narratives could have a big impact on the ultimate outcome, and it will be made by a fairly small number of reporters and editors who mostly refuse to even acknowledge that they're actors in the process and not just observers of it."

LEST WE FORGET: NY Times, Moving Up In The World

Mickey Kaus reports: "In a desperate bid for respectability, the struggling New York Times has begun an association with the prestigious bloggingheads.tv start-up. David Corn puts on a jacket and tie for the occasion."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:01 PM

October 25, 2007

10/25: Fighting For The Conservative Label

Discussion of Mike Huckabee's rise in the GOP field is generating some major soul searching on what the GOP and conservosphere should look like in the post-Bush era. After talking to bloggers and conference attendees at the Values Voters Summit, Evangelical Outpost's Joe Carter blogs: "Right-leaning bloggers are out of touch with a large portion--if not the majority--of conservatives in America. ... The top four issues that voters said were important to them are "life" (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, embryo destructive research, etc.), marriage, tax cuts, and permanent tax relief for families. Aside from tax cuts, these issues are rarely talked about by the bloggers on the Right. Three out of four issues are ignored--and this is just the top of the list. ... Anyone who thinks tax reduction is essential while abortion and marriage are secondary or unimportant cannot rightly be considered to be conservative, at least not by the standards of the American conservative tradition."

NRO's Jim Geraghty responds: "I think 'secondary' and 'unimportant' are miles apart. The two terms are not synonymous. I can care about abortion, and prefer pro-life candidates, but still think that al-Qaeda trying to kill Americans is the primary issue and challenge for the next president. Secondly, if conservatism is trying to figure out what its top priorities are heading into the post-Bush era, I think the conversation is not helped by declaration, 'if you don't rank abortion as high as I do on my list of priorities, you're not a conservative.' You can say, 'you're a bad conservative, or not my kind of conservative' - but there's a big difference between saying that we must agree on views and we must agree on the exact order of priorities."

HUCKABEE: He's Just A Poor Boy

The longer the spotlight shines on Mike Huckabee, the more negative reviews he gets from the more established elements of the conservative blogosphere. The latest hit on Huckabee centers around his assertion that most Declaration of Independence signers were clergymen. The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford links to evidence refuting Huckabee's claim and comments: "Now, gotcha can be a tedious, pedantic game, but this particular error is, I think, quite revealing of the way in which Mike Huckabee sees this country. You can like that vision, or not, but you cannot deny it."

Instapundit is on the same page: "What could he be thinking? How could anyone who knows anything about the signers of the Declaration of Independence think that? I haven't looked at the video to see if maybe he misspoke or was misquoted, but the sheer absurdity of this statement would argue in favor of that. Or, alternatively, in favor of voting for someone who knows something about the basics of American history."

In other less than positive Huckabee blogging, The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru examines "Huckabee's Protectionism" and Rich Lowryinvestigates claims that Huckabee does not use speechwriters. Lowry also posts a reader email:

Mike Huckabee represents a type of candidate never before seen in the Republican Party (unless you count Strom Thurmond after 1964). Mike is sui generis for us, at least in our generation. But his type has long been known to and found within the Democratic Party: Southern Poor-boy Populist Demagogue. Think Huey Long or George Wallace, James K. Vardaman, or 'Pitchfork' Ben Tillman, to name the most salient examples of this genus.

But not all is bad for Huckabee. Matthew Anderson, Justin Taylor, and Joe Carter write at The Evangelical Outpost: "Because we are pragmatic idealists we are endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee. For several months we have admired the scrappy campaign of Gov. Huckabee but believed it would be a wasted effort to support him with our time, energy, and finances. ... We can no longer sit idly by and allow the campaign of a worthy candidate and an honorable man to flounder for lack of support. ... We hope that you will join us in careful deliberation of Gov. Huckabee's candidacy."

ROMNEY: George Allen Hamilton Cleaver

Mitt Romney new "Business World" ad is getting strong reviews. Townhall's Patrick Ruffini blogs: "As if on cue, Team Romney releases an ad that pivots a little bit more to bio. This is good. You need to talk issues as they relate to your experience and your values. But I think people need to hear more about the Olympics experience and the business experience straight up."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti is also a fan: "Slowly, Mitt Romney is rediscovering the rationale for his campaign: a Washington outsider with significant business experience who governed successfully a heavily Democratic state. Over the last year, Romney's large, unwieldy crew of consultants, media types, and pollsters have focus-grouped the candidate to the point where he's become a strange mix of George Allen, George Hamilton, and Ward Cleaver. The turnaround artist has disappeared. Now it looks like he may be resurfacing."

OBAMA: The Politics Of Hope 101

The Huffington Post's Earl Ofari Hutchinson looks at Barack Obama's response to protests of his decision to campaign with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin and blogs: "Politicians do two things better than anything else. The first is they are masters at saying whatever it takes to get elected. The second is they obsessively crunch numbers; and the only number that counts is the number of votes they can get to put them over the top. ... Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama is a fast study of a well-meaning politician that's cultivating those talents."

More Hutchinson: "Obama has looked hard at the numbers in South Carolina and elsewhere, and knows that there are a lot of socially conservative blacks who loathe gay marriage and any talk of gay rights. Their votes can make or break Obama's national efforts. McClurkin can help, and help him in a big way. He's black, popular, and an outspoken evangelical. Obama can have it both ways with him. He can publicly denounce his views, which he has, while latching onto to his crowd pulling coat tails. ... It's crass, cynical, but it's politics baby pure and simple. And that's all the more reason to keep the heat on Obama to dump McClurkin."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis continues to lead the league in Obama/McClurkin bloggin and he is not pleased with Obama's decision to placate progressives by adding a gay preacher to the gospel tour: "Would Obama put a Klansman on stage so long as he brought a black minister or a rabbi up there too? I'm just not getting the equivalence here: One bigot = one gay guy, and then everything is okay. How many gays balances one bigot, Senator?"

Oh, and Andrew Sullivan dismisses the whole issue as "politics" and just wishes Obama would "get better at it."

In more positive Obama blogging, Open Left's Chris Bowers corrects Harold Meyersonclaims that Obama voted for the '05 bankruptcy bill and MyDD helps announce a new blogger Facebook collaboration called One Million Strong.

BLOGGERS VS MSM: Blogometer Mailbag!

Readers wrote in to disagree about our 10/24 claim that RedState's Ron Paul supporter ban was similar Daily Kos' Cindy Sheehan ban. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas emails: "No it's not. Paul is a Republican. A site devoted to Republicans has decided to prohibit talk of a fellow Republican. Sheehan is not a Democrat, yet she's launched an independent bid against a Democrat. So on a site dedicated to supporting Democrats, those diaries are not allowed. Just like diaries supporting Ralph Nader in a presidential bid would not be allowed. Or Rudy Giuliani. If Sheehan was contesting Pelosi in the primary, she'd be allowed to post about her "campaign". The two situations are not analogous."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat writes: "You got that story completely wrong as far as I know. The ban was on promoting an independent bid against Pelosi. ... Last I looked, Paul was running in the GOP primary. If Kos, whose disdain for Kucinich has been made clear, banned Kucinich diaries, you would have a point. OR if Paul ran as an independent. As it is, you got the story completely wrong."

We responded: "We stand by the comparison. Kos doesn't like Kucinich but Paul supporters have been much more of an administrative headache to RedState than Kucinich supporters have been to Daily Kos. At the end of the day, both Sheehan and Paul were seen as more trouble than they worth to the ultimate goals of the respective sites. Are there differences between the two situations: yes. But we think the impetus behind both decisions is similar enough to make the comparison.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're Number 6! We're Number 6!

Data Mining blog points us to a Carnegie Mellon study examining:

Given a water distribution network, where should we place sensors to quickly detect contaminants? Or, which blogs should we read to avoid missing important stories? These seemingly different problems share common structure: Outbreak detection can be modeled as selecting nodes (sensor locations, blogs) in a network, in order to detect the spreading of a virus or information as quickly as possible.

The top ten blogs on their list include: 1) Instapundit; 2) Don Surber; 3) Science Politics; 4) Watch for Weasels; 5) Michelle Malkin; 6) Blogometer; 7) The Modulator; 8) Bloggers Blog; 9) boing boing; 10) Eschaton

LEST WE FORGET: The Federal Humor Commission

The Corner's Mark Krikorian looks at news that Stephen Colbert's SC WH '08 run may run afoul of FEC regulations and comments: "Whatever you think of the guy, this kind of stunt has a long pedigree in American politics, with previous gag presidential runs by Will Rogers, Eddie Cantor, and, most famously, Gracie Allen, who ran as the candidate of the Surprise Party. The idea that this would somehow be illegal is beyond absurd."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:55 PM

October 24, 2007

10/24: Not A Debating Society

Some think RedState's decision to ban Ron Paul newcomers from their site shows conservatives are "frightened" of Paul. Annoyed is closer to the truth. RedState's Leon Wolf explains to Paul supporters: "you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be."

RedState's new policy ("If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul.") is actually very similar to the decision DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas made concerning Cindy Sheehan when she announced her decision to run against Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Many in the traditional media reported Daily Kos had banned Sheehan from the site, but that's not the case. They just banned any and all Sheehan diaries relating to her anti-Pelosi efforts.

The important thing to remember is that both RedState and Daily Kos have similar specific goals: electing members of their respective parties. When members of their respective communities become more of a hindrance than a help to those goals, we should not be surprised when they are asked to leave.

GOP FIELD: When Hating Is Not enough

Following 1021/'s GOP debate RCP Blog's Tom Bevan posted video from a Fox News focus group hosted by Frank Luntz and described: "Watch the reaction Luntz gets as he quizzes the group on why they nearly spun the favorable dials off the hinges when the GOP candidates started attacking Hillary Clinton ... The visceral reaction Hillary generates is not unique to Florida Republicans. Indeed, the anger and fear she arouses in most Republicans at the thought of her winning the White House is clearly the force that is sustaining the strength of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy. ... If that match up does in fact come to pass, it'll be a ferocious political war unlike any we've seen before."

Noticing similar sentiments in his coverage of WH '08, Reason's David Weigel, writing in The American Conservative, documents GOP hopes that HRC will unify the GOP the way Bill Clinton did in '92 but remembers: "Yet for all of that outrage, Republicans lost that election to the Clintons. And the hope that voters will see what they see and reject what the Clintons stand for resembles the plan Democrats clung to in 2004. ... If the linchpin of a 2008 campaign is unifying Republicans in the cause of defeating Hillary, it might be enough to stitch together most of the conservative movement-but not enough to win."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner links and adds: "While negative campaigning and pointing out the weaknesses of one's opponent can be quite effective, there hasn't been a presidential election in my lifetime decided on that basis. Drawing a contrast with Hillary Clinton will be effective in mobilizing the base. But Republicans won't keep the White House if they don't inspire the public with a positive agenda of their own."

Also looking beyond Hillary-hating, Soren Dayton blogs: "The economy is going to be a serious issue. Hillary Clinton is, essentially, taking Iraq off the table as a general election issue. She is going to run on health care and the economy. And the field is being set. And the economy is tanking in important swing states. And we are silent."

HUCKABEE: Bush Lite?

If you needed more proof that Mike Huckabee is officially a top tier candidate, look at the explosion in Huckabee related (although not always positive) blogging. The Corner's Rich Lowry shares reader reaction to his "The Joy of Huck - Enjoy it while it lasts" article including:

• I think it's worth considering: Huckabee is a Republican John Edwards (the 2004 edition). I don't mean that as an insult at all. Some silver tongued Southerners become Baptist ministers, some become trial lawyers. Both J.Ed and Huck have admirable up-from-working class stories, both speak the language of regular folks, both shore up potentially suspicious constituencies, and both have excellent stump speeches that are nonetheless laced with gauzy flimflam.
• Here's the other thing - he's a September 10th candidate. Never speaks of - or has any clue about - foreign policy. He'd be great if he were running 91 or 92 like his fellow Hope native. More economic anxiety and less nat'l security worry.
• Gov. Huckabee didn't get any media coverage for his foreign policy speech at CSIS. Let me give you the link of the transcripts and video of his speech. By the way, his answer in the debates on the situation between PKK and Turkey was right on the money. If I remember your article, you also said that he doesn't have speechwriters and debate consultants. Now that's a genuine guy speaking from the heart and his OWN head.

Other Huckabee thoughts include:

• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "He seems to combine some of Pat Buchanan's bad ideas with some of George W. Bush's. He's the protectionist compassionate conservative. No thanks."
• Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "The good news for Mike Huckabee is that he's been discovered by the national media. That's also the bad news. ... Disbelief in Darwinism, support for a semi-baked consumption tax scheme as a replacement for the income tax, and a wobbly fiscal record as governor are a few of the more controversial aspects of Huckabee's thin record that soon will be subjected to strict scrutiny."
• Campaign Standard's Terry Eastland: "At the Values Voter Summit, held this past weekend in Washington, Mike Huckabee gave a speech that confirmed his status as the best orator among the Republican presidential candidates. ... What struck me about the speech was not just that it gripped the audience, but that it was more explicitly religious than what Huckabee normally offers on the stump."
• Right Wing News: "In the last 9 elections -- at a minimum -- the more likable candidate has won and Huckabee beats Hillary hands down in that category. Also, the fact that he's a Governor, not a Washington insider, would also be a huge advantage. If you ask me who was more electable in a general election, Huckabee, Romney, or Rudy, I'd take Huckabee over either of them by a good margin. ... However, the downside of Huckabee is that he's essentially George Bush with charisma when it comes to domestic issues. He is not a small government guy or a fiscal conservative, he doesn't seem to be a movement conservative, and he's not someone who can be trusted to be tough on illegal immigration."

ROMNEY: Too Cute By Half

Mitt Romney's "Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom" was not received well by conservatives. Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti blogs: "Free trade contributes to global economic growth and lower prices. It promotes peace. It's worth championing on its merits, and Mitt Romney, as one of the best businessmen in America, is well equipped to make the case for trade. But the gimmicky idea of a "Reagan Zone" smacks of a consultant-driven campaign."

The Corner's Rich Lowry concurs: "One wonders if Romney is ever presented a silly idea by his consultants that makes him say, "No, sorry, I can't do or say that-it's not dignified and that's not who I am"? Or when they tell him to pledge, say, "to get God back on the front of the coin!" does he just go out and do it, no questions asked? ... Mitt Romney is a good man and a talented politician, but the very slickness of his campaign threatens to overwhelm its appeal."

Also in Romney blogging, Townhall's Matt Lewis talks to IA GOPers and asks, "Is Romney Losing the Iowa Expectations Game?" 'Top Iowa Republican activist' Ed Failor tells Lewis: "Due to the amount of money Romney has spent, he's sort of Muhammad Ali and the rest of them are Jerry Quarry -- and if Quarry lasts all 15 rounds, Ali's not the champ." Lewis adds: "By raising expectations that he will blow everybody away in Iowa, Mitt Romney may have created an atmosphere in which a mere win may not be satisfying..."

Finally, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt calls Ryan Lizza's New Yorker profile of Romney "an unintentionally funny piece" with a "perfect pitch for Beltway-Manhattan media elites struggling to understand the dynamics of a GOP race they simply cannot fathom."

THOMPSON: That Sanctuary City Issue Is Here To Stay

Fred Thompson received passing grades for his 10/23 immigration plan. The Corner's Mark Krikorian blogs: "Thompson's new immigration platform is more hawkish than I expected. Not only does he understand the attrition argument, but his specifics are pretty good too: mandatory electronic verification of all new hires, enable Social Security cooperation with immigration authorities, withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities."

Captain's Quarters also finds little to quibble with: "This is basically the Duncan Hunter position, which relies on border security and tough enforcement of existing laws. That applies to the illegal immigrants themselves as well as the companies that hire them. Fred wants to eliminate the "magnets" that draw illegals to the US -- relatively easy border crossings, jobs, and sanctuary cities. Most Republicans will like this plan, although it hasn't done Hunter much good so far. It doesn't get as punitive as Tom Tancredo, at least not in tone, and it addresses the issue with rationality, at least in part."

After Thompson's plan was released, conservative inboxes were hit with opposition research on Thompson's immigration record. None scored any damage. NRO's Jim Geraghty digs into the Rudy Giuliani's specific attacks:

First, hitting Thompson on voting to approve emergency medical care? I'm not going to hold that one against him, you can't let anybody, even an illegal immigrant, bleed out in the street. And prenatal and postpartum services? I wouldn't vote against those if I were a pro-lifer. ... And immunizations aren't the first place I'd crack down on public services for illegal immigrants. Driver's licenses, like Governor Eliot Spitzer wants to hand out? That gets my blood stirred. Vaccinating people for Hepatitus, Polio, Influenza, German Measles? Okay, I admit, I'm a squish on that. ... And didn't New York City offer all the same services?

DEM FIELD: Following The Dodder

Mere hours after "MoveOn and a dozen top progressive blogs" announced their intent to pressure Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "into publicly declaring their support for Chris Dodd's threat to place a hold on and filibuster" any Senate FISA bill that included amnesty for telecom companies, both campaigns released statements signaling they would comply. Statement parsing includes:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I don't want to diminish the utility of Obama and Clinton coming out against this bill. But at certain moments in history, principled clarity is what's required in a political leader. ... I suppose clarity isn't required all the time, but it is surprising that neither Clinton nor Obama could offer clarity on such an obvious matter."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "The question is, will they insist on a bill that goes the distance and unequivocally oppose any legislation that provides amnesty to telecoms? ... Both leading candidates should join Chris Dodd in firmly vowing to oppose any bill that gives retroactive immunity to law-breaking phone companies who helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "Obama and Clinton must show Democratic voters that they can effectively confront Harry Reid, reject Bush's veto threats and pass a strong intelligence bill with accountability and warrants -- not amnesty. If they can't succeed and lead their own political party, why should anyone expect them to lead the country?"
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "Neither of these statements is as definitive as it should be, nor as clear on the important principles at stake. And both statements leave wiggle room - in Clinton's case far too much. What does she stand for? What will she risk to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? I honestly can't tell. It's agonizing to ponder how Clinton and her aides must have agonized over the wording of that statement."
• Glenn Greenwald: "And the "substance" of the statements issued both by Obama and Clinton is no more impressive than their obvious reluctance to get anywhere near this issue. While both of them suggest that they might support a filibuster to stop telecom amnesty, both statements are couched in the sort of amorphous, equivocating hedging that is the currency of the principle-free, cynical-game-playing Beltway insider."
• Atrios: "Chris Dodd has put out a simple position: he'll do what's in his power to stop any bill which gives telecom companies retroactive immunity for their Bush administration sanctioned law breaking. In contrast, Obama and Clinton have put out mush.

CLINTON: Don't Expect To See Her At The Returns Desk

Michael Tomasky's maiden Guardian interview with Hillary Clinton generated debate on just how much Pres. Bush gained executive power a Pres. HRC would relinquish. Thoughts include:

• Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent: "Camp Hillary is clearly happy with the interview, perhaps because it cuts against the power-mad Hillary stereotype and because her condemnation of the Bush-Cheney abuses of executive power will resonate with Dem primary voters. ... The promise of a review of these abuses is clearly newsworthy, though unfortunately the interview is short on specific suggestions as to what areas she might be willing to relinquish power in."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Basically, she's telling liberals she'll roll back executive power but she's not committing herself to doing anything in particular. Basically, I wouldn't count on any future administration voluntarily relinquishing the powers Bush has seized. Maybe some future congress will take power back, but people don't do that kind of thing voluntarily. That's what Clinton's telling us."
• TAPPED's Ezra Klein: "Now, Clinton doesn't specify which powers she'll give up, and it's sort of one of those devil in the details type things, but it's an interesting admission."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "This is an important and informed critique of administration abuse. But Clinton's impressive historical grasp of the problem is still crabbed by her diplomatic knack for avoiding specifics."

Not reading Tomasky's item, The Huffington Post's Jon Weiner reports similar concerns from Carl Bernstein during a Nixon Library discussion of his new book A Woman in Charge. Bernstein tells Weiner: "Hillary's fear of humiliation, her fear of secrets being revealed, absolutely permeates her life. ... Do you think she wants to open the papers of Bill's presidency, which include all the material on her role? ... Do you thing Democrats in Congress would demand repeal in the face of Hillary's opposition?"

OBAMA: They Will Not Go Quietly Into The Night

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis is following through on his promise to blog "Much more ... All week," about Barack Obama's refusal to cancel campaign appearance with "homophobe" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. Aravosis posts reader emails including:

• Obama's done in my book. What kind of Democrat who believes in equality for all travels with and hires for his 'entertainment' a homophobic jerk? So I guess his audaciously hopeful for ya as long as you're straight? What a phony.
• Kiss my money and my vote goodbye! If I want to be marginalized, treated like a criminal, etc, I'll look to the republicans.
• Obama is a con man because on the one hand he strongly disagrees with McClurkin's views but doesn't take any responsible action. On the other hand he states a lot of rhetoric about equal rights to cover his true ideology. All talk, but no action, makes him a liar!

Later Aravosis adds: "Obama really needs to explain why it's okay for him to ask last week for a Justice Department official to be fired for making a racially insensitive remark, but when a notoriously homophobic gospel singer "declares war" on gays and says that gays need to be cured, suddenly Obama is all Mr. Nice Guy and refuses to "fire" the bigoted singer from hosting a concert for Obama's campaign."

More Aravosis: "Hey, so I'm wondering what kind of protests we can plan at Obama campaign stops? They need to be whimsical, bitchy, and embarrassing as hell. All suggestions are welcome. Maybe carry signs saying 'I am a man.'"

The Huffington Post's Paul Jenkins dissents: "With all the ruckus about Barack Obama's cozying up to Donnie McClurkin ... you'd think that none of the Democratic candidates have been pandering to the homophobic vote ... For instance, Hillary Clinton recently trumpeted her friendship with Harold Mayberry ... her press release on the meeting/endorsement left out the fact that Mayberry believes homosexuality to be comparable to thievery."

IMMIGRATION: Dream Unweavers

Conservatives are gearing up to fight Senate passage of the DREAM Act on grounds the bill would give amnesty to up to 2.1 million illegal aliens.Mickey Kaus objects to the bill on grounds it will serve as a "kids magnet" encouraging further illegal border crossing. Responding to those who point to a cut off date for eligibility for the program Kaus responds: "The bill still acts as a magnet, of course, because a) future illegals know that if they come now another compassionate DREAM Act is likely to be passed in future years, and b) there are ample possibilities for fraud--claiming that you were here before the deadline and daring the authorities to disprove it."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "This is amnesty legislation. No amnesty of this sort should be considered until the government demonstrates that it can control our borders." Michelle Malkin identifies fence sitting Senators and urges her readers: "Start dialing and push them the right way."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We Wonder How Closely The Draft Coincided With Boomer Activism

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum looks at Tom Friedman's recent column on the lack of youth activism and Courtney Martin's defense of her generation and responds:

As a 40-something (and only barely that), I can't say what's really going on here - but then, neither can Tom Friedman, can he? But I can say that I heard pretty much the exact same complaint about quiet kids in the 80s and then again in the 90s. Michael J. Fox's Alex Keaton was the supposed icon of the Reagan era, when kids just wanted to head to Wall Street and make money, and we all remember the generic "slacker" who was the icon of the 90s.

But look: it's not the 80s, 90s, or 00s that are unique here. What's unique was a single period of about ten years from the early 60s to the early 70s. The kind of activism we saw from young people during that decade hadn't been seen for a century before that and probably won't be seen for a century after it. It was sui generis, and pretending otherwise is silly.

LEST WE FORGET: You Can Make Friends With Haagen-Dazs

Dilbert blog continues his missions to "provide to hetero male readers of this blog ... how to obtain sex from women who are too good for you" by linking to new research showing "that the part of your brain in charge of self-control is a common resource that helps you avoid any kind of temptation. Using that part of the brain to resist one sort of temptation essentially tires it out, making it harder to resist other forms of temptation."

Dilbert blog continues: "Let's bring this research into the real world and see how it holds up to the rigors of anecdotal observations. ... I recommend hanging around car dealerships and trying to score with women who are walking from the showroom to their new cars. Those women are completely out of self-control. With a little bit of game, you should be able to slip your key in the ignition before she does. You should also date women who are on diets. Half of your work has been done for you by Haagen-Dazs."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

October 23, 2007

10/23: The Big Five vs. Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs

Just recently as a few weeks ago the two WH '08 fields could sill both described as contest between the big threes (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson for the GOP and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards for the Dems). Now that's all changed. Considering Huckabee's "rock star reception" at the Values Voters Summit, and McCain's recent debate success, the GOP field has become a wide open race between five credible contenders: Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson. National Review's Byron York examines each candidate's chances and concludes: "There are still more than ten weeks to go before the first voters head to the caucuses in Iowa. After this weekend, it is a big and wide-open race."

Things have moved in the opposite direction on the Dem side. Clinton's dominance in recent polling (CNN pegged her at 51% 10/17) has freed Dem primary voters from only considering Obama and Edwards as the only alternatives to Clinton. Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at Chris Dodd's rapid rise in online straw polls and comments: "it might also show that growing numbers of the blogosphere are starting to view both the Edwards and Obama campaigns as long shots too, so if you are going to support a long shot there is no need to restrict your choices to the second tier."

CLINTON: Smear Tested

IA Independent caught up with Hillary Clinton in Carroll, IA, 10/20 and got responses to four questions including, "On Sept. 12, 2001, I think most Americans assumed that by Oct. 20, 2007, there would have been another major terrorist attack on our soil. ... In your estimation, why hasn't that happened? Has the Bush administration maybe done some things that are good to prevent it or was the threat exaggerated from the beginning?"

Clinton responded: "They've attacked many other places. They've attacked American targets, and I think there are lots of reasons at work here. ... They're also very patient. Just because we haven't been attacked doesn't mean that they're not engaged in doing whatever they can to bring that about. ... There is nothing fancy about them. We've got to figure out how to be smarter."

Also talking HRC and foreign policy, Open Left's Matt Stoller notes HRC needs to update her Iraq issues page since it still touts her sponsorship of a bill de-authorizing the Iraq by ... 10/11/07. Fellow Open Lefter Chris Bowers tracks HRC's statements on her Iraq AUMF vote and concludes: "I feel exhausted by this battle of attrition between progressives and Clinton over the way she votes on Iraq and Iran. If it is this difficult to push her on public statements on she votes on Iraq and Iran, [how] difficult will it be to actually influence her to change policy in those, or other, areas? ... At some point, Clinton is going to have to develop a language to accurately and succinctly describe where she stands on these issues, or else the trench warfare will continue indefinitely."

At TAPPED, Ezra Klein tackles the perception that HRC is more polarizing than her Dem primary opponents: "At this point in the 2004 cycle, John Kerry's unfavorables were between 13% and 20% -- by the time the election rolled around, he was in the mid-40s, posting numbers pretty comparable to Hillary's. ... So that's the question: Not whether Hillary Clinton is more polarizing right this second. ... But whether she'll be more polarizing than John Edwards after eight months of haircut and hedge fund smears, or Barack Obama, after an election full of madrassa insinuations. Clinton's numbers probably reflect the end point of that process -- she's been smeared with maximum energy and efficiency for 15 years now. Edwards and Obama haven't, but if either captures the nomination, the GOP's attack machine will boot up, and do to them exactly what it did to John Kerry.

DODD: No Really ... You Heard It Here First... Doddmania Is Here!!!

Chris Dodd's promise to filibuster the Senate's FISA bill over telecom company surveillance immunity has catapulted him into second place in Daily Kos' 10/07 straw poll. Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher blogs: "Dodd wiped the floor with everyone in the latest Kos straw poll, taking 21% of the vote (up from 7% last month). Edwards dropped by 8%, Obama by 5%, and Hillary by 2%. Dodd raised $150,000 in donations from small donors in twenty four hours last week after his decision to filibuster. ... Reward good behavior."

The Nation's Ari Melber blogs on the impact of Dodd's dKos rise: "Endorsements don't cut ice in the blogosphere, of course, so those posts probably don't convert many readers. But they do legitimize Dodd as a viable candidate - a hurdle he's had trouble surmounting. When a politico like Moulitsas validates an underdog candidate, his readers are more likely to take a second look."

Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at Dodd's inability to make similar gains in other online straw polls and comments: "I think it shows quite clearly that the blogosphere is not of one mind on anything, and isolated islands and fragmentation might be emerging to a degree they did not in the past. ... it might also show that growing numbers of the blogosphere are starting to view both the Edwards and Obama campaigns as long shots too, so if you are going to support a long shot there is no need to restrict your choices to the second tier."

TAPPED's Sam Boyd, however, doesn't see what the big deal is: "Basically, I just don't get his campaign. What's his elevator pitch? Sure, he's somewhat more liberal on some issues than the big three candidates and he has a longer record on them, but that's hardly enough to make it clear that he's the best candidate."

OBAMA: The Wheels Are Coming Off

Barack Obama has failed to quell growing netroots concerns over his campaign's inclusion of gospel singer Donnie McClurkin in Obama's "Embrace the Change" SC gospel concert tour. Earl Ofari Hutchinson posted the first netroots criticism of Obama's decision to include McClurkin blogging: "Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama ripped a page straight from the Bush campaign playbook with his announced upcoming three date barnstorm tour through South Carolina with notorious gay basher, gospel singer Donnie McClurkin." After weathering strong criticism through 10/22, Obama finally issued a statement late 10/22 "strongly denouncing" McClurkin's views.

From Obama: "I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

Obama's failure to disinvite McClurkin from the tour left his netroots critics upset:

• The Huffington Post's Earl Ofari Hutchinson: "How hard will Obama fight as president for tolerance, specifically against anti gay bigotry? This is the supreme litmus test for any candidate that purports to champion diversity and tolerance. It's even more of a test, or challenge for Obama, given the depth of homophobia among many mega black ministers, and many of those in their congregations. Obama desperately wants and need their votes in his fight with Hillary Clinton, who continues to widen the gap over him in the political life and death struggle to win over black voters. ... My call still stands. Barack demand that McClurkin repent and save himself from his gay bashing ways, or cancel your appearance with him.
• Jack and Jill PoliticsJill Tubman: "Obama's fallen down -- into a dark ditch where church and sexuality, well, don't necessarily meet as friends. Frankly, it's hard to imagine the Clinton team stumbling this badly given the sensitivity of this topic in the black community. ... For the Obama team to "repudiate" the gospel tour and/or Donnie McClurkin as Earl Ofari Hutchinson advises? Well, this would probably a move that would be poorly received in the black community ... I think Obama's best hope is that McClurkin will step down from the tour and decline to be embroiled in further controversy. ... It wouldn't sit well with the older female church-going, reliably voting demographic. In getting back up, the question is how Obama will balance their opinions with that of other progressives."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Funny how Obama is a big supporter of civil rights when blacks are being maligned, but not so much when gays are the victims. ... If you're afraid to lead, Senator, then maybe you're not the leader we thought you were. Huge mistake. More to come. Much more. All week."
• Atrios: "Love the Gay, Love the Gay Haters. What is up with the Obama campaign."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "This was a baby that could not be divided. Obama's reaction simply does not work. All year I have stated that Obama's political team is awful. This is confirmation of my judgment."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I have to say, whether or not you feel the inclusion of McClurkin in this fundraiser for Obama is a deal breaker, Obama's inability to avoid this foreseeable bump in the road at the very least contributes to the growing crisis in confidence people seem to be feeling about Obama lately."

At deadline Daily Kos had posted zero front page items on the story and had not promoted any of the user diaries on the issue to the "Recommended Diaries" section.

OBAMA II: The All Important Drunk White College Kid Demographic

Matthew Yglesias links to the following Josh Green analysis on the impact of Stephen Colbert's un-satirical filing for the Dem SC primary:

In the Democratic primary, Colbert's best bet is the Second District, which encompasses most of the capital city of Columbia, and, more important, has the highest concentration of college students. Though it's less Democratic than the Sixth District, it has a far higher proportion of white voters, which, in a Democratic primary, is exactly who Colbert needs to target. Even better, Columbia is its own media market. Colbert probably won't have Obama-like fundraising prowess. But an Internet campaign ought to be able to raise enough cash to run a few well-targeted ads (here again the drunken-college-student demographic could prove valuable)

Yglesias comments: "In this context, though, a Colbert race is probably objectively pro-Hillary, since his most likely supporters are going to be people whose votes Obama needs."

GOP FIELD: It's The Economy Stupids

Conservatives are still sorting out the fallout from 10/19-20 Values Voters Summit. RedState's Erick Erickson and AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein both report the "influential social conservatives who comprise the Arlington Group" wanted to coalesce behind Mitt Romney following the conference, but felt they could not do so after Mike Huckabee's "rock star reception."

Klein identifies which leaders are leaning which direction: "James Dobson of Focus on the Family likes Mitt Romney, Gary Bauer of American Values prefers Fred Thompson, and Don Wildmon of the American Family Association likes Huckabee. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is still on the fence, but nearing a decision."

Both Klein and Erickson report social conservatives would love to unite around Huckabee, but fear he is unacceptable to the business wing of the party. Erickson blogs: "The social conservatives do not want to rally around Huckabee because he is as distasteful to fiscalcons as Rudy is to socons. ... While the media has been filled with stories about the socons ready to bolt from the GOP if Rudy is the nominee, the real story and the untold story is that the business community is even more ready to bolt from the GOP. For the last eight years they've watched as the socons have scored every significant win on the right - stem cells, judges, etc. Only against Labor have the fiscal guys scored wins. But there have been no budget cuts, no culling of pork, steel subsidies, etc. ... The fiscal guys see the writing on the wall. They see Hillary [Clinton]'s position. And they are just about ready to cut a deal."

Klein's sources tell a similar story: "If we don't support Huckabee we tick off religious conservatives. If we push Huckabee we tick off everyone else. It's a tough situation to be in."

Looking ahead to the general election The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez watches Clinton's new 'Trap Door' ads which "stok[e] middle-class anxieties on wages and healthcare" and blogs: "Hillary is striking a raw nerve. The GOP needs to rebut the phony statistics and respond to middle-class anxiety. I do think part of Mike Huckabee's rise in the polls can be attributed to him talking about this stuff, but so far I don't like his solutions. ... So, while I applaud the energy and wit on display during last night's debate, I'm not sure the Republican candidates are making the sale."

GIULIANI: Speaking Of Economic Issues

Townhall's Matt Lewis interviewed Steve Forbes on Rudy Giuliani's 10/21 debate performance including this on Giuliani's non-support of the Flat Tax: "I think (Giuliani has) made a lot of progress on that." [Forbes] admits Giuliani isn't where he is on the flat tax, but says he's, "moving in that direction."

HUCKABEE: Peacemaker Or Party Remaker?

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein looks at David Brooks' recent "whitewashing" of Mike Huckabee including this line from Brooks: "each of the top-tier candidates makes certain parts of the party uncomfortable. Huckabee is the one candidate acceptable to all factions." Klein responds:

Huh? The Club for Growth, a prominent group of economic conservatives, finds Huckabee so unacceptable due to his fiscal record in Arkansas that they created an entire Website to attacking him called "Tax Hike Mike." He received an "F" from the Cato Institute in their annual fiscal report card of governors, ranking him sixth from last. Also not to the liking of small-government conservatives and libertarians, there's his anti-smoking and obesity crusades and the nanny-statism that goes along with it. ... This doesn't even get into the ethics problems he had as governor of Arkansas.

AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin responds: "While I agree he has serious deficiencies for many conservatives on economics and on foreign policy he has a window of opportunity in Iowa and therefore can, even if he is not the eventual nominee, transform the race. ... He enjoys a strong personal appeal there, clearly has won some of the hearts of social conservatives and is making a play for the Fair Tax crowd. His populist economic appeal may not play to Club for Growth but it may resonate better in Iowa. It is a state where big media dollars aren't needed."

AmSpec's James Antle asks: "If Huckabee were to give a speech telling small-government conservatives he respects them, that they have nothing to fear from him, that he cut some taxes and opposed some big-government politicians down in Arkansas, that liberal newspaper editors didn't like him, and he will be good on judges, would that be okay?

Klein responds: "[W]hile Huckabee did sign the Grover Norquist no-tax pledge, his "Club for Greed" line coupled with his populist rhetoric makes him much closer to the Pete Wilson model of running as a pro-choicer, or McCain condemning "agents of intolerance" than it does Giuliani addressing Values Voters this Saturday. Huckabee is really trying to reinvent the economic message of the GOP in his image, and I don't think Giuliani is trying to turn the party into a pro-choice party."

Antle fires back: "This too is a matter of perspective. A lot of pro-lifers fear Giuliani will end up pushing the party in a more pro-choice direction whether he intends to or not. They don't have anything like the business wing of the GOP or even the Club for Growth to work effectively against that shift -- they only have votes and volunteers they can threaten to withhold."

ROMNEY: Too Much The Business Man ... Or Too Little

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti recommend's Ryan Lizza's New Yorker profile of Mitt Romney, particularly Lizza's discussion of Romney's "consultant mentality" which Lizza dubs "Bainism." Continetti comments: " To carry Lizza's formulation a step further, in order to win the Republican nomination, the product that consultant Romney had to "reinvent" was ... himself. The 2008 GOP primaries will test many propositions, including the idea that winning in politics is like winning in business."

AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin links and adds: "Although we sometimes disparage those who have lived most of their life in the public sector and long for someone to bring a businesslike approach to government, Lizza points out that the two professions don't always equate. A fascinating read."

Not commenting on the Lizza article, Townhall's Patrick Ruffini urges Romney to embrace his business success past: "In all the ads we've seen so far, where is Romney the incredibly successful businessman - the most successful one in North America according to Jim Cramer? Romney the father of five? (this one's only made the occasional cameo before social conservative audiences). The guy who was home with his wife doing his HBS homework while George Bush was out partying? (Okay, go light on the last part in the primaries.) Or the guy who saved the Olympics? ... I like Mitt Romney. But I feel icky whenever I hear him debate. He needs to remind people why they liked him to begin with."

THOMPSON: Too Cool For School

NRO's Jim Geraghty posts Team Fred Thompson spin on their weak Values Voters Summit straw poll finishing: "We didn't play, we never mobilized online, we didn't do anything We didn't transport people in, we didn't try to stuff the ballot. This is part of an overall strategy put forth by [campaign manager]Bill [Lacy]. If you participate in one, they expect you to participate in all of the straw polls. ... By all accounts, Huckabee electrified the room, and we kind of expected that. Fred did what he needed to do, which was get a little more personal, and talk about where he was coming from."

RedState's Erick Erickson is a little less sanguine about Thompson's strategy: "Fred, I've run a lot of campaigns in the past decade. I may have never run a Presidential race, but by God what I'm seeing from you are classic novice mistakes. Fred, you've bought into the hype. You thought people really wanted a guy who was too cool to care. You really seem to think people want a guy who really seems uninterested in the job. ... People are getting the impression that you don't want the job at all, or at least you seem that way. You're not even trying Fred. And if you think you are trying and that's your best effort, then get on out of the race because you're starting to waste our time."

Talking to Thompson spokeswoman Karen Hanretty after 10/21's debate, The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez comes away with the impression the Thompson campaign intends to step up the intensity: "Thompson isn't pulling a disappearing act this time. Hanretty points out that Thompson will be working in Florida today and tomorrow; South Carolina Wednesday; he will be in Iowa Saturday."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Campaign Finance Has Loopholes?

Mickey Kaus looks at "little Google ads are cropping up" next to "Hillary Clinton" searches and theorizes:

Why are these ads significant? 1) They seem to me to be surprisingly effective as a way of spreading dirt. 2) They seem to represent a surprisingly large hole in the campaign finance laws. After all, they are advertisements for a publication. They aren't campaign expenditures. They're simply telling potential customers about an article, which just happens to be an article spreading scandal about the Clintons. In the same way, ads for some Michael Moore films just happen to undermine George Bush. But, unlike Michael Moore films, the enterprise these Google ads are promoting is itself typically exempted from the campaign finance regime under the so-called "media exemption." So why doesn't some unabashedly non-neutral rich person buy up a lot of media properties--and then start spending tens of millions on ads promoting "scoops" that just happen to damage candidates the rich person opposes?

LEST WE FORGET: Chuck Todd, Corporate Stooge

Reacting to his exclusion from the next NBC debate, Mike Gravel blogs at The Huffington Post: "When my staff called NBC directly to find out why I was now barred from attending, Chuck Todd, NBC news' political director, told us that there were three criteria we did not meet, namely that I had not campaigned in New Hampshire and/or Iowa at least 14 times in the past year, that I was not polling at 5% and that I hadn't raised $1 million."

More Gravel: "NBC's decision is proof that our corporate media do not want a genuine debate over our impending war with Iran. ... The fact that NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the world's leading military contractors, is frightening and certainly smacks of censorship directed at the most outspoken critic of the influence that the military-industrial complex holds over this great nation. In the past decade, GE has benefited financially from the global war on terrorism and currently holds almost $2 billion in military contracts."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:31 PM

October 22, 2007

10/22: Good Enough?

Coverage out of the 10/20's Values Voters conference neatly sums up the state of the race so far. Whether it is the NRA or social conservatives, Rudy Giuliani continues to go before hostile crowds and do just enough to prevent open revolt from that particular constituency of the party. While Mitt Romney won the online VV straw poll, and Mike Huckabee won among onsite voters, conference attendees told other conservatives present that while Giuliani was not their first choice, they would hold their nose and vote for him in the general if asked to do so. With Sam Brownback out of the race, social conservatives best bet for the nomination rests with Huckabee. If they fail to unite around him, they will have no right to complain if Giuliani eventually prevails.

GOP DEBATE: McCain Wasn't At Woodstock?

If Bill Kristol is right, and the winner of a Red Sox-challenged debate will be the candidate that best produces "a memorable soundbite or a winning exchange," then John McCain won 10/21's Orlando, FL, Fox News debate with this hit on Hillary Clinton:

I have fought against out-of-control and disgraceful spending that's been going on and I have saved the American people as much as $2 billion at one stroke. In case you missed it, a few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time.

While cases for Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee were made, The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez had the most representative summary: "McCain had a great night. Fred shined in a way he hadn't yet. Rudy and Mitt were steady. It was a good night, period, for Republicans. The field is optimistic about America while realistic about the threats we face at a time of war. "

DEBATE GIULIANI: ?/11

• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Overlooked? From a reader: Rudy didnt mention 9/11 once tonight. Liberals constantly use 9/11 against him, I think tonight he defend his record without using it at all."


• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "He's now consistently excelling in the debates, and was particularly strong on education.


• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Giuliani had another good night. Several times, he successfully tied his answers to quotes from or references to Ronald Reagan. When he's doing that (instead of rehearsing his New York city crime fighting record), it's a sure sign that he's successfully defending himself on the merits as a conservative."


• The Corner's Mark Hemingway: "I still want to see Rudy hit some home runs that will erase all doubts about his conservative credentials. I fear it won't happen, but base hits win ballgames, and Rudy is still the most consistent guy in these debates."


• Right Wing News: "The man has charisma and comes across well, but he's not a conservative, and he has no good answer for the weak spots in his right wing game. ... Rudy got asked if he was a conservative -- and he dodged the question. I think that says a lot."


• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "The first time I thought Rudy Giuliani could be president was at his 2004 convention speech, where he hit all kinds of emotional notes just right. Similar performance tonight - maybe heavy on laughs - but it worked."


• The Corner's Mark Levin: "I just don't see how it can be said, after nearly every debate, that Rudy won when he cannot distance himself from his record. ... Rudy's extreme positions on a number of issues cannot be squared by someone who continually wraps himself in the Reagan legacy. ... But there is serious doubt among conservatives."

DEBATE HUCKABEE: There's A Little Bit To Find Funny In Pres. Hillary Clinton

• Right Wing News: "Huckabee has more raw charisma than anyone on the stage, but the format just kills him because he doesn't get as much time to talk."


• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "This guy can sell ice to Eskimos. Kept his momentum, and played against his 'the funny one' typecasting with his argument, 'there's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief.'"


• The Corner's Mark Hemingway: "He's improved as the campaign has worn on. I don't know if he has the funds or can overcome his deficit in the polls to become the nominee, but if I were the Republican candidate he'd be at the very top of my list of potential VPs. He's the only guy on the stage who seems consistently capable of reaching Joe Sixpack.


• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Mike Huckabee recovered from a rare off-key performance in the last debate and once again was his commanding yet likeable self."

DEBATE MCCAIN: You Can Teach An Old Dog New Tricks

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I think the aspect I liked most was that he could jab at his rivals, but it never seemed too nasty or cranky. He's got stature. He's a well-established brand name, and I wonder if he's turning into everyone's second or third choice."


• The Corner's Mark Hemingway: "McCain really deserves to be back in the top tier. His performance tonight was very strong, he was nimble and funny, and made a good case for why conservative voters need to reevaluate him."


• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain is just a delight --funny(ok hysterical) and a real grown up. Too bad few are watching him but his Woodstock line is going to be the repeated clip."


• Right Wing News: "He started off in a very subdued, almost somnolent manner, but he picked up steam as the night went on and he had the line of the night ... Ironically, McCain who is infamous for selling conservatives out on critical issues at the drop of a hat, came across as a man standing on principle in the debate."


• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "It doesn't have to be an age thing, it can be an experience thing. What a great transition he made from jokes to seriousness, to a great line. And a standing ovation. McCain is on. McCain could be the comeback man yet."


• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Tonight, John McCain "the Statesman" showed up. He was energetic enough to show his virility, yet calm enough to demonstrate gravitas. He did a terrific job of balancing humor with seriousness, and his classy brand of humor served to underscore his serious points."


• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "McCain in the Spin Room ... He was good on immigration, telling Hannity, I got your message, my friend. Talked about securing the borders. I've heard him say this a few times - I'd like to hear a lot more of McCain on his lessons learned from the spring."

DEBATE ROMNEY: No Lawyers Were Consulted In Preparation For This Debate

• Right Wing News: "Mitt was off-key all night and this was definitely one of his weakest performances."


• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "One of his strongest performances, but it seemed like somebody put a "kick me" sign on his back right before he went on. On the other hand, it's a sign of where he is in the race that Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain see value in attacking him at this moment."


• The Corner's Mark Hemingway: "Romney wasn't bad, but wasn't particularly good either. He didn't do well in the last debate thanks to his "consult the lawyers" answer and I was kind of looking for him to bounce back."


• The Brody File: "Mitt Romney seemed to be on defense all night. He didn't really attack the other candidates at all and went out of his way to clear up his lawyer comment from the last debate. ... It wasn't a bad performance. He made his points but nothing distinguishable."


• AmSpec Blog's Andrew Cline: "As I watched the more important event tonight, I'm wondering if Mitt Romney mentioned the Red Sox at all during the debate. Anyone? Just wondering if he acknowledged that the team from his home state was playing for the pennant and that maybe he'd rather be somewhere else tonight."


• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain essentially called Romney a liar to his face. He said(operating from notes and not a transcript): 'You've been trying to fool people about your record. I don't want you to try to fool people about mine.' Romney didn't really respond or even register any emotion. That in a nutshell is his greatest weakness."


• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts proof Romney, not Rudy, was the first to quote PJ O'Rourke on health care(from Spartanburg, SC, 2/22/07): "Look at Europe - as government gets bigger and bigger and taxes go up and up and they took over health care at other places. Well, their economy slows. Their unemployment rate's almost twice ours. They create almost no new jobs. If government takes over health care, those inimitable words of P.J. O'Rourke come to mind: 'If you think health care's expensive now, wait till it's free.'"

DEBATE THOMPSON: Blog En Vivo Del Debate Repubicano

• The Brody File: "Fred Thompson looked much better tonight. It's the most aggressive he's been to date. He came out swinging against Giuliani."


• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Fred Hits the Lazy Question Out of the Park."


• The Corner's Mark Hemingway: "In the last debate, Thompson started out shaky and finished strong. In this debate, he started out really strong and ended up shaky as the debate went on ... He was better this time around, but not improved enough to convince anybody he's the horse to back."


• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "That Fred hit on Rudy from abortion on down, was a sting ray."


• Right Wing News: "The Winner ... Fred Thompson: Fred put on a much better performance than last time around. He was funnier, snappier, had more energy, and came across as more genuinely conservative than Mitt or Rudy. However, he does need to stop looking at his notes so often."


• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I think Fred Thompson did quite well. Once again, he ended strong. People tend to remember the first thing and the last thing they see, and if this is true, Fred Thompson had a very good night."


• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Thompson's ability to slug it out with Giuliani, coupled with overall improvement in the quality of his answers, makes him one of tonight's winners. ... if this debate is remembered at all, it will probably be because Fred Thompson, arguably a sleeping giant, seemed to wake up."

Before the debate, Townhall's Matt Lewis reports: "Hoping to draw in "non-base voters," as well as conservatives, Fred Thompson's campaign will live-blog Sunday night's debate in both English and Spanish. ... This is likely the first time any presidential campaign has live-blogged a debate in Spanish."

HUNTCREDO: Let Brownback Lead You On This Issue

• The Corner's Jonah Goldberg: "What was possibly even worse was turning to the debate and hearing Tancredo and Hunter essentially argue we can solve Social Security, Medicare and healthcare in this country if we get rid of illegal immigrants and free trade. Please."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Brownback was right to gracefully bow out before tonight. The others third/fourth tier guys should go. We need to hear more from the candidates in play."

VALUES VOTERS: Passable, Almost Palatable

The headlines from the Family Research Council's Values Voters summit may be about how Mitt Romney eked out a victory over Mike Huckabee in the online straw poll and how Huckabee won among conference attendees 51% to Romney's 10%, but the real story is that while Rudy Giuliani is not their first choice, evangelicals at the conference appear to signal to conservative bloggers present, that they would be satisfied with Giuliani as the nominee. Blogger reports along these lines include:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Here's the deal. I've been out roaming the hall talking to people and there is a consensus among the people here that Giuliani did what he had to do to stop a hemorrhage in the general, but he did not pull them to him in the primary. ... That's probably what he needed to do. These are folks who are deeply, deeply skeptical of Rudy. They know he is not one of them. But they also know, as he showed them today, that he'd at least be passable, if not palatable, in the general."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Much like his NRA speech, I think that in terms of the arguments he put forth, Giuliani did about much good as he could do before a skeptical crowd. There were plenty of applause lines on the easy areas of agreement - but after a while, you hit a ceiling."
• Soren Dayton: "Rudy Giuliani did much better than people expected. He probably didn't win any primary votes, but he did a lot of work to solidify him in a general."
• NZ Bear: "Given how potentially hostile this audience might have been, the fact that he received positive applause throughout his delivery that seemed honestly enthusiastic is truly remarkable. ... He won't win the straw poll here, and certainly isn't going to be the first choice of many people in this room. But I think he did everything he possibly could to convince these folks that he wouldn't be as bad an option as they might have feared.
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Interestingly, the Giuliani camp should be happy with this result. This is an audience that should be the most hostile to his candidacy, yet he polled better onsite than Duncan Hunter, John McCain and Sam Brownback."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Also interesting is that John McCain finished behind Rudy Giuliani. This underscores the point that in politics, logic leads to conclusions, but emotion leads to action. McCain has been pro-life his entire life, while Giuliani has always been pro-choice. But that doesn't seem to matter when it comes to perception and likeability."
• Campaign Standard's Fred Barnes: "Giuliani appeared slightly nervous at times in delivering his speech, presumably because he was addressing an audience filled with critics. But there were no signs of outright hostility as he spoke, and his speech drew many favorable comments. So his appearance was unquestionably a net plus for his presidential bid."

Also talking Giuliani and evangelicals, RCP Blog's Tom Bevan points us to Ralph Reed answering David Kuo's question, "Do you think an evangelical Christian should have problems voting for Rudy Giuliani given his liberal social policy positions?"

Reed: There are circumstances when an 80 percent friend is not a 20 percent enemy. We will have to await the outcome of the dialogue between Mayor Giuliani and the faith community and voting in some early primaries to know the answer with regard to this race. Religious conservatives should stand on principle but also recognize that a political party is not a church. If they do so, they will be the most effective voting bloc in the nation.

On Huckabee's strong Value Voters conference showing, The Brody File blogs: "

Clearly, the people that actually heard the speeches thought Huckabee was the best candidate there. It would be one thing if Huckabee and Romney were neck and neck for onsite voting but for Huckabee to be such an overwhelming onsite winner, that is saying something. ... Here's what it says. It says that you have social conservatives that are ready to embrace him and he's ready to embrace them. That speech he made on Saturday was electric. I was there. I saw the crowd. They ate it up. ... But let's call a spade a spade. You have Evangelical leaders that are reluctant to back him because he's having a hard time raising money and putting what they see as a top notch organization in place. He needs their support. He's going to have to earn it. If social conservatives really want Huckabee so bad, then they'll need to put their money where their mouths are.

CLINTON: Sleazebag Alarm Needed

Open Left's Mike Lux looks at The Nation's 10/18 story on Hillary Clinton campaign contributor Alan Quasha and concludes: "When I first started to read this article, I was outraged because I know what a sleazebag Quasha is. But it's not at all clear to me how much of a role Quasha is playing in the Clinton campaign. ... I found the article a little frustrating, because it alleges deep connections and sinister motivations without providing much actual documentation. ... I hope this article, flawed as it is, will be a wake-up call for the Clinton campaign to stay away from Quasha and other sleazebags like him."

In other HRC blogging, Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal tracks reaction to Mark Penn's 10/19 claim that "24 percent of Republican women voters defect because of the emotional element of having a woman nominee." Barack Obama pollster Joel Benensonfires back calling Penn's claim "entirely baseless and refuted by a number of public polls." The Washington Post's Jon Cohen then notes that such an HRC performance "would significantly outperform any Democratic candidate since 1972." Finally, Penn responds citing data showing Clinton's support increasing to 13 percent among Republican women, while undecided "surged to 11 percent, so a total of 24 percent would either vote for her or consider voting for her."

DODD: Obama Sneezes Bigger Than Dodd

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Time reports that Chris Dodd has earned $150K in small contributions since he announced his intention to hold, and maybe even filibuster, the Senate's FISA bill and comments: "If Obama had done this, he would've pulled in far more, yeah. He pulls in far more just by sneezing. But Obama is in another plane of existence. For Dodd, this is pretty big. ... [A]ll the campaigning in the world hasn't put Dodd on the map. This thing -- you know, fighting to restore our tattered Constitution -- very well might."

OBAMA: Not The Audacity They Were Hoping For

Barack Obama is taking heat from the netroots over the inclusion of gospel singer Donnie McClurkin on Obama's "Embrace the Change" SC gospel concert tour. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis writes: "Yes, sucking up to anti-gay bigots and joining them on stage - no, giving them a stage - is certainly defying conventional wisdom as to how a Democrat becomes president. Oh, and McClurkin also believes that gays can, and need to, be 'cured.'"

Open Left's Matt Stoller reacts: "Obama's hanging out with ex-gays crusading against the 'curse of homosexuality', further cementing his strong record of giving no one any reason to vote for him, while Clinton continues with her sloppy campaign that will be unmasked and ripped apart after the Republicans choose their nominee."

Atrios adds: "Well, hanging out with gay haters is one way for Obama to defy conventional wisdom. Call me when "values voters" stop obsessing about genitals touching each other and the Christian value of torture."

Not commenting on the gospel tour, The Huffington Post's Thomas de Zengotita blogs: "

[M]y informant at the rally for Obama in Washington Square Park, NYC, told me it was the most moving public moment she had ever experienced. But she was talking about the expectation that hung over the crowd waiting for him -- their need to believe. When Obama himself got there, she said, he was just "OK." ... That about sums it up. He brings hope because of who he is. But where's the audacity? ... Obama must risk sounding idealistic and naive. That risk authentically belongs to audacious hope, almost by definition. It was built into his candidacy from the beginning. If he takes that risk he will be free.

LA GOV: Almost Speechless

Conservative excitement over Rep. Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) 10/20 LA GOV victory include:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Bobby Jindal won tonight. I may live in Georgia now, but I'm Louisianian through and through. This is historic. No one has ever won a gubernatorial primary outright in Louisiana until tonight. I cannot really express what this means to me. ... Today is not a good day for Republicans. It is, but it isn't really. Today is instead a good day for Louisiana and for this country. "
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "It is hard to put into words how joyful I am that Bobby Jindal is now the Governor-Elect of Louisiana. For 36 years I've been waiting for somebody like Jindal to finally take office with the wind behind him and no corrupt shadow governor in his way. ... Louisiana NEEDED this. Louisiana has so much to offer, so much to celebrate, but it has such a bad political legacy to overcome. Jindal really does have the tools to make the state succeed in that effort.
• Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "I don't care who your candidate for President is. Tonight, Bobby Jindal is our leader. Jindal's 54% first-round victory is an historic mandate for change against the most corrupt political culture in America. ... Epic... historic... ginormous are the words that come easiest to mind tonight."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Sell! Sell! Sell!

Reacting to Dana Goldstein's review of The Trap, Matthew Yglesias blogs:

If you ruin your band's sound in an effort to write more radio-friendly songs, you're selling out. If you quit your job on the Hill to start shilling for health insurance companies, you're selling out. When you dumb Veronica Mars down after season two in a desperate bid to gain a bigger audience, you're selling out. But if you just decide at the age of 22 or 23 that there's nothing you're sufficiently passionate about to make you want to give up the stability and prosperity that comes with a corporate career, you're not selling anything out, you're just applying to law school.

And there's really nothing wrong with that. But the nominal self-critique involved in dubbing such activity "selling out" is really a form of self-dramatization and self-praise, carrying with it the implication that of course you could have written the Great American Novel or turned around and inner-city school if only you hadn't been so damn selfish.

LEST WE FORGET: Ouch

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez watches 10/21's GOP debate and quips: "Does It Say Something About Republicans ... that the first debate commercial is for Cialis?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:00 PM

October 19, 2007

10/19: Hell Hath No Fury...

On the key issues of the day, FISA, Habeas Corpus, Iraq, and Iran, the netroots are feeling ignored by their party's WH '08 frontrunners. And, that frustration is being directed at Barack Obama. While Obama opposes the telecom company immunity the netroots find so offensive in the Senate FISA reauthorization bill, the community has tired of his Johnny-come-lately pronouncements on key issues. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas comments on Obama and FISA: "I'm tired of words. At this point, the only thing that speaks is action."

Obama is not the only WH '08er who hasn't met netroots expectations on the issues listed above. But he was, at one point, seen as the most likely vehicle to champion these issues and fight the Dem establishment embodied in Dem frontrunner Hillary Clinton. The netroots believed (and still do believe), that partnered with a willing and strong candidate they can set the party straight on these issues and take down HRC in the process. Now that Obama has spurned that role he is going to have to deal with their disappointment.

CLINTON: It's True, Many Rural Americans Do Work For Monsanto

Hillary Clinton took some netroots flak for holding her 10/18 "Rural Americans for Hillary" campaign briefing in Monsanto's DC office. Matthew Yglesias blogs: "Of course, invoking the imagery of the family farm and then doing the dirty work of giant companies is nothing new in politics, but this seems like a deliberate effort to stumble into what John Edwards and Barack Obama are trying to say about taking money from lobbyists."

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta adds: "Monsanto is a major employer in Iowa, but this is ridiculous."

DODD: Hold The Phone!

Chris Dodd continued to solidify his status as netroots dark horse favorite 10/18 by responding to community calls to stop the Senate's FISA reauthorization bill from granting telecom companies immunity for cooperating with Bush administration surveillance programs. Early 10/18 Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat cited Dodd's statements against the provision in the bill and pleaded:

Senator Dodd, do what you must, including a filibuster, to stop this evisceration of the separation of powers, of civil liberties, of honesty, fairness and justice. Implore your Dem colleagues, especially your fellow Presidential candidates in the Senate, to join you in this fight for the very principles that are the foundation of the Constitution and our Nation.

Netroots luminaries were quick to echo BTD's call. Atrios blogged: "If you think it's important for Dodd to place a hold on any crappy telecom immunity bill that the Senate comes up with, call Dodd campaign headquarters and request they do it. Doddmania's been bubbling up for awhile now. This could be its moment." Glenn Greenwald added: "Dodd's emphasis in his campaign on constitutional issues -- along with his excellent voting record this year -- has generated significant positive feelings towards his campaign. But demonstrating real leadership on this incomparably important issue would almost certainly generate real, tangible support for his campaign in many circles."

Dodd then announced on his website: "The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons. ... No more. ... I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization. I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have."

Ecstatic netroots reaction includes:

• Talk Left's BTD: "Thank you Senator Dodd. You make me proud to be a supporter of your candidacy for President."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Chris Dodd has put together an impressive list of accomplishments and issue positions during the past year. ... He is looking pretty good these days. I'd like to hear some arguments on this, both in favor and against."
• Atrios: "If you're in the mood reward good behavior with cash. ... Or, at least, consider signing a petition with your support.
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "I hope Dodd fights this one like hell."

OBAMA: Sometimes The Blogometer Writes Itself

From the Iraq supplemental fight, to the Iran debate, to restoring habeas corpus, the netroots are beginning to notice that barack Obama is not leading on any of the issues that matter to them and they are not happy about it. Tracking netroots reaction to Obama's belated efforts against telecom immunity in the FISA reauthorization bill, The Huffington Post's Greg Saunders blogs:

Don't get me wrong. I like Barack Obama. If the primary were held today, he'd probably get my vote. But the honeymoon is over in Obamaland and it can't be written off with canned responses about how unreliable early poll numbers are. ... If anyone from the Obama campaign is paying attention, this should serve as a wake-up call. A representative cross section of the liberal blogosphere no longer thinks Barack Obama is willing to stand up to the Bush Administration. ... The Obama campaign has been playing it safe for months now, so it should be no surprise that the base no longer expects him to, in the words of his campaign, "challenge the status quo and get results".

Open Left's Matt Stoller notices a similar trend:

Obama just hired a new senior advisor to handle 'rapid response', John Del Cecato, a partner at David Axelrod's firm. The commentary from Josh Marshall was a withering 'Obama to launch post-1992 operation'. And then, today, on the telecom bill and Dodd's hold, Markos politely noted that Obama has no credibility, that he's not even worth considering as a potential leader (not because he can't lead but because he won't). Marshall followed up with a note on Obama's stance on the FISA bill titled 'Day Late and ...?', and Jane Hamsher called the move 'All Hat and No Cattle.'

This is a group that, by and large, wants anyone but Clinton to get the nomination, so the degree of toxicity here is fairly high. It's a remarkable collapse in credibility, picking up speed recently at an accelerating pace. It goes back to Obama's unreliable behavior during the Lamont campaign, his shrinking violet act during Military Commissions Act, and his constant chiding of the secular left. This basically laid out his approach to movement politics, and his unwillingness to build a power base among people desperate to find some reason, any reason, to support him. ... There seems to be this sense of cynicism about Obama, and it runs deeper every day.

GOP LANDSCAPE: The Sky Isn't Falling

Piecing together MA 05 with other recent developments, Townhall's Patrick Ruffini blogs: "I think we can finally dispense with the talk of 2008 being another 2006 for Democrats. ... This is not a call for celebration. We are still laboring against a significant enthusiasm gap and an unpopular war. But a few important indicators suggest we may have found a bottom. ... These are the vectors I see converging on this conclusion." Ruffini then lists:

• Iraq: We have had many false positives in Iraq. But this time the good news is accompanied by an actual change in strategy. ... There is a constituency for victory. It's may not be a majority, but between the 30th and 50th percentiles of support for the war there seems to be a strong willingness to stick it out if the strategy seems to be working.
• SCHIP: This is not an obvious one, but Gallup says Americans agree with us on the policy. ... What's different is that we've had some counterintuitive poll results showing the public rejecting new Democratic entitlements, especially when means-testing is loose to non-existent. The Hillary baby-bond idea flopped. And the public pretty explicitly wants SCHIP kept at 200% of poverty. The common thread: no new entitlements. If Democrats can't move the needle on their core domestic issues, then what?
• MA-5: No, we shouldn't read overarching national implications into this. But if the "wave" were still in force, it would never have been this close.
• You Don't Get Two: Expanding this point, history is not on the side of repeat waves. Republicans thought 1996 would be another wave until the government shutdown in November '95. 1982 was not another wave. ... Moreover, it's difficult to produce a wave in a Presidential year.
• No Bush to Kick Around Anymore: 2006 was the last year in which a Democrat could effectively run against Bush. It is not possible to do more political damage to Bush. People know he's leaving.

Ruffini concludes: "Is this a case for 2008 as a Republican year? Not yet. But the Democrats' best-case scenario is probably a muted change election like 2000 or 1976."

BROWNBACK: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

The Sam Brownback campaign is no longer with us. Conservative reactions include:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "When he got into the race, he promised to take "the yellow brick road" to the White House. Instead, he learned he's not in Kansas anymore ..."
• Captain's Quarters: "His failure, however, calls into question just how powerful the evangelical Right remains. Brownback may have been one of two candidates who most closely tracked with their agenda. ... unless Huckabee really picks up steam, that faction may have only a tenuous claim to the center of the base."
• Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "Romney also wins from a Brownback exit. Brownback's campaign was throwing the sharpest elbows at Romney on the ground in Iowa. That nagging terrier will not be missed by Team Mitt."
• The Brody File: "From a social conservative perspective, Brownback had the resume. Pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, against embryonic stem cell research, the list goes on and on. ... But the rap against Senator Brownback was that he lacked charisma. Put another way: he was a little boring and not all that inspiring. When you have that plus you can't raise much money, that's called game, set, match."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Brownback's campaign never seemed to hit its stride. He got into odd, surprisingly nasty fights with some other candidates, a strangely aggressive and negative style for a positive and decent man. Then he voted first yes, then no, on the immigration bill, and that hurt him badly. "Senator Switchback" was a too-easy derisive nickname."

GIULIANI: More Than Meets The Eye

Soren Dayton pushes back against AP analysis that recent polls show Rudy Giuliani's "support from the GOP's potent right wing is less than meets the eye." Dayton blogs: "Rudy Giuliani holds the lead in-spite of weak support from conservatives. Rudy has found a possibly winning coalition does not involve the most conservative elements of the party. That, dear reader, is a story. That shows that his path to winning the nomination is less-than-tenuous. But the reporter doesn't seem to understand that the goal in a primary is to build coalitions within the party."

MCCAIN: With Brownback Gone, Somebody had To Take Over As Mitt Hounder In Chief

The Brody File previews John McCain's Voter Values Summit remarks: "I have been pro-life my entire public career. I believe I am the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim.... You need only examine my public record to know that I won't ever change my position to fit the politics of the day." Brody comments: "That's a clear swipe at Mitt Romney."

Instapundit reports that Matt Welch's new book, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick is on it's way to his mailbox.

PAUL: And People Say A Dollar Can't Buy You Anything These Days

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein predicts Ron Paul will win the Value Voters straw poll: "Hear me out. ... In conjunction with the conference, the Family Research Council will conduct a straw poll. A unique feature of this one is that the FRC is opening up voting to anybody over the Internet, provided they give a minimum $1 donation. Given Ron Paul's dominance in online polls, one would have to say he has the early edge -- unless his libertarian supporters are too cheap to pony up a few bucks to vote for their candidate or unwilling to make a donation to the FRC."

ROMNEY: He's Got The Shepherds, But Will The Flock Follow?

Another day, another Hugh Hewitt interview with a a prominent evangelical endorsingMitt Romney . Hewitt blogs on the endorsement Phoenix Seminary theology prof Dr. Wayne Grudem: "This is another huge endorsement for Mitt Romney --one certain to be taken very seriously in evangelical leadership circles."

The Brody File also chips in with their own Romney endorsement news: "The Brody File has learned that Dr. Don Wilton, Senior Pastor At The First Baptist mega Church Of Spartanburg, South Carolina and former President of the South Carolina Baptist Convention has endorsed Mitt Romney." Brody later highlights televangelist Joel Osteen telling Larry King, "I look at people, their character, their values, what they stand for. ... I've heard him say that he believes Jesus is his savior, just like I do." Brody comments: "If Mitt Romney wins the nomination, this week would be considered a turning point where some key evangelical leaders stepped up and basically said Romney's Mormonism is not an issue. Romney has needed this. He's now getting it. An FRC straw poll victory this weekend would be the cherry on top of a very positive week."

Finally, Brody posts Romney's Value Voters speech and comments: "As you read through it, look how many times Mitt Romney mentions the world "family". It's quite a bit. ... Clearly, what Romney is implying is that he's not just talking family values, he has the family to prove it. ... This speech has the makings of a big hit with the crowd. "

ROMNEY II: Past Performance Is No Guarantee Of Future Results

MyManMitt has posted slides from Team Romney's official Q4 fundraising PowerPoint pitch. Slide titles include: "Romney's Strategy: Tested, Proven", "Rudy's Strategy: Unproven"; "Rudy leads the national polls but..."; and "Opportunity for Growth."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein links and comments: "In reality, it's impossible to draw comparisons between this race and past nomination battles. The contracted primary schedule has made this a whole new ballgame. Perhaps the Romney strategy will prove successful, but it's a mistake to say it's 'proven.'"

THOMPSON: An Ungentlemanly Question

Townhall's Matt Lewis and Mary Katharine Ham tussled over Jeri Thompson 10/18. Lewis first reported: "For months now, Jeri Thompson has endured the criticism of pundits and opponents, alike. The question has always been whether the criticism was fair, or not ... In the last two days, I have had conversations with three different conservatives who attended Fred Thompson speeches this week. ... It is clear to me that Jeri is hurting -- not helping -- Fred's chances."

Ham responded: "I know she's news, but let's give her a little benefit of the doubt sometimes. She's on our side; she's the wife of a candidate, not a candidate; she'll get plenty of picking from the Left without us helping out."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Power Of Nothing

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat links to coverage on the collapse of the House FISA bill and comments:

Like Iraq funding, the FISA extension past the February date when the current capitulation bill expires, is a problem for the Bush administration, not the Congress. IF the Congress passes nothing, then the law will revert to the original FISA law that prevailed prior to this summer's capitulation. There is nothing wrong with that, DESPITE the gnashing of teeth from the Bush administration. IF there were, they would not block THIS BILL.

If the Democrats, PARTICULARLY the Progressive Caucus, sticks to its guns, it will either get a good bill, or no bill at all. OF course the preference is a good bill. But after that, no bill at all is eminently preferable to a BAD bill. Frankly, the House bill was not a good bill imo. Nor was it a good bill in the ACLU's opinion. Its demise is nothing to lament. So long as Democrats understand the power of doing nothing.

LEST WE FORGET: Speaking Of Nothing

The Corner's Peter Robinson points us to this Rob LongLA Times whimsical op-ed on the impending Writers Guild of America strike:

As a professional writer, I've always been pretty good at not writing. Not writing, in fact, is one of my chief skills. I can not write anywhere - on a plane, in a coffee shop, in my office - and I often feel that a day spent without not writing is a day wasted. I even keep a notebook by the side of the bed, in case I wake up with an idea at 3 in the morning and don't want to write it down in case I don't forget it. ... So, obviously, the prospect of a writers strike puts me in a curious position.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:42 PM

October 18, 2007

10/18: He Likes Him, But He Doesn't Like Like Him

With all due respect to Beltway Blogroll, and DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas, we just don't agree with Blogroll that, "A presidential endorsement from Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos could change the dynamics of the Democratic race." First of all, as kos points out in this Talking Points Memo interview, he's already pretty much announced his support for Barack Obama (Hillary Clinton is way too 'insider' for kos, John Edwards decision to accept matching funds makes him less competitive in kos' eyes, and while kos likes Chris Dodd's rhetoric, kos just doesn't think Dodd has a chance at the nomination). Also, Daily Kos is nothing like the SEIU. There are no internal blogger rules that forbid some readers members from supporting a candidate after their favorite blogger announces support from someone else. This is a pretty non-comformist bunch.

But kos is still pretty rough on his chosen candidate. He call's Obama's campaign "uninspiring" and says Obama was "no where to be around" on the recent Senate debate on Iran. Kos says Obama could have been the Howard Dean of '08 but unlike Dean, whose rhetoric was about "you have the power," Obama's message has been all about Obama. So for what it is worth, do know that kos supports Obama. But also remember how soft that support really is.

CLINTON: And To Think, Obama Still Has Never Had A Negative Ad Run Against Him

Open Left's Chris Bowers tracks fav/unfav ratings for WH '08ers from both parties and notes: "Every candidate viewed more unfavorably since the campaign started." Bowers continues: "[I]t seems that one of the reasons [Hillary] Clinton is winning is because her ratings have dropped less than other candidates. In fact, her ratings have actually been improving of late."

Bowers theorizes: "[E]very single candidate has seen their numbers drop from the time when their candidacy was first announced or first rumored. After the announcement, people learn more about candidates and media criticism grows harsher. That might actually explain Clinton's rise better than anything else, since she is so well known and opinions on her are so fixed that she had less to fear from the inevitable drop-off. In other words, that people have fixed opinions on her has actually been an asset, rather than a hindrance, to her campaign. ... Clinton, by contrast, is a rock who has been through the meat grinder several times in the past. Things were not going to get worse for her, but they were going to get worse for everyone else."

Also talking about Clinton and her established, negatives, Charlie Rose posts video of his discussion with HRC pollster Mark Penn at The Huffington Post.

EDWARDS: Too Bad Campaign Finance Numbers Are Graded On A Curve

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta links to Daily Kos' Adam B's analysis of Campaign Finance Institute numbers on WH '08 fundraising and notes: "John Edwards, not Barack Obama, is leading in the percent of campaign contributions that came from small donors (under $200) this year, though the difference between the two is minimal. ... The take-home: given an expected influx of more than $13 million in public funds for Edwards, all of the top three Democrats will have enough to compete in the early contests."

Open Left's Chris Bowers also looks at CFI's numbers and blogs: "Edwards has actually raised more money for the primary at this point in the campaign than Howard Dean did in 2003. At the end of September, Edwards had raised $27.9M, while four years ago at the same point Dean had raised $25.4M. Remember that Dean's fundraising haul was perceived as massive, and led him to opt out of public financing. The haul for Edwards is perceived in the exact opposite way on both counts."

OBAMA: Pitch Imperfect

IA Independent's T.M. Lindsey reports from a Barack Obama event in Cedar County, IA, which was "the only county in the nation where George Bush and Al Gore had tied in the 2000 election." Lindsey reports on the crowd: "Most were drawn to the event with the hope that Obama can deliver on his promise to put an end to partisan politics. ... The end-of-divisive-politics tone was established early with Barbara Cary's introduction of Obama. Cary, a social studies teacher at Tipton High School, took the stage and explained why she was pushing for Obama. 'I changed parties to caucus for Obama, because I'm tired of all the partisan politics.'"

Also talking Obama and partisan politics, The Plank's Jonathan Chait argues the Washington Post misreads Obama message: "As I understand it -- and I could be wrong -- Obama isn't making a cumbaya, let's all get along point. He's saying that the practical realities of American politics dictate some level of bipartisan consensus in order to make progress. ... Obama's point, as I take it, is that electing a Democrat will be enough to stop George W. Bush from screwing things up, but not enough to allow real progress. ... Obama's model may be less partisan than Clinton's, but in important ways it's more radical. Of course, conveying that rather complex message to Democratic primary voters is another thing altogether."

The Plank's Michelle Cottle responds: "I share Chait's view as to what Obama is going for with his audacious message of hope. But my overwhelming bias is that, where presidential elections are concerned, people vote with their gut more than their brain. And for an outraged Democratic party, Obama just ain't pushing the right buttons. I'm not suggesting Obama's governing model is flawed; I'm questioning his political pitch."

At The Huffington Post Beverly Davis scored a campaign bus interview with Obama which features this exchange:

• OffTheBus: Many in this country and others around the world are skeptical about us going out and talking about human rights when we see what's going on in our own country - the recent case in Jena, Louisiana as an example - and the obvious lack of equal rights here. ... As president, what are you going to do about restoring human rights here?
• Senator Obama: "A lot of the encroachments on civil liberties have been done not by legislation but through Executive Order, so one of the things I want to do is first of all have an Attorney General that believes in protecting Constitutional Rights and the separation of powers and have him or her and the Justice Department engage in a through evaluation of our Executive Orders. Restoring Habeas Corpus, Closing Guantanamo, strengthening the role of the FISA court in reviewing wire tape requests. Those are all areas were we can more rapidly rollback some of the more damaging aspects of President Bush's approach."

RICHARDSON: "Unbelievable"

Bill Richardson pitches HuffPo readers:

Frankly, it is well past time we make a choice. And the only responsible choice left to us is to get all of our troops out of Iraq, with no residual forces left behind--no combat forces, no non-combat forces. As President, I will do it. I will get all of our troops out within a year after I take office - sooner if we can get it done safely. ... The other major candidates in this race have said--again and again--that they will not. Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have all refused to commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013. None of them are willing to be clear about removing all troops - combat and non-combat. It's unbelievable.

GIULIANI: It Appears RedState Hates Rudy More Than Kos Hates Hillary

The Corner's Byron York picks the following quote from "the strongly pro-life" TX Gov. Rick Perry's (R) explanation for his 10/17 Rudy Giuliani endorsement: "I wanted to hear him give me the answer and to look me right in my eyes, was that issue of who can I expect, what type of individual can I expect on the Supreme Court. And he clearly said, look, I did this for Ronald Reagan, I vetted the judges for President Reagan, I know what those conservative principles are that a Reaganesque individual would be looking for. He said you can look for people like Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Well, let me tell you, I can live with that."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham wonders if social conservatives were the real target of the Perry endorsement: "Perry announced his endorsement the morning of the Club for Growth conference-- fiscal cons-- not the Values Voter Summit-- social cons. Why? Check out Perry's grade on the challenging Cato 2006 report card for governors. Only Matt Blunt of Missouri beats him out, and famously fiscal Mark Sanford of South Carolina ranks just below him."

RedStateErick Erickson's was not impressed by the Perry get, commenting: "Rudy already has a reputation as something of an autocrat that does not really put him in good with Republicans of the more libertarian leaning. Then there are the social conservatives that aren't enamored with Rudy because of his position on life issues. ... An endorsement from Rick Perry brings him the baggage from all of those. ... If you'll remember back to February, in a sweeping executive order without the participation of the Texas legislature, Governor Perry ordered all school age girls to get the HPV vaccine. Were I Rudy, sure, I'd be fine with the governor of the second largest state in the union endorsing me, but I would keep my distance and certainly wouldn't trumpet his endorsement to evangelicals -- Governor Perry burned that bridge down himself."

Also at RedState, haystack posts Fred Thompson supporter TX Land Com. Jerry Patterson's criticism of Giuliani and ex-Sam Brownback aide Leon Wolf warns Giuliani supporters to expect a rough time on RedState's recommended diaries list.

GIULIANI II: Rediscovering The First Amendment

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein reports from Rudy Giuliani's Club for Growth speech: "Much of the interesting discussion came in the question and answer session. ... Toomey also asked Giuliani about his past support for McCain-Feingold. 'It is one of many occasions in which I can point out to you that I'm not perfect, that I've made mistakes,' Giuliani acknowledged. And that has turned out to be a big mistake. He spoke about the restrictions it has placed on free speech as well as the problems with 527s and said he now realizes that the best system would be one in which you ditched the focus on spending limits in favor of more transparency."

PAUL: Do They Leave Out His Opposition To Our Civil War As Well?

AmSpec BlogJames Antle listens to Ron Paul's NH radio ad and notes: "What the ad rather conspicuously doesn't mention in Paul's opposition to the Iraq war (though it does suggest people visit his campaign website, which makes his antiwar views fairly clear). The only position it emphasizes that would be controversial among conservatives is that he's never voted to increase executive power (though certainly that position can be said to have a conservative pedigree). We'll see whether this will help Paul broaden his base or whether is plays down the very attribute that makes the Texas congressman different from the rest of the GOP field."

ROMNEY: If He Can Beat The Mormon Question Here, He Can Beat It Anywhere

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt amplified Bob Jones' III endorsement of Mitt Romney with interviews of Bob Jones University Dean Robert Taylor and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary pres. Dr. Albert Mohler. From the Taylor interview:

• HH: How widespread is the support for Romney among the faculty and staff at Bob Jones University? Just for me, obviously, it's not scientific, but you're the Dean, you talk to most of the professors and the staff there.
• RT: Well, I think among those folks that are politically active, I would say he has a great deal of support. You know, a lot of people just don't pay too much attention until it gets a little closer to the real thing. But you know, I feel confident that we'll have a pretty good majority that would support him when the time comes.

From the Mohler interview:

• HH: Do you expect that this is the first couple of stones that are going to roll down an Evangelical hill? Or is this an isolated group of activists in South Carolina who have been particularly wooed by Mitt Romney?
• AM: Well, you know, the interesting thing is it's very difficult to call South Carolina or Bob Jones University atypical in this. And you just think back to previous Republican nomination struggles, and you can remember how decisive some of these constituencies can be. I think this is really big. If I were in the Romney campaign, I would be extremely encouraged by this, because not only is Bob Jones III obviously a very well known conservative leader, but he is so well positioned on the spectrum, that this is likely to make it easier for other persons also to make very similar moves.

ROMNEY II: It's Not The Club For Federal Government Intervention In Parenting

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin reacts to Mitt Romney's prepared Club for Growth remarks: "The Club for Growth folks could have reminded [Romney] of some of the principles of their organization: less government spending and regulation, more personal choice, and less bureaucracy. Instead, at least according to two press reports, Romney came up with two ideas which don't seem designed to improve his situation: 1) a national parental training weekend for parents of kids in the bottom 10% of schools and 2) government college aid linked to the career you choose. ... The policy is bad enough but the politics of this escapes me."

THOMPSON: It's Not The Club For Unlimited Tort Liabilities And Local Internet Taxes

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham liveblogged Fred Thompson's answer to Club for Growth questioning of his past McCain-Feingold support: "

I've addressed that before. I've addressed that on a blog...What I've said basically is while I still think the provisions with soft money are good things but that the one you're talking about has not worked and it should be repealed...It's important to keep it in perspective. The idea was you've got to raise money for those ads the same way you raise money for candidates...It's not quite as draconian as the summary of it sometimes is, but it's still bad and we shouldn't have done it. The Supreme Court has better things to do [than parse campaign ads]...It shouldn't have been done. We went too far.

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein reports Thompson faced a "friendly audience" but was pressed on tort reform: "He only thinks the federal government should be involved on matters of interstate commerce, but said we shouldn't be 'allowing states to abdicate their responsibilities" by passing reform at the federal level.'" AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin gives Thompson an 'F' for his understanding on the issue:

He said the same thing on Kudlow a few months back but frankly it's incoherent. If we have interstate commerce with national corporations then by his own definition Congress should be able to regulate it, including passing tort reform. By forum shopping in any jurisdiction plaintiffs lawyers will otherwise use the "best" law they can find to sue corporations, ringing up huge damages and legal costs.
Tort reform is a significant issue, factors in meaningful health care reform and was a problem in Thompson's record according to Club for Growth.

Rubin later follows with oppo from a "Not A Friend of Fred Thompson (NAFFT)." The NAFFT hits Thompson on internet taxation: "Fred wanted to ensure that states be allowed to tax the internet and moreover voted repeatedly against the same tax moratorium he now champions. ... Thompson could have written that his principles of federalism in the past precluded his support of the internet tax moratorium but he has now seen the light and understands that a national, indeed, an international communication system can't be nickeled and dimed by states. But hey, wouldn't that be the same argument for tort reform? Well, maybe that is a bridge too far."

THOMPSON II: Do Fence Him In

Fred Thompson answered an Instapundit readers question on whether we should finish a border fence on the Mexico border (Thompson's for it). Hot Air's Allahpundit thinks the wrong question was asked:

How are you going to get a fence built with the Democrats likely holding 55-60 Senate seats and god knows how many House seats come 2009? If the GOP takes the White House, the next president's job will be, purely and simply, to hold the line and wield the veto pen like a saber. Fred will have served his country well if he does no more than block whatever disastrous amnesty the Democrats are likely to try to cram down his throat in his first term.

MA 05: Magic 05 Ball Says, "Reply Hazy, Try Again"

Both progressive and conservative bloggers continued to chew over Niki Tsongas' (D) 51% - 45% win over ret. USAF Lt. Col. Jim Ogonowski (R). Analysis includes:

• Marc Ambinder: "Well -- this isn't an elite liberal district, as anyone who ever worked for Marty Meehan can tell you. It is insular and provincial and distrusts outsiders; Tsongas lived outside the district before she ran. Though it has stayed in Democratic hands since the 70s, Tsongas still outperformed Gov. Deval Patrick here by two or three points; George H. W. Bush won this congressional district in 1992, as did Mitt Romney in 2002."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "So the Republicans lost a district that they won in the 1992 presidential election and the 2002 gubernatorial election, and in which their 2006 gubernatorial nominee ran about a net 18-19 points better than she did statewide and they're calling it a success? The American public still generally favors the Democrats to the Republicans."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "For all the talk that Hillary Clinton is running a strong campaign, I think she's quite vulnerable in a general election. The MA-05 election results, while you could chalk them up to a weak Democratic general election candidate and localized conditions, suggests that the strategy of running as a nonpartisan get things done Republican against corrupt DC Democratic insider could work. And let's not forget, that the local dynamics notwithstanding, Ogonowski was outspent 4:1."
• The Corner's David Freddoso: "There is one thing no one is mentioning about the special House election yesterday between Jim Ogonowski and Niki Tsongas in Massachusetts. ... The fact is, Ogonowski, an Air Force veteran whose brother died on 9/11, ran as a dovish pragmatist on Iraq. He said he had opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and he wanted a sensible way of getting the troops out. ... I still have doubts that many Republican House candidates will run on a dovish platform in 2008, which is why I don't feel confident that yesterday's election signifies a trend."
• Campaign Standard's John McCormack: "That's not quite the case. During the campaign, Tsongas endorsed a bill to withdraw all of the troops from Iraq within 270 days of its passage, while Ogonowski adamantly supported the surge and General Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. It's true that Ogonowski said the Iraq war was a mistake in the first place and favored the eventual drawdown of all of the troops - but not before the U.S. wins a clear victory, which Ogonowski defined as a strong and stable Iraqi government and army."

NM SEN: Udall Da Man

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts SurveyUSA numbers showing Rep. Tom Udall (D) beating both Reps. Heather Wilson (R) and Steve Pearce (R) and comments: "Those numbers are far better than any other potential Democrat except for Bill Richardson (who insists he's staying in the presidential race). They're definitely better than the only top-tier Dem currently in the field -- Marty Chavez -- who is ethically compromised and just all-around not acceptable. Lt. Gov. Diane Denish would be a great candidate, but she seems focused on the 2010 governor's race and drafting her into this race would be a challenge."

More kos: "So head on over to Draft Udall and let him know you'll have his back if he decides to run, especially if you're from New Mexico."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're All Journalists Now

Atrios looks at the Free Flow of Information Act winding its way through Congress and comments: "I don't really like any shield law which attempts to define journalism as a class rather than an act, I don't like that such law uses an income test to define that class, and I certainly don't understand why the emphasis is on protecting the journalists from testifying rather than the whistleblowers who need protecting. Yay whistleblower protection. Boo defining journalism based on whether it makes you money."

LEST WE FORGET: Why Do The Democrats Hate Armenians?

Watching CNN, Atrios notes that the "Dems Cave On Genocide" flashed on his screen "for about 20 minutes" and finds it "awesome." More Atrios: "I'm not criticizing CNN here. It was a stupid resolution, a stupid fake showdown with Bush, and then to top it all off they lost the showdown. Obviously one question is whether or not it should have been out there to begin with, but why they feel the need to lose on such things is beyond me..."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:49 PM

October 17, 2007

10/17: Will '08 Actually Be Competitive?

Commenting on Niki Tsongas' (D) 51% - 45% win over ret. USAF Lt. Col. Jim Ogonowski (R), a Talking Points Memo reader explains: "Among progressives there was a lot of resentment that 1) Tsongas beat out a great progressive candidate in the primary and that she 2) was essentially crowned by the local Democratic machine, without having done anything whatsoever to deserve it. Thus a lot of progressive folks stayed home. I almost did, but thought better of it, held my nose and then voted for her."

Replace "Tsongas" with "Clinton" and "local" for "national" and the emailer could easily be describing WH '08s general election. As MyDD's Todd Beeton notes, the same CNN poll that shows Clinton at 51% - 21% lead over Barack Obama in the primary, also shows her up only 2 points (49%-47%) over Rudy Giuliani in a general election match up. For all the doom and gloom the GOP's lack luster fundraising and atrocious generic WH numbers inspire, MA 05 may foreshadow a WH '08 contest that'll be a lot closer than many of us ever expected.

DEM FIELD: One Goes Up, The Rest Come Down

MyDD's Todd Beeton links to CNN's latest poll showing Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 51% - 21% and comments: "Looking at the candidates' performance in relation to their recent averages, Clinton and [John] Edwards appear to be rising and Obama looks stalled. Looking over a longer period, however, it's evident that Clinton is the only candidate who can really claim any long term growth as Obama, Edwards and [Bill] Richardson have all been at or above their current standing in national primary polling earlier this year, namely in early September."

DEM FIELD II: The Blurring Continues

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports Brookings Institution Scholar/Hillary Clinton advisor/Iraq war supporter Michael O'Hanlon is "commending Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards for their newfound flexibility" on Iraq. From O'Hanlon: "There is still fifteen months before [Clinton, Obama or Edwards] will be President. It's just factual that they cannot predict exactly what they are going to do in Iraq. ... I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months... Clearly they aren't likely to do that unless things get dramatically better."

CLINTON: She Was Against NAFTA Before She Was Against It

The Plank's Barron YoungSmith looks at Washington Postcomplaints of Hillary Clinton's recent calls for suggesting a 'timeout' on trade negotiations and links to evidence Sally Bedell Smith's new book Clintons, For Love of Politics which reports: "Liberal Democrats, including Hillary, opposed it primarily because it could take jobs away from American workers. But as an advocate of global economic cooperation, Bill was drawn to its free-trade philosophy." YoungSmith comments:

It is likely that her disagreement with Bill wasn't purely philosophical. Press reports from the time suggest that Hillary judged the politics of the situation differently: She thought a push for NAFTA would alienate the Democratic base, and that--in turn--would drain away resources and support from her health care initiative. All that, however, is beside the point. It doesn't matter whether she was motivated by principle or politics. The fact remains that Hillary's position on trade today is almost exactly the same as it was in 1993: She's skeptical about free-trade agreements and seems quite willing to sacrifice their passage if it will help speed health care reform.

DODD: Put Up Or Shut Up

Atrios links to Chris Dodd's recent statements against granting telecom companies immunity for cooperating with Bush administration surveillance programs and comments: "The question is how far he, and other senators, will go to stop it. There are always ways to muck things up in the Senate if someone wants to badly enough."

EDWARDS: Who You Gonna Believe, The Times Or The Univ. Of IA?

John Edwards 10/15 IA SEIU endorsement is still generating commentary. MyDD's David Mizner shares highlights from an Edwards campaign conference call: "People are overlooking the importance of the SEIU endorsement in Nevada, just as they're overlooking the importance of Nevada itself. With the potential backing of both SEIU Nevada (supplemented by neighboring California's SEIU) and the powerful Culinary Workers Union, Edwards will be strong in Nevada. If he wins Iowa but loses New Hampshire, he'll have a chance to regain momentum there. He's just tripled his staff in the state."

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta read IA Independent's John Deeth's liveblog of Edwards announcement and picked out this exchange: "Professor David Redlawsk says the endorsement helps Edwards immensely in Johnson County, "though there's also a sizable Obama contingent." We exchange grumblings about a New York Times article that noted that Iowans, particularly those at the Johnson County Dems barbecue, don't read blogs. "Our research shows 22 to 23% of caucus goers read blogs, which was higher than I expected," he said. "It's still kind of a niche, but... the people who MATTER are reading blogs," he added.

The Times article reported that, "only about 7 percent [of likely caucus-goers] visited candidate pages on the social-networking sites MySpace and Facebook."

Garance followed up with Redlawsk (a poli sci prof. at Univ. of IA), and after looking over his data she concludes: "[A]t every level, likely caucus-goers were more involved with online media and online campaigns than those who did not plan to attend the caucuses. And that's nothing to sneeze at."

GOP FIELD: Not Laffing All The Way To The Nomination

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru links to a New York Sun 'list of unifying ideas' that make up the GOP and responds to the top NY Sun item which declares: "Reductions in top marginal tax rates provide incentives for growth and lead to greater government revenues in the long run. That is not always the case. There is a point on the Laffer Curve at which tax cuts on the top margin stop generating increased income, but we are nowhere near that point now."

Ponnuru responds: "Presumably what they mean is that the top income tax rate is higher than the revenue-maximizing rate, but I'm not sure why they think that it is. Bush's tax cuts appear to have caused revenue to be lower than it would otherwise have been, which suggests that we're already below the revenue-maximizing tax rate."

Right Wing News also reacts to the Sun item: "The Republican Party should stand for a strong defense, small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, defense of American sovereignty, law and order, colorblindness, and traditional American values including, but not limited to respect for human life, personal responsibility, and love of country."

GIULIANI: He Knew Ronald Reagan

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein and NRO's Jim Geraghty both filed reports from Rudy Giuliani's 10/16 appearance before the Republican Jewish Coalition conference in Washington, DC. Klein said the audience was "about as close to a home crowd as he could get" and "Giuliani had the crowd eating out of his hands with flashes of humor, tough talk on Iran, and a hard line against futile diplomacy with Palestinians who seek to destroy Israel."

Geraghty reports: "Giuliani mentions Hillary's criticism of Barack Obama's willingness to have face-to-face meetings with dictators without conditions: "That's the first time I agreed with her since she said she was a Yankee fan... They say, but Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union. I say this most respectfully... You're not Ronald Reagan.'"

Later Geraghty shares to rival campaign hits on Giuliani. First, a '96 quote from Giuliani telling Charlie Rose 'I'm a Republican mayor, but I'm really not.' And second, a link a NYC Immigration Coalition that Giuliani served on with George Soros.

GIULIANI II: Rudy's Strength Or SoCon Weakness?

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru posts an email question from a reader: "In your view is the fact that Rudy has come this far a marker of ideological erosion in the Republican Party's predominately social conservatism? Or is "Rudy" merely happenstance, an individual, statistical artifact of the Darwinian processes of politics?"

Ponnuru responds: "I think it was always possible, under the right circumstances, for a pro-choice candidate to do well in the Republican primaries. ... But the actual pro-choice candidates who ran were duds. ... If he wins, I think it will cause the party to become less pro-life; but if he wins, it won't be because the party has become less pro-life."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle links and responds: "I mostly agree with Ramesh ... Giuliani's nomination might make the Republican Party less pro-life, but he won't win because it has already become less pro-life. ... But I do think it also shows the extent to which social conservatives have suffered as national organizations like the Christian Coalition have declined and the ones that have replaced them have been much less effective."

Also at The Corner, Byron York reads Giuliani's FEC report and notes: "In Rudy Giuliani's latest documents, we see that he has been searching for conservatives. The report shows that last July he paid $11,000 to NewsMax for its subscription list, $6,700 to Townhall for its list, and $5,000 to Human Events for its list. (A quick check with Jack Fowler shows that Giuliani hasn't rented NR's list.)"

MCCAIN: We're Mildly Amused

John McCain also spoke at the RJC conference. NRO's Jim Geraghty shares his opening joke:

"After following Senator Brownback and Mayor Giuliani, I feel a bit like Zsa Zsa Gabor's fifth husband. I understand he said on his wedding night, 'I know what I'm supposed to do, I just don't know how to make it interesting.'" ... Then he tells that he used that joke a few years back before a different audience, and when he finished his remarks, he found that the subsequent speaker was Senator John Warner, Elizabeth Taylor's sixth husband. "He was not amused."

PAUL: Possibly The Smallest Broad Based Coalition Ever

Patrick Ruffini crunches the Ron Paul donor data available at RonPaulGraphs.com and creates his own map showing where Paul's money is coming from. Ruffini blogs: "This really is a Western movement, with some of the Northeast thrown in. Basically, these are the places where you would expect libertarians to be strong. But I don't think I've ever seen a data set this good about the state-by-state strength of libertarianism. And the data gets more reliable every day. The Paul movement is weakest in the Deep South and the Ohio River Valley.

The Huffington Post's Tom Edsall reports: "Through no fault of his own, Rep. Ron Paul's anti-globalist, anti-government campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has become a magnet in neo-Nazi networks, pulling in activists and supporters from the fringe white nationalist community where anti-Semitism, anti-black and anti-immigrant views are commonplace. ... Such web-based organizations as Stormfront (motto: "White Pride, World Wide"), Vanguard News Network ("No Jews. Just Right.") and the Nationalist Coalition ("working to create the relationships that will lay the foundation for the White community that is necessary to our survival") have become sources of support for Paul's bid for the Republican nomination, and in some cases have set up separate Ron Paul discussion groups.

Finally, The Brody File shares some of his pro-Paul email:

• Ron Paul is the champion of the Constitution and he espouses the traditional conservative values we all hold so dear. His integrity is evidenced not only by his 20 year voting record, but even more by the life he has led. Family values - He has remained faithfully married to the same woman for over 50 years. He is pro-life and has delivered over 4,000 babies.
• As a Christian, I believe his non-interventionist foreign policy and Christian "just war" theory is the direction this country needs to take. Dr. Paul wants freedom for everyone...so Christians will have every right to celebrate their faith in the ways they see fit, local school districts will have more influence on their schools, respect for life could be restored, and following the Constitution would be a top priority.
• I'm a 35 year old Catholic father of three -- hardly the tinfoil hat type -- and am a dedicated supporter of Ron Paul. With the Christian Right looking so hard to find a candidate they can support, I'm amazed they seem to look past Dr. Paul. He's lockstep with us on the issues, with the possible exception of the war.

ROMNEY: He Don't Get No Respect

Mitt Romney also spoke at the RJC conference. Reports include:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "During the question and answer session, somebody asked why Mormonism scares so many people. Romney responded by pointing to his support among evangelicals, particularly how James Dobson has had ruled out Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain. ... I found it odd that he would focus so much on the evangelical angle before a Jewish audience that is sympathetic to other minority religions and opposed to the idea of religious tests for office."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I agree in large part with your take Phil. ... And yes, it was a 'what are we, chopped liver?' moment when asked whether his religion 'scares' people. He in essence, before a Jewish audience, said, 'Oh no, Evangelicals like me just fine.' It was a chance to bond with the crowd and sound a broad based theme in favor of tolerance and inclusion and it was missed."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "He mentions the average health care insurance bill for a resident of Boston has been nearly cut in half since his plan went into effect."
• more from AmSpec's Klein: "Mitt Romney joked, "Remember that old Rodney Dangerfield line, 'Take Jimmy Carter, please.'" ... Romney corrected himself after an audience member informed him that the phrase was associated with the legendary King of the One-Liners, Benny Youngman. I guess he missed the briefing on Jewish comedians.

At Townhall, Matt Lewis reports a "senior Republican aide allied with Romney" tells him Romney's 'Mormon Speech' may be coming soon. From Lewis: "The reason? There will most likely be only a short period of time -- possibly only a few days -- between the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary. That would leave little time to get a message out, and zero time to do crisis control if a message delivery were botched. ... Iowa is likely to announce tonight that they will hold their caucuses on January 3rd. New Hampshire's Primary is likely to take place on January 8th, though it's conceivably possible this could happen as early as December. And because of this tight schedule -- plus the fact that news gets lost during the Holiday season -- it is plausible "the speech" could happen within the next month."

THOMPSON: Humble, Lovable, And Cuddly

Fred Thompson also spoke at the RJC conference. AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein blogs: "Fred Thompson gave a trademark low-key performance, with a sweeping view of what America should stand for, rooted in our founders. ... One woman asked for him to compare and contrast himself with his Law and Order character, Arthur Branch. Thompson said when Branch is 'humble, lovable and cuddly, he's like me,' but when he's 'mean, surly, and short-tempered, he's not like me.'"

Captain's Quarter's links to a Jeri Thompson interview in the Joilet Herald News and forwards the advice of JeriGirl blogger Laura Batson to Mrs. Thompson: I truly think this interview deserves national attention. I only wish she could have been as forthcoming with PEOPLE. But politics is nothing, if not timing. ... The time will come soon enough when retail politics will demand the full bloom of Jeri's personality and talents. Why blow the show all in one act, as my Sweet Southern Grandmother would say.

MA 05: An Outlier ... Or A Sign Of Things To Come?

The netroots are somewhat disquieted by Niki Tsongas' 51% - 45% win over ret. USAF Lt. Col. Jim Ogonowski (R). Reactions include:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "A 6% victory in a D +10.7 district is pretty bad. It isn't quite as bad for us as a 3% victory for Republicans in the R +13.1 OH-02 in August of 2005, but it is close. The difference in swings is about 23 points compared to 16 points. As with the OH-02, much of the problem rests in the ossified local machine of the favored party nominating a weak candidate. Tsongas isn't as bad on the trail as Jean Schimdt, but she is close."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "BlueMassGroup is reporting quite a tight race ... If my math is correct, that's 51.4 to 48.6 with 70% reporting. Not good."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "Yeay us, except that this is a district that Kerry won 57-41 in 2004 meaning Tsongas underperformed her party (a 10-point swing toward the GOP). Bad candidate? Well, no one could be inspired by a machine-backed retread from the previous century running a low-energy campaign. Good candidate on their part? Perhaps, this Ogonowski character they ran seemed to run a smart race. The political environment? It's not as if Democrats are too excited with the performance of their leadership in Congress. ... So read into this race as little or as much as you want. It probably doesn't mean much."
• a Talking Points Memo reader: "Among progressives there was a lot of resentment that 1) Tsongas beat out a great progressive candidate in the primary and that she 2) was essentially crowned by the local Democratic machine, without having done anything whatsoever to deserve it. Thus a lot of progressive folks stayed home. I almost did, but thought better of it, held my nose and then voted for her."
• another TPM reader: "I think an important element of this election is the GOP candidate's biography -- his military background and the loss of his brother on 9/11. People still carry a soft spot for the victims and relatives of that day, and in a low information election I can imagine people using 9/11 as a tie-breaker. I don't think this carries over to national campaigns."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini was encouraged: "There is a clear way forward for the Republican Party out of tonight. It's one that we didn't have last night. Or last month. Or a year ago. It's simple: the change message works. America is anti-Washington, anti-Congress, and anti-corruption. When that's where Republicans are, they win. Jim Ogonowski showed us that. ... All you need is a plain-spoken veteran with an extraordinary life story. We need more citizen-candidates like Jim Ogonowski. We need them to pick off Democrats in blue and purple seats. We need them as primary challengers to corrupt incumbents. In "safe" Democrat-held districts, we need to run people who can get 45% of the vote, and then be in a position to finish the job in 2010. In 2006, the average second-time Democratic challenger who won received 43% of the vote their last time out."

BLOGGERS VS BLOGGERS: Doing It For The Children

Another day of SCHIP debating, another prop family, and more blogger bitterness. Think Progress highlights a NRO article by Mark Hemingway titled "Meet the New Frosts, Same As the Old Frosts" that examines the economic situation of the latest family Dems have invited to Washington, DC to pressure the GOP to extend SCHIP, the Wilkerson's. Think Progress reports: "Hemingway claims that Bethany's mother, Dara, "voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was 'unmanageable,'" to "take a job at a restaurant with no health insurance." He mourns the fact that the Wilkersons "went on to have a baby anyway."

TP comments: "So according to this "pro-life" right-wing logic, the Wilkersons should have sacrificed having a daughter in order to stay in an "unmanageable" job."

Hemingway responds at The Corner: "But the bottom line is not that two-year-old Bethany Wilkerson shouldn't be shown compassion - of course she should. God bless her and her hurting heart. The point of the piece was: that a) this family's story is not a compelling reason to enact (or expand) new policy and b) for the love of all that is holy, keep your children out of political debates. It's dishonest and exploitative, and it makes complex policy arguments needlessly personal."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin notes conservatives are losing the message battle in MSM publications: "Do They Read Their Own Stories? ... The USA Today poll shows that the public by a 52-40% margin favor limiting SCHIP to families at 200% of the poverty line, just as Bush wants to do."

Atrios links to Think Progress' story and comments: "Keep it Coming. The crazy Right continues to think that attacking people with jobs and families who can't afford health insurance is an excellent political tactic."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Vast Laffer Conspiracy

Meagan McArdle confides: "A conservative publication, which I will not name, just spiked a book review because I said that the Laffer Curve didn't apply at American levels of taxation, even while otherwise expressing my vast displeasure with the (liberal) economic notions of the book I was reviewing. This isn't me looking for an alternative explanation for the spiking of a bad review: the literary editor accepted it, edited it, and then three hours later told me it couldn't be published because it violated their editorial line on taxation. I suppose I ought to have known, but I didn't. Go ahead liberals, pile on: you told me so. The Laffer Curve and the supply siders pushing it seem to be the teacher's unions of the right."

LEST WE FORGET: And Hotline Will Be There To Cover Them All

Just in time for Halloween, Bush And Clinton Forever details the next 50 years of executive leadership in these United States:

• 2009 - 2017 - President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- If elected as anticipated in November 2008. Currently the front-runner. First Female president in US history AND first spouse of a former US president to be elected as President!!
• 2017 - 2025 - President Jeb Bush -- First time in US history that 2 different sons of a former US president are elected to the highest office in the land! First brother of a president to be elected president!!
• 2025 - 2033 - President Chelsea Clinton -- Youngest female president ever elected at age 45, AND first daughter of a president to be elected President! Stanford AND Oxford educated!!
• 2033 - 2041 - President George P. Bush -- First hispanic US President! Note: George P. Bush is Jeb's son and his mother is a native of Mexico. George P. Bush is a graduate of the University of Texas Law School!! He is currently a rising star in the Republican party and was recently featured in a Men's Vogue article!
• 2041 - 2049 - President ______ _______ Clinton -- First adopted President of a former US President! ... One of our readers pointed out that the 2041 Clinton slot could also go to the future husband of Chelsea Clinton! Actually, this probably is a more realistic possibility than the adoption scenario above.
• 2049 - 2057 - President Jenna Bush -- First granddaughter of a US president to be elected president! Also, first daughter of a former Republican president to take office! A possible VP dark horse in this race: Her twin sister Barbara, forming the first all-sister presidential ticket in US history!!
• 2057 - beyond! Honestly folks, our ability to see that far into the future is not quite as clear as our certainty that the BushClinton political dynasty is majestic for America!!!!

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:48 PM

October 16, 2007

10/16: Walking A Thin Line

The seeming inevitability of Hillary Clinton's campaign presents a challenge to the netroots: how to effectively challenge her now without doing any damage that could possibly linger into the general election. The solution: only attack her on policy areas where the probable GOP nominee would never go in a general election. Attacks on the pardon's of Bill Clinton's second term: rarely mentioned. But on torture, force against Iran, and trade, HRC's positions are fair game since a GOP nominee (like Giuliani)would never think of getting to the left of her on those issues. Although some in the community believe that Mike Huckabee would be the greatest threat to Clinton in the general. Liberal Oasis' Bill Scher makes that case here.

CLINTON: Like Cheney Only With Hair

TPM's Greg Sargent and Andrew Sullivan both watched Hillary Clinton's 10/15 visit to the View, and both came away unsatisfied with her answer on torture. From HRC: "

We also have to be smarter about how we interrogate. There's a lot of evidence that you don't get accurate, good information from extreme measures. In fact, you get it by developing some kind of system that can really get people to feel that they need to give you that information...For both the moral and values reason and because of the lack of effectiveness that a lot of these so-called techniques have. we need to be very clear that we do not conduct torture.

Sargent comments: "Again, she's not condemning specific techniques such as waterboarding by name or characterizing them as torture. So there may still be some wiggle room here, and this is unlikely to fully satisfy critics who are hoping that she'll rule out the use of all such techniques by name." Sullivan blogs: "For all her positioning, her public statement is quite close to Bush's who also inveighs against torture, while authorizing it as policy. ... Clinton won't call the techniques in question torture; and she won't explicitly rule out specific techniques. I remain skeptical of her bona fides on the matter. ... If you want to end torture as an instrument of American policy, I don't believe Hillary Clinton is your candidate."

The Hill's 10/16 coverage of GOP intent to use an allegation in a recent book "which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents" caused Atrios to comment: "Who knew that the spouse of a presidential contender, in 1992, could get the FBI to record phone conversations of political opponents. ... And the Clinton rules roll on..."

Instapundit couples The Hill story with a Guardian headline reading 'Clinton would use violence against Tehran' and quips: "It'll be like President Cheney, only with hair!"

CLINTON II: Like Humphrey Only With Better Hair

Matthew Yglesias reads Hillary Clinton 'foreign policy manifesto in Foreign Affairs' and comments: "I've noted this before, but reading Hillary Clinton's foreign policy manifesto in Foreign Affairs is once again a reminder of how nice it would be for politicians to give us some idea of what they mean by terms like "vital interests." ... Broadly construed, I think Clinton accomplished her goals here: She's laid something out that I think most people will regard as indistinguishable from what her rivals have put on the table but that contains subtle signals to people paying close attention that she'll probably govern more hawkishly than they will."

Huffington Post contributors need no convincing HRC will be a hawkish president. 10/15 HuffPo-Hillary-bashing includes:

• Paul Jay: "On September 26th Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which designates the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization. As I read through the amendment I found it harder and harder to understand how she could possible defend her vote. ... With Seymour Hersh predicting a U.S. attack Iran, this vote put Senator Clinton squarely in the Hawk's nest."
• Thomas de Zengotita: "Never mind empowering Bush to bomb Iran in a mad effort to double-down on a bad bet just so she can fend of Ruthless Rudy in the general election. The heck with that deadly decision and its long term consequences. She's SO optimistic! ... Grinning from ear to ear -- and when she does that, she gets a trifle jowly and actually looks like Hubert Humphrey."
• Gareth Porter: "Does she support an unprovoked military assault on Iran or not? ... Even more serious, she told the same audience Saturday that the Iranians "are supporting sending weapons into Iraq right now that are used against our troops". That tortured formulation tells us that Clinton cannot be counted to exercise any independent judgment about the facts surrounding the administration's case for war. That is why Clinton's co-sponsorship of the Webb amendment requiring the president to seek congressional approval before any military action against Iran should not be taken seriously."

Not talking Iran but still bashing Clinton, John Edwards aide Mudcat Saunders talks trade at The Huffington Post: "First, it is callous and offensive to the many Americans who have been "sucking wind" due to Clinton trade policies for Hillary to tell them "to take a deep breath." Secondly, Hillary, ... top-tier economists, many who were tricked on these ill-thought, ill-negotiated, ill-enforced, and erroneously presented to Congress trade treaties, are now taking a second look themselves. ... The reason Hillary is distancing herself from the trade treaties, rather than continuing to talk about ridiculous unintended consequences is because she understands politics like nobody else. The question is not whether Hillary understands politics but instead, how many of us understand Hillary."

EDWARDS: Living Breathing Organisms Endorse John Edwards

IA Independent's John Deeth liveblogged John Edwards 10/15 IA SEIU endorsement from Iowa City, IA. Garance Franke-Ruta covers the endorsement's impact: "This is the best news the John Edwards campaign has had in some time. The endorsement will have several positive results: 1) strengthening Edwards on the ground organizationally; 2) providing a conduit for the SEIU locals in Nevada and California that are likely to endorse him to funnel their enthusiasm into Iowa; and 3) creating a momentum signal to the press not to count Edwards out. There's also the scissors-paper-rock element of the endorsement, in that it effectively blocks the powerful Chicago SEIU locals from streaming into the state on Barack Obama's behalf (under union rules, the locals get to call the shots about who operates on whose behalf in which states, so the local endorsements in the early primary states matter most)."

Also endorsing Edwards 10/14, Friends of the Earth. Blue Hampshire reports: "As Brent Blackwelder, FoE-A President, and John Edwards stood on the grass just outside a lovely home in a stunning waterfront setting they both talked about why the issue of global warming is so vital to the future of our country and planet. Mr. Blackwelder enumerated the reasons for the group's endorsement, but his remarks were not just about the endorsement and the mortal peril our planet faces as the living breathing organism that it is."

OBAMA: Bigger Than Jesus

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Barack Obama telling CBS News' Early Show, "If I believed in polls, then five years ago I would have backed the war in Iraq like she did," and remarks: "I like the aggressive Obama."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis is impressed with recent Obama rhetoric on faith and the environment: "More die-hard Christians believe that we are "stewards of the earth" (a lot of other people do too). Linking environmentalism to faith is a smart move to help get more people supporting pro-environment policies, and to help get more Evangelical voters looking again at Obama."

Also talking about God and Obama, Andrew Sullivan posts reader speculation on Sullivan's Obama-crush: "Jesus pointed beyond dualism, conflict and fear to something higher, to that kind of patient, inclusive - dare I say loving - nondualism that comes from seeing that both left and right are both right and wrong. And that, as I see it, is why you are really so enamored of Obama: he's the only one out there who seems willing to rise above the politics of division and fear, and reach for something better, something higher, something that can bring us all together - not just here in this country, but globally."

On the right, RCP Blog's Tom Bevan notes that freshly minted Dem ex-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (?-RI) hinted at an Obama endorsement on RI radio 10/14.

GOP FIELD: See, Bloggers Can Get Along

Soren Dayton's recent bemoaning of the GOP's "transformation" from a conservative movement formed around "core of principles to a bunch of interest groups" has earned him the title of DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas "new favorite Republican blog." Dayton writes: "Because conservatism lost its coherence, it has also lost its brand." Kos responds: "Welcome to our hell. It really is amazing how the GOP, so long able to keep message discipline and its supposed core set of principles to a list of three (strong national defense, family values, and lower taxes) has in so short order become just as disjointed and unfocused as Democrats."

MCCAIN: Once Again, Things That Could've Been Brought To My Attention YESTERDAY!

John McCain called into Captain's Quarters Heading Right Radio 10/15. CQ highlights McCain's criticism of ret. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez: "I honor and respect his service to the country. I respect anyone who spends their adult life in the military as he has, but I respectfully have to say, General Sanchez, why didn't when I was in Baghdad, meeting with you and Jerry Bremer five years ago -- well, four years ago -- and I said, "You don't have enough troops here. You're going to fail. Looting is going on, Al-Qaeda is coming in, you're going to have these problems. Why aren't you settling the de-Ba'athification issue, etc etc." And he defended the present policy [at that time], he said it was succeeding, and he testified before the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, the same way."

Also talking McCain and foreign policy Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti reads McCain's Foreign Affairs essay and comments: "Among the top four candidates for the GOP nomination who have contributed these essays to Foreign Affairs (Thompson hasn't yet), only McCain embraces the idea that democracy promotion should be a top concern of U.S. foreign policy."

MCCAIN II: He Was For Mitt Before He Was Against Him

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan tracks McCain's hightened criticism of Mitt Romney including a campaign statement from ex-Rep. Chuck Douglas (R-NH) who complains: "Mitt Romney actively worked to defeat the Republican candidate trying to reclaim my old congressional seat. Therefore, I'm amazed that Romney would claim to represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party."

RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak follows up the story with Romney campaign supplied YouTube of McCain endorsing Romney for governor in '02. Dvorak comments: "I guess this is supposed to show that McCain used to "heart" Romney back then, but doesn't now out of political ambition. (Flip-flop!) But it's a little weak as far as YouTube Moments go." Townhall's Matt Lewis also comments on the vid: "Maybe this should be filed in the 'no good deed goes unpunished' file. Or maybe this illustrates the fact that candidates are free to change their minds on issues (and people), over time. Romney's point is that, if he's so liberal, why did McCain support him on 2002? McCain's team would probably argue that Romney was fine for Massachusetts, but too liberal for the presidency."

PAUL: 3.8% With A Bullet!

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal notes, "we made a small change earlier today to the charts that display results for Republican presidential candidates nationally and in each of the early primary states: We dropped the trend line for Newt Gingrich and added a trend line for Ron Paul."

More Blumenthal: "Newt Gingrich has finally made it clear he will not be a candidate, and so the many pollsters that had included his name on trial heats will now stop. Meanwhile, Ron Paul's support in New Hampshire now increased to 3.8% on our trend estimate, within a whisper of Mike Huckabee (at 4.2%)."

ROMNEY: Mr. Fix It Needs To Fix His Tin Ear

Commenting on the rest of the field's quick response to Mitt Romney's new Republican wing of the Republican Party line of attack, Pat Shortridge blogs: "I have to believe, given the almost immediate and devastating responses from McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, etc, that this was the most eagerly awaited political comparison since Lloyd Bentsen stood onstage praying for Dan Quayle to liken himself of JFK."

Campaign Standard's Richelieu looks at Romney's recent troubles and concludes the campaign has a 'tin ear'. Richlieu continues:

There seems to be no filter to prevent silly remarks in Romney's material. In fact, the campaign too often appears to leap at the opportunity to pander by saying silly things. Beyond the [Howard] Dean line, there was a truly nickel and dime item in a Romney speech a few weeks ago where he pledged to protect America from having "In God We Trust" moved to a secondary position on our coinage. ... Even Romney's attacks are small. The line-item veto? That is the defining difference between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in a presidential race? Romney has a long career of doing big and impressive things. He badly needs to get that bigness back to his candidacy.

NRO's Jim Geraghty advises: "Would Romney Be Better Off Running as 'Mr. Fix-It'? ... An adviser to one of Romney's rivals told me: 'I'm not a huge fan of what Romney did in Massachusetts, but it was successful enough to be the foundation of a his message: I'm Mr. Fix-It, I'm the the can-do, get-it-done governor.' ... Romney says much of what's above, but it rarely seems like the centerpiece of his message. Instead, he seems hell-bent on proving he's a social conservative despite a less-than-ideal record."

THOMPSON: The Gloves Aren't Off Yet

Fred Thompson's 10/25 speech before the Conservative Party of New York drew many conservative reactions, including:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Your takeaway line: 'Some think that the best way to beat the Democrats is to be more like 'em. I could not disagree more.' ... That's good advice circa 1980, after a Democratic administration had spent four years alienating the center; circa 2007, when it's a Republican administration that's done the alienating, I'm not so sure."
• RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak: "Interesting that the campaign released this particular part of the speech, since it's so clearly aimed at Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney . ... But it will be the "less regulation" part that might raise eyebrows in the crowd. A major sticking point with conservatives is Thompson's support of McCain-Feingold while he was in the Senate."
• Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "If you are a movement conservative, Thompson's argument is loaded and compelling. Question is: Because so many in the media already have written Thompson out of the race, will voters have the chance to hear his critique?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Why is Thompson holding back on going after Giuliani on the abortion issue, especially at a time when some social conservatives are making noise about a third party?"
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Why not go after Rudy on something that makes sense like abortion? Well here are some possibilities. First, maybe he really wouldn't mind being VP-- a great supporting role for a supporting actor. Second, he may figure it is better to let Romney and McCain or third party groups do the nasty work ... Third, Thompson has not exactly been aggressive on the stump or in debates and maybe this is just him --nice guy ... Fourth, I think the name of the game right now with Thompson and McCain is to inflict permanent damage on Romney and become the conservative alternative to Rudy around which the base can rally."

VA SEN: Mission Improbable

The Directors at RedState out throwing their weight behind an on line effort to draft Gen. Peter Pace to take on ex-Gov. Mark Warner (D) for Senate. they write: "With wealthy former Gov. Mark Warner holding significant leads over Rep. Tom Davis and former Gov. Jim Gilmore - two unimpressive candidates with little grassroots support - the likelihood of two Democrat Senators is high. ... Today, we urge General Pace to accept One Last Mission on behalf of his country. We urge him to heed the calls of his fellow countrymen and, rather than slipping away into a quiet (and much deserved) retirement, to serve once more a proud and grateful nation that desperately needs the unique leadership only he can offer."

National Review also supports the effort. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez links to OneLastMission.org, a supporting Facebook page, and NRO's editorial in favor of Pace's candidacy. The open letter at OneLastMission reads:

General, the American people need your leadership in the U.S. Senate. The outcome of even one Senate race could mean the difference between pushing on towards victory and being driven from the field and rendering meaningless the blood that has been spilt in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot afford to be represented by a September 10th politician. We cannot spare you now. Sir, we respectfully ask you to take on one last mission for your country.

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Now Batting .400

The netroots have claimed the second convert in their campaign to pressure five wayward House Dems to commit to vote to overturn Pres. Bush's SCHIP veto. Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher blogs: "On the heels of our recorded calls to the districts of five reactionary Democrats who refused to support the override of George Bush's veto of SCHIP, two of them have now flipped their votes - last week Baron Hill, and today Mike McIntyre of North Carolina."

Open Left's Matt Stoller identifies the remaining targets: Boren (OK-02), Ethridge (NC-02), Marshall (GA-08), and Taylor (MS-04). ... Jim Marshall is facing a primary challenge, Bob Etheridge is undecided, and Gene Taylor is still obstinate (though he's getting criticized by radio ads from pro-life group Catholics United)."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So What Our Health Care System Really Needs Is More Rich People

Tyler Cowen lists nine "micro-facts" on health care policy including, "Health care outcomes improve with income even under single-payer systems. Our best estimates suggest that this gradient is no steeper in the United States than it is in Canada." Cowen then instructs:

Now here is how to debate health care policy. Ask a defender of single payer systems (or other possible reforms) how many of these points he or she accepts. Settle on that list, noting that residual disagreements may well remain. Then debate what the list means for what America should do about health care policy today.
Here's how not to debate health care policy. When you hear one point on that list, bring up in response that other countries spend less and produce better health care outcomes and that therefore we should copy the systems of those countries.

But libertarians, I am not letting you off the hook either: Isn't there some form of further government intervention into health care that could help somebody? And if your basic model is that governments steal as much money as they can, and then waste it all, shouldn't we then jump at the chance to institute health care subsidies of this at least partially helpful nature? The alternative is simply that the money gets wasted some other and worse way.

LEST WE FORGET: We Like Hung And We Hug Everybody

We know Top Chef ended weeks ago, but we just stumbled across this analysis from The Onion's The Hater about what your choice in favorite Top Chef finalists says about you:

• If your favorite is Casey: You were either in a sorority at some point, or very close to rushing. You use the word "soul" a lot, and probably own more than a few throw pillows with cutesy sayings ("Life is measured in shoes!"), or hilarious affirmations ("The Queen Of Mean"). You idolize Jennifer Aniston. If none of the above is true, you are from Texas.
• If your favorite is Dale: You think Will & Grace was hysterical, especially Megan Mulally. You consider yourself edgy, and may even use the word "edgy" in conversation, even though the "edgiest" thing you've ever done was get a nose ring, or wear a grafitti-print t-shirt. You enjoy savory tarts, and think they can be incorporated into every meal. You have a separate shelf in your bathroom for all of your hair-care products.
• If your favorite is Brian: You don't exist. Sorry, no one's favorite is Brian.
• If your favorite is Hung: You're smart, kind of selfish, and don't hug people who aren't your friends. You realize that Top Chef is a competition, and you wouldn't help people if you finished early, either. In fact, you would probably walk around the kitchen, reminding all the other chefs who are still working that their time is running out. Why? Because that's funny (and fun to watch at home). Also, you really enjoy fried skin of all varieties.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:50 PM

October 15, 2007

10/15: The Competition For Indies In NH

A 10/14 Washington Postarticle 'The Disciples of Ron Paul' inspires us to return to our 10/4 speculation that a well funded Paul campaign might hurt Barack Obama the most. AmSpec Blog's John Tabin argues that Obama's 'optimistic liberalism' will not compete with Paul's 'pessimistic libertarianism' and Daniel Larison notes, "Sure, superficially Obama and Paul might seem to offer some similar themes, and both did oppose the Iraq war, but Obama is essentially an interventionist at home and abroad and Paul is diametrically opposed to both."

Andrew Sullivan responds to Larison: "What both do share, though, is a sense of being outside the establishment of their respective parties. They both sound as if they are saying things they actually believe and have thought about at some length." Meanwhile, the Post reports that NH gave Paul the most money per capita and that 44% of voters in the state are independent and can vote in either primary. The Post alsoquotes former Air Force pilot Jim Forsythe who explains he supports Paul because Paul is against "politics as we've known it." Now, who does that sound like?

GIULIANI: No Hydeing From This Issue

Fred Barnes latest Weekly Standard article "The Speech He Needs to Give" inspired speculation on Rudy Giuliani's relationship with social conservatives. Reactions include:

• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "Fred Barnes asked Giuliani about federal funding for abortion: 'And should Congress pass a bill repealing the Hyde amendment, he said he would veto it.' Good for the mayor. I hope he takes the rest of Barnes's advice, and comes out against Roe."
• Captain's Quarters: "I've spent the last three days with an eclectic mix of pro-life and libertarian conservatives, and I've heard them talk about these very issues. I've heard them react to the speeches given here at the CLC. I'd have to conclude that Barnes' excellent statement would have no effect on the skepticism that a Giuliani nomination will generate. Pro-life advocates are not in a forgiving mood."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "[T]he most important item in Barnes's piece is this: He quotes Giuliani saying he would veto any attempt by the Democratic Congress to gut the Hyde Amendment. This is the first time I'm aware of that he's been willing to make his new support of the Hyde Amendment that concrete. If Giuliani actually says this publicly, it will be a sign that the new social conservative campaign against him -- as inept as I think it has generally been so far -- is having some effect.
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It is asking a lot for social conservatives to support a man who disagrees with them on their most important issue, and one which involves bedrock moral principles. To ask this after eight years of power sharing is even more ambitious."

HUCKABEE: Must Win Over Catholics To Have A Chance

Soren Dayton tackles the question why social conservatives have failed to rally around Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback:

First, the process starts with natural selection. Only very recently has there been a solid case for Huckabee being the obvious candidate of the religious right. In Q1 and Q2 Brownback outraised Huckabee and was about tied in the polls. Until Ames, the argument for preferring Huckabee was hard to ground in solid facts. (Now it is a lot easier). ... Second, I think that there is a degree of sectarianism. ... Nearly everyone I know who is a strong Huckabee advocate is an evangelical Christian. Nearly everyone I know who is a strong Brownback advocate is a conservative Catholic. It was a great feat of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition to get these people working together. If the leaders were to intervene in this fight, then they might threaten the foundation of their coalition. ... I don't know anyone who thinks that Brownback and Huckabee could really win a general election, although that is shifting for Huckabee to some extent.

HUNTER: Running Two Campaigns?

Captain's Quarters blogged 10/11-13's Reno, NV, Conservative Leadership Conference including 10/13's Duncan Hunter speech: "The first order of business is endorsing his son for his seat in Congress. Duncan Hunter Jr is currently serving in Afghanistan as a Marine, called back to active duty, and his father has been campaigning almost as hard for his son as he has for himself here at the CLC. ... Hunter talks about the "arsenal of democracy,"... and reminds us that Americans make things. The retreat of the manufacturing sector puts American security at risk. ... Hunter will bring the jobs back. That's his bottom line on trade and national security."

MCCAIN: In Case You Forgot Why McCain Still Won't Win Conservatives

Right Wing News looks at Townhall reports that John McCain is now telling NH voters "that he still believes in the immigration plan that failed in Congress earlier this year but that he now realizes that none of its components - including allowing millions of illegal immigrants to eventually earn legal status - can be enacted until the borders are secured first."

RWN responds: "Do I believe him? In a word: no. But, the fact that the point man for comprehensive illegal immigration reform in the Senate feels compelled to take a security first position on illegal immigration is significant because it means that people can like it, not like it, think it's good, think it's bad, but no matter how you slice it, there is now a consensus position on illegal immigration in the Republican party and it's a security first position."

PAUL: What Happens In Reno...

Blogging from Reno, NV, Captain's Quarters reports on the results of the Conservative Leadership Conference straw poll: "The straw poll came out as I would have predicted. Ron Paul had a large contingent of supporters at the CLC, and even though Paul inexplicably ignored this event, they remained loyal to him. He won about a third of the votes and finished far ahead of his competitors."

Not in Reno, Soren Dayton highlights the 2nd banner on Paul's official campaign site [it reads: "Party affiliation change deadlines ... you must be registered with the correct party to vote for Ron Paul in closed primaries."] and comments: "Yup. The Ron Paul team is campaigning to non-Republicans to change registration Awesome."

ROMNEY: As Much As Hillary Loves To Bring Up The '90s, Mitt Wishes They Would Just Go Away

John McCain's attacks on Mitt Romney's conservative credentials did not go unnoticed. AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin highlights this nugget from McCain, "As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts, being a Republican wasn't much of a priority," and comments: "This isn't bean bag anymore and both McCain and Rudy are sensing an opportunity to pile onto Romney and knock him out in in New Hampshire."

Power Line's John Hinderaker watches McCain repeat his attacks on Face the Nation and comments: "I'm an admirer of Mitt Romney, but it seems that his rivals are getting traction with their attacks on the not-very-conservative aspects of his record. ... I have to admit that I was taken aback by this YouTube video of Romney in a 1994 debate with [Ted] Kennedy, which is making the rounds. Maybe everyone else has already seen it, but what struck me was that it wasn't just the social issues, abortion and gay marriage, on which Romney took a moderate to liberal line. More disconcerting was his effort to distance himself from the Reagan administration, during which he pointedly said that he had been an independent."

Rubin later updates: "Not to be left out Team Thompson Communications Director Todd Harris released this: 'In 1994, Mitt Romney accomplished what people had long thought was impossible - he ran for Senate to the left of Ted Kennedy. I didn't know there was any room there. For him to now claim to represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party is yet another Mitt Romney flip flop.'"

THOMPSON: Playing To Type

The Corner's Byron York links to reportsFred Thompson canceled his 10/13-14 NH appearence and comments: "Fred Thompson has had to deal with the perception that he's not fully into the presidential campaign. That perception won't go away with reports that Thompson hasn't made a public campaign appearance since the debate in Dearborn, Michigan on Tuesday."

CLINTON: If Current Trends Continue...

Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at Pollster.com averages from NH and IA, and notes that Hillary Clinton's rise against her Dem rivals has been mirrored by a similar rise against probable GOP opponents:

Hillary Clinton's increasing Democratic primary advantage in states like New Hampshire and Iowa can also be seen in her remarkable turnaround in general election match ups. ... Overall, Clinton has improved her performance against Giuliani relative to Obama by about ten points over the last seven months. ... Clinton is rising both against other Democrats and against all Republicans. Clearly, she is running a very strong campaign, but there is not guarantee this trend will continue indefinitely.

At The Huffington PostSusan Braudy watches David Letterman's recent hosting of Hillary and Bill Clinton and concludes: "David Letterman did it. He ever so subtly endorsed the Clintons before the Democratic primaries. ... Laughter isn't the only thing Letterman does better than just about anybody. He has to be a political genius to balance year after year at the tippy-top of a soul-deadening tv bureaucracy."

Andrew Sullivan attributes Rep. John Lewis' (D-GA) HRC endorsement to the Clinton's "political machine and their ruthlessness" and adds: "No real feminist would do this; only someone who postures as a feminist while using her husband as a tool." Later Sullivan compares Hillary to a power mad elf queen.

EDWARDS: Making Progressive Mainstream

Gristmill's David Roberts looks at Barack Obama's new climate change policy and blogs: "Whatever his electoral fortunes, [John] Edwards has played an indispensable role in this campaign. On issue after issue -- energy, poverty, health care -- he has led the pack with bold progressive policy proposals. In doing so, he's pushed the envelope and made it safe for the other major candidates to strengthen their own plans."

A Left Coaster contributor responds: "I agree with that entirely. ... what I find particularly refreshing is that some of the top candidates have been mainstreaming very progressive ideas and proposals in a way that I haven't seen before and that I never believed would happen until I was 200 years old. This forces - or allows - other candidates to also become more progressive. One candidate in particular has been very aggressive about it and that's Sen. John Edwards. So, we do have a lot to thank him for."

ID SEN: A Lot Can Happen In Three Years

Daily Kos' mcjoan highlights recent coverage of ID LG Jim Risch race to replace Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), including a New West question at a recent Risch press conference. Asked if Risch ever read blogs, he responded: "No, and No! ... People give me printouts which I occasionally read."

Mcjoan also links to Idaho Statesmencoverage which quotes ID GOP chair Kirk Sullivan: "I think the blogs are something we have to contend with so I do pay attention ... I don't care where they're coming from, left or right, if they are going to have an impact on the Idaho Republican Party I think it's our responsibility to be aware of what they're doing and saying."

Also from the Statesmen: "Risch is a dinosaur who writes by hand and uses dictation, doesn't use e-mail, and pays no mind to blogs or online news....Risch has no plans to blog, post to YouTube or even start using personal e-mail. 'It's generational, I suppose,' said Risch, 64." Mcjoan notes that Dem candidate Larry LaRocco is 61 and comments: "That amazing three-year generation gap."

IRAQ: They Were With Him Until He Went All 'Heck Uv A Job Brownie' On Them

Conservatives united to condemn MSM coverage of ret. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez 10/12 speech. The Washington Post headline read 'Ex-Commander In Iraq Faults War Strategy', but conservatives noted most reporters ignored the first half of Sanchez' speech, which included: "Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. ... As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled." Reactions include:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "If the Bush administration gets attacked, the press will report it. But what if someone attacks the press? If the attack goes unreported, did it ever really happen?"
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "It's not that they focus more on his criticism of the war than on his criticism of the media; it's that the criticism of the media is omitted entirely."
• Captain's Quarters: "The Post then goes on to obfuscate a key part of the second half of Sanchez' speech. While he criticizes the Bush administration in sharp terms, Sanchez blames the Democrats in equal measure. He calls out partisans on all sides for exploiting the war for their own political benefit rather than the good of the nation, and blames the lack of range for strategic options on the corrosive debate that has hamstrung the range of choices."
• Michelle Malkin: "Gen. Sanchez's full-throated attack on the MSM is thoroughly deserved and much of it is on target, but I'd take it with a grain of salt given his rather oddly passionate defense of crony bureaucrat and disgraced FEMA director Michael Brown. Weird. And not very reassuring."

Commenting on the New York Times coverage of the speech, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat notes Brookings Scholar Michael O'Hanlon's criticism of Sanchez and remarks: "Why does Hillary Clinton need to disavow the support of Michael O'Hanlon? Why does his support or non-support matter in the scheme of things? ... Because of Hillary's vote in support of granting President Bush the power to go to war against Iraq in 2002. ... Because if Michael O'Hanlon were an honest man, and he is not, he should not be supporting Hillary Clinton at all. He should be fiercely criticizing her. The support of Michael O'Hanlon, supporter of the Bush policy on Iraq, must be disavowed by the Clinton campaign. She has not earned our trust on Iraq. She can not expect that her acceptance of O'Hanlon's support would not be troubling to any one who cares about ending the Iraq Debacle."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Best German Of All

Commenting on Franck Rich's 10/14 "The 'Good Germans' Among Us" column "lamenting how 'we' have let the war go on, and are as complicit as the Germans during the Nazi regime," Open Left's Matt Stoller links to Rich's criticism of MoveOn's Gen. Betray Us ad and comments: "Rich is operating according to the rules of the media elite. It's ok to whine about the problem, but try to do anything about it and you're getting very much uncivil, sir. Lots of people might be loving Frank Rich's column today that says that Americans are responsible for what America does. Of course, many of us passed the basics of citizenship 101 in grade school, and have been working to try to fix the political system ever since we woke up and noticed a group of lunatics and incompetents in charge. For instance, Moveon, which apparently is a juvenile McCarthyite group."

LEST WE FORGET: And You Thought Bloggers Were Self-Indulgent

Instapunditwatches CNN 10/14 and comments: "Howard Kurtz interviewed Howard Kurtz on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources today. The subject? Howard Kurtz's new book! This seems to reflect a profound moment in modern journalism, somehow.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

October 12, 2007

10/12: The New Whips

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken a fair amount of netroots criticism for her 10/10 claim that it was "a waste of time" for activists to target Dems. We wouldn't appreciate a bunch of people hanging out in our garden either, but looking at what the netroots have helped accomplish on SCHIP we have to wonder what happens to Pelosi's policy goals if the activists stopped being active. Less than a week into their campaign to pressure five Dems into promising to vote to override Pres. Bush's veto of SCHIP expansion, the netroots have already won a convert in Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN). Keeping the progressive community satisfied may be taxing, but isn't there also a strong possibility that by making the party more responsive to the base, Dems are actually more competitive electorally?

IA CAUCUS: Obama Finally Takes Leadership On An Issue

IA Independent's Lynda Washington reports: "Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa."

CLINTON: Hillary Might Not Be Inevitable, But Her Message Repetition Is

Hillary Clinton campaign message discipline is beginning to wear thin on some bloggers. Open Left's Chris Bowers tracks Clinton flak use of the phrase "it's unfortunate" and comments: "It's unfortunate you keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And if there is something that really is politics as usual, it is using the same line, again and again, no matter the context."

Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz picks up on a different Team Clinton memo: "It's unfortunate that Barack Obama is abandoning the politics of hope as his campaign stagnates and is launching false attacks on other Democrats instead." ... "It's unfortunate that Sen. Obama is abandoning the politics of hope and embracing the same old attack politics as his support stagnates." "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is resorting to the same old attack politics as his poll numbers start falling. . . . A flagging campaign is not an excuse to distort anyone's record." "Increasingly negative attacks against other Democrats aren't going to end the war, deliver universal healthcare, or turn John Edwards' flagging campaign around."

Kurtz comments: "Working to cultivate the sense of Clinton's inevitability? Nah."

GORE: 54% of Kossacks Can't Be Wrong

Anticipating his Nobel Peace Prize award, a completely unscientific poll of Daily Kos readers shows 54% would support Al Gore if he decided to enter then WH '08 race, but Open Left's Chris Bowers explains why he is not one of them:

I like a lot of things about the Draft Gore effort, first and foremost their unwillingness to accept the political status quo. ... But there are also some things about the Draft Gore effort that feel very strange to me. In particular, I am bothered by the combination of what seems to be a creepy cult of personality around the man ... I like everything that Draft Gore is doing, but the complete lack of skepticism in their writing and words about their efforts and Gore's seemingly inevitable run just feel really, strange and almost cultish.

Gristmill's David Roberts does not see a Gore run either: "Does the American public care about the Nobel, a prize awarded by a bunch of ... foreigners? Wouldn't winning a "peace" prize brand Gore as weak on national security? Doesn't it show that he thinks he's better than us? Who would want to get a beer with a Nobel Peace Prize winner? ... If he entered the race, Gore would run headlong into the same dim-bulb, theatrics-obsessed political press that did him so much harm in the 2000 race."

OBAMA: Eighty Percent Of Credibility On Issue Is Showing Up To Vote

Some elements of the netroots are pushing back against 10/10 Barack Obama efforts to use Hillary Clinton's vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran's Revolutionary Guard against her. Obama penned a New Hampshire Union Leader op-ed claiming the amendment, "directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran." Also in a new online ad campaign, Obama implies he is leading a movement to stop the Bush Administration from war with Iran.

Looking at the Union-Leader piece The Plank's Noam Scheiber argues Obama may have found an issue to take down HRC: "the Clinton vote on the Iran amendment may turn out to be a much bigger mistake than people have suggested. Here's why: The reason Obama's more explicit attempts to differentiate himself on the war have fallen flat so far isn't that they stepped on his hopeful message (see point one), but because they were too backward-looking. ... But the Iran vote allows Obama to cast Clinton's judgment as an ongoing problem, and to illustrate how his judgment continues to be sound."

Scheiber later updates: "A rival campaign points me to a speech Obama made in November 2006, where he used language that's substantively similar to the amendment he criticized in today's op-ed ... It seems pretty clear from the speech that Obama supports in principle the idea of using our presence in Iraq to keep the Iranians in check, which is not that different from what the legislation says and which therefore makes his op-ed a much less clean hit."

Others in the community questioned how Obama could claim to be a leader on the issue considering he failed to vote on the amendment. Taylor Marsh blogs: "You don't get to criticize a Senate vote when you couldn't be bothered to show up to vote yourself. It also doesn't help that you didn't mention the vote during the Dartmouth debate either, even after Edwards slammed her on it. ... I truly do want Obama to challenge Clinton and take it to her. I want to see him fight. But it seems a bit spineless to attack someone for a vote you skipped out on and didn't bother to comment on from New Hampshire, where you were campaigning for president."

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt writes: "If Obama so strongly opposed the Amendment, why didn't he show up, argue against it and cast a "no" vote, instead of staying on the campaign trail? ... Obama's beginning to use his "anti-war" stance much the same way Rudy is playing the 9/11 card. Enough already. If I were advising Obama, I'd tell him to focus on convincing the American people he's experienced enough for the job rather than going negative.

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta takes the line of criticism even further, tying together Obama vote skips on MoveOn and his recent rhetoric on abortion before concluding: "All told, these episodes have started to make me wonder if maybe Obama would have somehow managed to be absent from the Senate the day of the 2002 vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq, as well. ... If Obama really thinks Clinton said just yes to war with Iran, he needs to explain why he couldn't be bothered to say no."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to Garance and comments: "Hoo boy. If this becomes a talking point in the campaign, it means that the gloves are finally off. Stay tuned to see if it gets picked up anywhere else. ... For the record, it seems completely baseless to me. Lots of politicians waffle on a few inconvenient votes here and there, but there's simply no reason to suspect Obama would have missed the most important floor vote of the entire year if he'd been a senator in 2002."

GIULIANI: Never Been Accused Of Being Shy

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff comments on the additions of Ruth Wedgwood, David Frum, and Tom Joscelyn to Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy team: "I'll repeat now what I noted when Giuliani selected his original group -- Rudy, to his credit, is not shying away from serious foreign policy hardliners (including neo-conservatives) despite the potential cost of this in a general election."

MCCAIN: At Least He's Talking

John McCain hosted a 10/11 blogger conference call to promote his health plan. Write ups include:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "On Mitt Romney's comment about consulting lawyers before going after Iran's nuclear facility, McCain said of Romney: 'That's just a product of inexperience ...'
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "McCain seemed in good spirits, displaying his familiar feisty good humor, as when he chided us for not being on the campaign bus with him."
• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "Mostly, we talked about other issues. ... As to the health plan, it strikes me as rather vague but the broad principles are reasonable enough. More importantly, he's at least talking about it."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "McCain said that when he said during the debate that 'this Iranian scenario is closer than some may think,' he said he was referring to the fact that, 'many experts on Iranian nuclear buildup believe the Iranians, within two years sufficient fissile material to develop a nuclear weapon... I have no reason to think it isn't true. During the Cold War, we consistently underestimated the advances in the Soviet Union's programs.'"
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain is his feisty self today. ... I asked about Thompson proposal to index social security to prices instead of wages. He said that one thing he learned was that if you come up with specific proposals others will shoot it down and he favors the Reagan approach of a commission with everything on the table, although he "is opposed" to tax increases."
• Robert Bluey: "Reforming the tax code is the key ingredient of any reform, and it's encouraging to see McCain embrace that approach. During a conference call with bloggers this afternoon, he explained that the thrust of his proposal is to give individuals more responsibility over their health-care choices and reduce the role of employers."

PAUL: Inexperienced Or Crazy?

NRO's Jim Geraghty posts emailer views on who Ron Paul supporters really are. Take one:

I heard Ron Paul speak last night here at the University of Michigan, and I got a look at his supporters. Mostly, they seem to be pro-American college students who have fallen for the Left's propaganda but not for its anti-American rhetoric. They believe that we're losing in Iraq, that China should revalue its currency, that Bush is abusing the Constitution, etc. They're not frustrated Republicans. They're wildly idealistic, and they are too inexperienced to realize how crazy his ideas are. (Return to the gold standard? What the heck?)

Take two:

I think those who assume Paul has growing GOP support are wrong. Paul attracts that element of the right-wing that left the party with Paul Craig Roberts. They're a host of multi-paleo conservatives who want to impeach Bush, are cheering for us to lose in Iraq and growl at Israel. The other "right-wingers" for Paul are the wacky Truthers who spend hours listening to that Alex Jones nut. In my opinion, the "sanest" Paul base supporters are John Birchers and Constitution Party members.

THOMPSON: He's Now Officially The TNT Candidate

Right Wing News makes a conservative case for Fred Thompson: "In the movie Roadhouse, another Dalton, played by Patrick Swayze said, 'I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice.' Fred has this down to an art form. ... If conservatives are looking for a candidate who isn't pugnacious to the point of being obnoxious, but is capable of fighting back against the Clinton campaign's sleazy politics of personal destruction, Fred Thompson has shown that he has what it takes."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: One Down Four To Go

The netroots are already claiming at least one victory in their campaign to bring five wayward Dems into the fold on a veto override for SCHIP's expansion. Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher reports: "On Monday Blue America and BlogPac dropped recorded calls into the districts of five Democrats who are voting with George Bush to sustain his veto over SCHIP and deny healthcare to kids: Jim Marshall (D-GA), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Bob Etheridge (D-NC), Baron Hill (D-IN), Gene Taylor (D-MS). It looks like Baron Hill just switched his vote, and we are hearing from constituents that McIntyre is now 'undecided' after hearing from constituents.

Open Left's Matt Stoller links to Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that Macon Mayor Jack Ellis and schoolteacher Robert Nowack both are exploring primary challenges to Marshall and comments: "Read the comments after the article. Georgia Democrats are really mad at Marshall, as voting against children's health care really seems to be a deal-breaker. More primary opponents may jump in."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Are We The Only Ones Who Believe This Has Actually Become An Important Debate?

Commenting on L'Affaire Graeme Frost, Megan McArdle blogs:

The reason that Democrats put him up on the radio in the first place is that they thought Graeme Frost's need was a better argument for S-Chip than any boring old policy discussion. Well, if you make Graeme Frost's needs the measure of the program's success, then you can expect the program's opponents to question Graeme Frost's needs.

LEST WE FORGET: Stay In School

Inspired by Bungie.net claims that Washington Bullets star Gilbert Arenas is cheating at the online video game Halo 3, The Washington Post's Dan Steinberg tracked Arenas down for an explanation:

"Gilbert," I said, approximately, "people say you're cheating at Halo 3." ...

"Yeah," he said, laughing. "Yeah." ... "It's a glitch," he explained. "It's a glitch in the game. I seen some kids that were like 600s, they won 600 Halo games and we only had that game for two weeks. And all the kids go to school. So I'm like, 'What the hell you all doing?' And they said that's what they doing, two-on-two."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:44 PM

October 11, 2007

10/11: At Least Everyone Can Agree On Guns

We're not sure if Howard Dean was the first to coin the phrase "god, guns, and gays" to describe the issues that drive the GOP base (but we're definitely sure you will correct us if we're wrong). Either way, we do find it interesting how willingly conservatives at The Corner and RedState seem willing to embrace a similar label coined by The Corner's David Freddoso: "Guns, Babies, and Taxes." RedState's Erick Erickson comments on the phrase: "Down here in Georgia, over in Louisiana, up over to Kansas, and in most of the rest of the country, David is absolutely right -- the Republican base, which consists of conservative voters, looks at babies, guns, and taxes." As much as the MSM constantly focuses on Rudy Giuliani's problems with social conservatives, we've long suspected his real problem may come from gun owners.

GOP FIELD: It's Almost As If Bush Has Done Damage To The GOP Brand Or Something

The Corner's Larry Kudlow warns GOP WH '08ers after watching 10/9's debate: "Look, the reality right now is that Republicans need to prove their bona fides all over again. The top four candidates are all solid and strong players. But policy proposals are going to be crucial as Hillary Clinton develops her own detailed plan, along with Barack Obama and John Edwards. Message to Republicans: No more veggies on spending and taxing. Put some steak on the plate."

GIULIANI V ROMNEY: First Consult All The Lawyers

The Mitt Romney/Rudy Giuliani feud over the line item veto generated plenty of conservative posting 10/10. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff blogs: "Giuliani showed too much deference to the Supreme Court. It probably worked on television, but I don't think it works analytically." Pepperdine Univ. law prof. Douglas Kmiec writes at National Review: "Giuliani's the-Constitution-made-me-do-it excuse just doesn't wash."

Team Rudy then emailed a response to The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez from ex-SG Ted Olson: "The Clinton Administration line item veto was unconstitutional. Anyone who does not understand that has not read the Supreme Court's opinion striking it down and does not have a clear understanding of the Constitution."

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden the emailed Lopez: "As Professor Kmiec notes, Justice Antonin Scalia vociferously dissented from the Supreme Court's judgment striking down the line-item veto. Justice Scalia certainly has a 'clear understanding of the Constitution' and that's why Governor Romney has pledged to appoint justices that share his strict constructionist jurisprudence."

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru later comments: "Romney's Instinct for the Capillary ... The line-item veto is not a promising line of attack for Romney."

GIULIANI: The Anti-Candidate

Corner contributors spent much of 10/10 debating Rudy Giuliani's conservative credentials. Highlights include:

• The Corner's Mark Levin: "Rudy is no conservative, despite George Will's pronouncement ... Yes, Rudy takes some conservative positions. ... But he has a record that goes beyond law enforcement and tax-cutting that should cause any conservative some pause. What is his governing philosophy?"
• The Corner's David Freddoso: "I have to agree with Mark. There is a long philosophical debate to be had over what makes a conservative, but conservatives in Washington have a rule of thumb for awarding the label to actual politicians: It's the trinity of conservative issues: 'Guns, Babies, and Taxes.' ... There's no question that Giuliani is a strong law-and-order guy, but the smart Democrats caught on years ago to how strong the crime issue was and adopted it. On a good day, Dianne Feinstein qualifies as a law-and-order conservative."
• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "Guns, Babies, and Taxes? ... Well, that's a cute one, David, that all of conservatism can be placed under that triptych. Amazing that in my 46 years on earth and my 25 years as a member of the conservative movement, I've never heard it before. Besides, it seems to leave out a few things, like, oh, national defense. Not to mention crime."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Down here in Georgia, over in Louisiana, up over to Kansas, and in most of the rest of the country, David is absolutely right -- the Republican base, which consists of conservative voters, looks at babies, guns, and taxes. And in Washington, D.C., if you look at the major right of center interest groups, they boil down to guns, babies, and taxes, with labor/business issues close behind."
• Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "Giuliani adopts more conservative positions than liberal ones, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say that he is a conservative, at least as the term is understood in contemporary American politics. It may be more accurate to say that Giuliani is anti-liberal: his opponents - and he defines himself by whom he opposes - are far more likely to be on the left than on the right. And indeed, he has gone out of his way this year to inform interest groups on the right that he will leave them alone, as long as they do not actively oppose him."

ROMNEY: But Everyone Does It

Conservative Mitt Romney sympaticos pushed back against the damage done by Romney's 10/9 "We're going to let the lawyers sort it out" Iran answer. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Let's try to evaluate this objectively. First, no candidate has been more forceful or specific than Romney in insisting that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. ... Second, as is clear from the exchange quoted above, Romney gave his answer about consulting lawyers in the context of questions about a president's legal obligation (if any) to obtain congressional authorization. ... Third, Romney made it clear that, bottom line, he 'would make sure that we would take the action necessary to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.'"

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt blogs: "Presidents always consult with their lawyers before deciding whether to use force and whether to consult with Congress. I am quite certain Ted Olsen did so as part of the Reagan Administration legal team, and Mayor Giuliani as Associate Attorney General may have been part of that review as well, though the AAG typically is more concerned with law enforcement than the War Powers Act.

THOMPSON: If You Can't Take The Heat, Then Go Take A Nap

The Corner's Mark Levin did not appreciate debate reviews that included observations about Fred Thompson's age. Levin blogs: "I have spent some time with Thompson. He is intellectually curious and sharp. He is engaging and vigorous. Yes, he chooses his words carefully. He speaks in a southern accent. But the attacks on him appear to have a Northeastern-liberal-style feel to them, emanating largely from the NewYork-Washington, D.C axis."

The Corner's John Podhoretz responds: " I still think he was awful in the first hour of the debate, though much better in the second - and that, if his first moment had taken place during a major debate with a Democrat in a general-election season, it would have finished him and the Republican party off for good."

The Corner's David Freddoso adds: "The mention of Fred's 'senior moment' is hardly a cheap shot. The guy is a presidential candidate, if he can't take his knocks then he should go back to acting."

CLINTON: Torturers Are In The Eye Of The Blogger

A 10/9 Washington Postarticle claiming Hillary Clinton was "vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA" and "could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies" elicited heavy criticism from mostly Barack Obama netroots supporters. A strong critic of Clinton and Obama, Open Left's Matt Stoller blogged: "To me, these two paragraphs get to the heart of the Clinton-era political model. ... She cannot handle a political system where one party is acting in utter bad faith, and ultimately turns to bad faith herself. And so she ratifies the horrifying behavior, and will continue to do so as President." Obama partisans attacking HRC on the issue include:

• Mark Kleiman: "Part of HRC's problem is that the Bill Clinton regime didn't have entirely clean hands, specifically on the "rendition" issue. But it now seems clear that if we want the country to make a clean break with current policies on maltreatment of captives, we can't do so by putting HRC in the White House."
• Andrew Sullivan: "I don't know what she will really do. I do know that it goes against everything we know about Clinton that she would revoke any of the powers - including the power to order torture - that Cheney has given the executive branch. And I don't trust her."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Clinton has long distinguished herself as unusually friendly to executive power for an opposition party legislator, so there's little reason to believe that if she becomes president she'll be eagerly rolling the boundaries back from where Bush pushed them. I wonder if conservatives will be happy about the idea of HRC-administered torture, on the grounds that they just really love torture, or, maybe, once it's being done by a politician they don't admire they'll start to see that there's a problem here."

Undecided Kevin Drum initially was critical of Clinton: "Spin and ambiguity are part of the game. But if you can't even take a full-throated, non-weasely position against torture and abuse of prisoners in American custody, what the hell good are you?" But later updated: "Want to know how efficient the Clinton campaign is? Twenty minutes after I posted this I got an email from Peter Daou, their internet director, telling me that Hillary hadn't been fully quoted."

The HRC comments the Post decided to leave out included: "I think we have to draw a bright line and say 'No torture - abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that." Drum comments: "I like the "bright line" comment, but "what we think we know about what is going on right now" isn't exactly a ringing denunciation. I think we have a pretty good idea of what we know right now."

Taylor Marsh, The Left Coaster's Jeff Dinelli, and Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt all defended Clinton. Dinelli writes: "Is there any way to make that clearer? Should she have written it down on paper and handed it to Kornblut and Balz? Or are they simply conducting an interview whereby no matter what Hillary says, they're going to clip and paste together the contents of the answers to serve the theme the writers want to convey?"

Mark Kleiman explains how Clinton could clear up the issue: "1. Issue a simple statement: "When I'm President, there will be no waterboarding, no cold room, no sensory deprivation, no 'long time standing,' and no renditions." ... 2. File, and ask for hearings on, a bill for the relief of Khaled al-Masri."

CLINTON II: Big Girls Don't Apologize

After first claiming that "the moment to define Hillary [Clinton] with her 2002 [Iraq AUMF] vote -- rather than her current antiwar rhetoric -- has passed" MyDD's Todd Beeton explains why Clinton's vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran is a much better avenue of attack for her opponents:

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment can not truthfully be seen as giving Bush a blank check to use military force against Iran, but it certainly makes Clinton vulnerable to the claim that she didn't learn the right lesson from her Iraq vote and she knows it. ... I tend to think, though, that she's most vulnerable on this issue to the extent that her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment reveals her to be much more hawkish than her supporters might think she is.

Also looking at Clinton's AUMF vote, the IA Independent reports that Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe told a Grinnell, IA, coffee shop Clinton would never apologize for her '02 vote because: "A woman? ... Can you imagine?"

Open Left's Chris Bowers links and comments: "I always suspected something along these lines, but I didn't expect anyone to get a high profile Clinton support to actually come out and say it. ... I don't think that McAuliffe is necessarily wrong to worry that Republicans will make gender related attacks against Hillary Clinton. After all, they have been doing so for decades. However, if the Clinton camp is going to decide that ever apologizing for making a big mistake will be problematic because she won't look "tough enough," then, well, that unfortunately sounds a lot like the current administration."

DODD: If We Were Allowed To Give, We Would Totally Plunk Down $20.04 For A Chance To See Fenway

Atrios liked Chris Dodd's latest fundraising pitch so much he plunked down $20.04. From Dodd: "There's something magical about playoff baseball under the shadow of the Green Monster ... So let's go to Fenway Park... I've got two extra seats -- great seats -- to Game Six of the American League Championship Series against ... Here's how it works. You make a minimum contribution of $20.04 (in honor of the last time the Red Sox won the World Series, 2004) and you have as good a shot as anyone else to attend the game."

OBAMA: Mixed Messages

Noting Barack Obama's 10/10 attempt to capitalize on the 5th anniversary of the Senate's 77-23 Iraq AUMF resolution, MyDDTodd Beeton claims: "any Democrats purged their 2002 AUMF demons in 2004 when they supported John Kerry." Turning to Iran, Beeton links to Obama's explanation for why he did not vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran's Revolutionary Guard and comments: "Not exactly a stark difference there and Obama's authority on the subject is somewhat undermined by his own absence from that vote."

Also examining Obama's attempts to distinguish himself Iraq, AMERICA Blog's John Aravosis links to NJ/MSNBC reports that voters are holding up '2013' signs at Obama campaign stops and comments: "I still don't understand why Obama and Edwards didn't just say 'yes, at the end of my first term major combat operations truly will be over in Iraq.' They could go on to qualify that we'll still need troops to protect the embassy, etc. ... But the 'we can't remove them in three to six months' line was kind of irrelevant - we're not talking three to six months, we're talking 5 years. ... Again, it's just a bad answer."

Also critical of Obama's messaging, Open Left's Chris Bowers quotes from Obama's website: "Americans are tired of divisive ideological politics, which is why Senator Obama has reached out to Republicans to find areas of common ground. He has tried to break partisan logjams and take on seemingly intractable problems." Bowers responds:

It feels like Obama is identifying a problem, changing his definition of the problem in mid-speech, and then explaining the problem away by the end. First, we are told that our major national problems are going unsolved because of ideological and partisan division for which both sides are to blame. Then, we are told that, actually, Republicans and conservatives are to blame. After that, it turns out that Republicans and conservatives will work with you and become progressives if you just ask them. Um, OK. ... Obama's rhetoric is both confusing and just plain wrong.

OBAMA II: They Won't Be Fooled Again

Barack Obama continued to take moderate netroots criticism for his 10/9 promise to support a new trade agreement with Peru. At Working Assets, David Sirota follows up on a post from 10/9: "Following his announcement yesterday that he will be supporting Wall Street's push to expand NAFTA into Peru, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has embarked on a campaign of misdirection - ironically (or perhaps, predictably) similar to the original campaign of deception that marked the original debate over NAFTA. ... To the Obama partisans who refuse to acknowledge these basic facts out of a blind sense of Partisan War Syndrome, go ahead - fill up the comments with your excuses, your misdirections, your justifications and your absurdly dishonest claims."

Open Left's Glenn Hurowitz adds: "Obama is once again helping pass one of President Bush's top priorities ... I don't know for sure if Obama honestly felt that the Peru Free Trade Agreement was, on balance, the right thing to do, or whether he just wanted to curry favor with the major corporations whose financial support is fueling his campaign. It's probably a little of both. ... That's why it's hard for me to get excited about Obama's admittedly ambitious climate and energy plan or his plan to end the war. Having lofty goals is great, but those goals will be meaningless without the stiff spine needed to achieve them."

BLOGGERS VS BLOGGERS: It's A Shame We Can't Get These Crazy Kids Together

The fight between progressive and conservative bloggers over the Dems use of a Baltimore family (the Frosts) in the SCHIP debate got even more personal 10/10 when Ezra Klein challenged Michelle Malkin to a 'good faith' argument over SCHIP. Klein blogs: "My sense has been that Malkin doesn't want an argument. Rather, she wants to feed her readers the steady stream of outrage that keeps her traffic numbers up. If this is a policy argument you care so deeply about as to travel to the Frost family's house to see if they really deserved S-CHIP benefits, surely you'll want to set up a web cam and talk through the issue. ... This is the politics of hate. Screaming, sobbing, inchoate, hate. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to drive to the home of a Republican small business owner to see if he "really" needed that tax cut."

Malkin responds: "A good-faith debate would require that Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein actually be a person of good faith. ... He is proudly touting the discovery of a blog post I wrote about my experience with Maryland's individual health insurance market in 2004. ... Is it Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein's view that only commentators and analysts who adore the current state of the market are allowed to criticize S-CHIP's mission creep? If anything, health care entitlement growth will make the problems I wrote about three years ago worse-problems due in significant part to the government regulations. ... Most noxious is the continued sanctimony of left-wing bloggers positioning themselves as champions of the children of working-poor in their embrace of S-CHIP expansion. Notice how they say nothing about the entitlement creep that has this working-poor children's health insurance program covering a growing number of adults."

Malkin also explains why she visited the family's $160K commercial property: "The reason I went to the Frosts' commercial property was to try and interview Halsey Frost. He wasn't there, which is why I ended up talking to one of his two tenants, who was happy to share his views. In fact, he noted that two other media outlets had stopped by. He was happy to talk to them, too. So much for my 'grilling' and 'harassment' of the Frosts' friends."

Hillary Clinton internet director Peter Daou posted Clinton's support of the Frosts at Daily Kos: "There was a young boy who was 12 years old named Graeme Frost. He was in a bad car accident and he didn't have health insurance but thankfully he had a program that I helped start in 1997 with Ted Kennedy and others called SCHIP. ... I don't mind if they pick on me. They've done it for years. I think I've proven I can take care of myself. But George Bush and the Republicans should lay off Graeme Frost and all the other millions of American children getting their insurance from SCHIP."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Six Simple Steps For Dating Bloggers

Jerome Armstrong identifies "Six Things You Can Do Now" to help recruit blogger support for your organization: 1. Take the first step with outreach to local bloggers; 2. Have a daily-updated website to engage and empower the bloggers; 3. Be on the blogs and advertise on the blogs; 4. Get your opposition research onto the blogs; 5. Use YouTube; 6. Create a web presence on Facebook, MySpace and other social networking sites.

LEST WE FORGET: We'd Hate To See What The Marlins Would Do For Nick Saban Night

Deadspin points us to the winner of MLB.com's inaugural Minor League Promotion of the Year Award. The Fort Myers Miracle won for their "Billy Donovan Night" in honor of the Florida Gators coach who first signed to coach the Orlando Magic but then backed out one day later. From MLB.com: "[A]t the heart of the evening was this little nugget of genius -- any fan who had second thoughts about attending the game was given the opportunity to negotiate out of their ticket purchase by consulting with a lawyer."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

October 10, 2007

10/10: The Roger Clemens Of The GOP Field

When their stable of inadequate options left them significantly behind their arch rivals, partisans began yearning for a familiar southern face to come out of retirement and save the team. Months after the rest of the competitors entered the game, the savior did return ... although his performance could be described as average at best. We're talking about the New Yankees and Roger Clemens of course, but the above story line could easily be applied to Fred Thompson as well. Like Clemens, Thompson's debut in 10/9's CNBC debate proved he could still compete at a major league level, but it was also painfully obvious that he is not the savior many were hoping for. Clemens ended his season in only the second inning on 10/7 after getting shelled by the Cleveland Indians. We'll see if Thompson's comeback has a happier ending.

CNBC DEBATE: Exit Tommy Thompson And Enter Fred

Three moments seemed to capture all that was newsworthy from 10/9's CNBC GOP debate: Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani's fight over taxes, Romney's "We're going to let the lawyers sort out" Iran answer, and the exchange NRO's Jim Geraghty says we'll 'be seeing for the next 48 hours':

Mitt Romney: This is our sixth debate, and I thought it's like Law and Order - there's a huge cast, it seems to go on forever, and Fred Thompson shows up at the end.

Fred Thompson

: And to think, I thought I was going to be the best actor on this stage.

The Corner's Kate O'Beirne managed to have succinct consensus opinions on everyone's performance: "I don't think there has been a real stand-out performance by anyone. Format? Topic? Too repetitive? Fred Thompson has held his own and gave the best answer on war powers question. Rudy Giuliani has given a typically competent performance - found opportunity to criticize Hillary. John McCain seems sober, maybe annoyed? A few weak answers from Romney and he picked a puzzling fight with Rudy that he didn't win." Candidate specific reactions include:

DEBATE GIULIANI: A Singles Hitter

• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Rudy is such a talented guy. Answer-to-answer in these debates he's just very impressive."


• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Rudy was strongest for me. He was optimistic, funny, comfortable talking about these issues. He thrives on the little dust-ups with Romney and Paul, and continues to play presumptive nominee by taking shots at the absent Hillary."


• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Giuliani, the clear winner, was on top of his game from start to finish."


• RCP Blog's John McIntyre: "Appeared confident and on the offense. Clearly acts like the front-runner."


• The Corner's Mark Hemingway: "Giuliani appears to be leading the field by virtue of being the most consistent guy in the field. That said, he's reliably hitting singles. I don't feel like I've seen a home run from him yet."


• RCP Blog's Tom Bevan: "Another solid performance. Rudy came off well in his exchange with Romney over the line item veto despite the fact he's probably in the minority on that issue with the base. The most notable part of Rudy's performance is that he took every possible opportunity to bash Hillary and the Democrats."


• The Corner's Kate O'Beirne: "The governor's generous "we both believe in low taxes and cutting spending" sure gave the mayor a lot of ground. Dispute then down to different versions of line-item veto - advantage Rudy. Although it is the latest example of Rudy's judicial philosophy, i.e. activism from the bench."

DEBATE MCCAIN: Should Stick To Debating In New Hampshire

• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "McCain is a real scold tonight."


• RCP Blog's John McIntyre: "what most people will probably take away from today, was the trouble McCain had hearing the questions. Fair or not, it made him look old, and for the first time I found myself thinking about his age."


• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "McCain was solid, but a bit subdued. He didn't approach his commanding performance of the last debate."


• The Corner's Mark Hemingway: "McCain isn't doing badly, but to continue his recently ascendant trajectory he sure could use another commanding performance like he had at the last debate. So far this isn't it."


• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "I appreciated McCain's unabashed defense of free trade on a stage with a bunch of hemming and hawing. Well done, informed history lesson for everyone. McCain is generally good in debates, but I'm not convinced this is a comeback for him."


• The Corner's David Freddoso: "McCain Takes On Big Ethanol! He's back - it's the old John McCain from the Senate floor! I imagine he's definitely skipping Iowa now."


• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "McCain continues to make a reluctant conservative take a second look."

DEBATE ROMNEY: You Have The Right To Not Consult An Attorney

• The Corner's Mark Hemingway: "'We're Going To Let The Lawyers Decide When We Go To War' ... What a terrible answer on Mitt's part."


• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Romney's performance was mostly good, but his "ask the lawyers" line was probably the night's (afternoon's?) biggest gaffe."


• The Corner's EM Zanotti: "When asked about Iran, Mitt responded with deference to the legal system and the internationals. I suppose whether that is a good strategy depends on the lawyers and internationals in question...and gave Ron Paul the upper hand. "


• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Romney's "ask the lawyers" will perpetuate the sense he is not tough enough, confident enough in a post 9-11 world. And someone will have to explain why he thought the line item veto was a winner."


• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "On the economy and trade, taxes and optimism, Romney has the edge, but he miffed the Iran question. ... The talk of lawyers --probably a fumbled reference to when and if the War Powers Act applies, but you couldn't really tell-- was not his finest hour, but also not the huge deal that some want to make it out to be."


• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Romney on Farm Subsidies. Not very crisp. Not his greatest night."


• Campaign Standard's Fred Barnes: "Romney should have been a stronger presence, given the debate was focused on economic and financial matters, his issues. He talked about the value of having a president with experience in working in the real economy. That's a fair point, but Romney wasn't able to make much out of it."

DEBATE THOMPSON: Giving Average A Good Name

• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Fred Is....Fine. Not making any mistakes, but not shining by any means."


• Captain's Quarters: "Thompson showed that he was comfortable and prepared, even for the silly attacks from other candidates."


• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "For the record, I think Fred's not great, but fine tonight. That may be all he needs."


• RCP Blog's John McIntyre: "Shaky start, but finished very strong. Hurdled whatever bar was set for him."


• Right Wing News: "Fred's performance improved significantly and he seemed funnier and more comfortable. All in all, even though he didn't win the debate and could have used a bit more pep, I think he showed that he has the requisite amount of personality and speaking skills to carry the GOP mantle in 2008."


• RCP Blog's Tom Bevan: "[I]t certainly wasn't a breakout performance, but he didn't fall flat on his face either. ... Fred blended in on the stage among the rest.


• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Fred Thompson strikes me as a good guy and a good conservative, but I don't see any special appeal there."


• The Corner's EM Zanotti: "[S]o much more polished than two weeks ago at Mackinac. His camp can at least consider this an improvement.


• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Thompson did well for his first time out. ... Thompson needs to become more consistently sharp, and he probably will. However, he looks old, and I don't think there's much he can do about that."


• Campaign Standard's Fred Barnes: "The impression he created in Tuesday's Republican debate in Detroit wasn't that of a dominant figure or a replica of Ronald Reagan. But he came across as likable, knowledgeable on issues but not wonky, and unexcitable. So Thompson passed the test of whether he could run with the big boys in the Republican race."


• The Brody File: "What people wanted to see tonight is whether Thompson belonged on stage and if other candidates would make him look bad. They did not and he proved that not only he belongs but he is a force that is not going away."


• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Thompson wasn't great and wasn't awful. He seemed like a fellow comfortable in his skin but in second or third in the race."


• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "It was not a shining debut, but he didn't hurt himself."


• RedState's Erick Erickson: "I thought he started off slow with the first answer, but by the end, Thompson was holding his own, throwing zingers, and by the luck of the draw, looking very statesman like standing between Romney and Rudy as they squabbled with each other."


• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Fred Thompson is just flat. Period. And the perpetual frown isn't going to win anything."


• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "And the Winner Is... Fred Thompson. He showed up - a big thing - and he didn't do bad at all."

THOMPSON: Palmetto State Or Bust

Right Wings News participated in a 10/9 pre=debate conference call with Fred Thompson manager Bill Lacy. highlights include:

Q: In light of the comments by James Dobson, what are evangelicals saying to you?

A: Dr. Land and Gary Bauer have been very vocal in our support. We will continue to work to make a case to the social right.

Q: Mitt's strategy seems to be to win Iowa and New Hampshire -- then hope that vaults him to the top. Rudy seems to be aiming to clean-up on Super Tuesday. It sounds like you're hoping to just do well, but not necessarily win in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then win SC and count on that momentum to take you into Super Tuesday. Is that your strategy?

That's basically right. This is a winnowing process. We don't have to win Iowa and New Hampshire; we just have to go into SC viewed by the voters as being a competitive candidate.

DEM FIELD: This Has To be Playing Well Somewhere Right?

The netroots were not impressed by John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson's decision to pull their names off of MI's 1/15 primary ballot. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas comments: "Ridiculous. It's fear, no less. They are letting Iowa decide where they can travel and who they can talk to. Whoever the nominee is will have to go back to Michigan during the general -- a swing state, let's not forget -- and explain why they gave them the big "f' you" during the primaries."

Open Left's Chris Bowers adds: "As for potential blowback, I have a hard time seeing Iowa or New Hampshire residents getting angry at [Hillary] Clinton for staying on the ballot in Michigan. And, as far as the general election goes, now she won't have to deal with any potential blowback from withdrawing her name from the ballot in the primary. Score another point for the Clinton campaign."

CLINTON: You Go Girl

After posting a defense of Hillary Clinton's confrontation with IA voter Randall Rolph, Taylor Marsh reports many have accused her of being "in the bag for Clinton." Marsh responds:

I have no intention of standing by while the first viable female candidate for president is unfairly depicted, mocked, or politically gutted because she's strong, but instead is called "harsh." Any woman who has ever stood her ground knows what this is about. It will not be ignored on my watch, on my show or on this blog. ... Clinton and I will never agree on everything, but we do have one thing in common. We understand how hard it is for a woman to do what she's doing, especially in the boy's club where national security, military matters and foreign policy, at least in America, are seen as guy things. Ask Nancy Pelosi.

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt admits she has received similar accusations and reiterates she has not made up her mind between John Edwards and Clinton. Merritt then goes on: "Like Taylor, I'm covering the 2008 election, not a single candidate. I write about Hillary the most because so far she is the most interesting candidate. She also has great campaign outreach through Peter Daou, her Internet communications director. He doesn't flood our e-mail boxes with every possible soundbite, but knows the individual blogs well enough only to send each those items he thinks would be of interest. As to what he sends TalkLeft, he's always on the mark."

EDWARDS: Sometimes The Medium Is Not The Message

MyDD's Todd Beeton critiques an innovative John Edwards networking tool ... a text message directing the recipient to call in for a voicemessage from Edwards manager David Bonior. From the message: "In head to head matchups, John Edwards beats out Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson with a 9 to 11 point lead in both the latest Rasmussen and SurveyUSA polls. John is the only Democratic candidate that beats each Republican in these match-ups."

Beeton comments: "Putting aside for a moment the concern troll aspect of the voicemail, this idea that John Edwards is the only Democrat who can win next year this argument also smacks somewhat of desperation, since for much of the campaign, Edwards has been very much about making the policy argument for his candidacy; if he's resorting to citing polls, doesn't that mean the policy argument isn't working? Also, while I'm unaware of exactly to whom these text messages were sent, the Bonior voicemail seems a bit insider baseball to be effective on a mainstream level. ... Very smart way of potentially expanding his list, I just don't know if this was the message to do it.

OBAMA: If Only The Rest Of Us Understood How Truly Marvelous Obama Really Is

Barack Obama fans in the netroots are still hoping Obama will stop just "trying to show us how marvelous he is" and instead exhibit the 'ruthlessness' necessary to win elections. Ezra Klein comments: "The most remarkable political triumph of this campaign was the Clinton campaign effectively defining Barack Obama's 'new politics' as 'not attacking Hillary Clinton by name.' ... It was real incompetence on the part of Obama's handlers, and it's called into question his skills and, yes, ruthlessness, as a campaigner."

TPM's Josh Marshall responds: "I suspect this gets the order wrong, and that the 'strategy' is rooted in the personality. ... I'm getting the sense that it's a little more that Obama thinks what he's selling is so choice that people will come to it rather than bringing it to them. And that can lead to a kind of campaign passivity and fuzziness, notwithstanding confidence and scrappiness."

Less convinced of Obama's inherent 'choice'ness, Working AssetsDavid Sirota picks up on reports that Obama will vote for a trade agreement with Peru next week and comments: "Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project - a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. ... Trade has been known to be a huge issue in Iowa (remember Dick Gephardt in 1988), so this announcement could very well ripple through the 2008 primary.

Andrew Sullivan explains why he is not bothered by Obama's recent "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth," statement. Sullivan: "I have worried about Barack Obama's tendency toward liberal Christianism in the past, but, although it isn't to my taste, I don't think, after more research, that it strays too much into the kind of social Gospel of Bush, Dobson or, on the left, Jim Wallis. Obama has too much Niebuhr in him. The Drudge-highlighted phrase "Kingdom on Earth" would worry me more if it hadn't been uttered in a church service and if Obama's record weren't demonstrably subtler than a simple Bush-like transference of abstract religious doctrine onto a complicated, fallen world."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: A Make Or Break Issue

The netroots are pressuring members of the progressive caucus to defeat provisions in the RESTORE Act that would grant telecommunications companies amnesty for any past cooperation with Bush Administration surveillance efforts and that allows the Bush Administration to obtain 'umbrella warrants' from the FISA court. Glenn Greenwald blogs: "There is absolutely no justification whatsoever -- neither substantive nor political -- for expanding the scope of warrantless eavesdropping powers and especially for granting amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms. It is unconscionable even to consider any changes to FISA without full disclosure by the administration of how they used their illegal and secret warrantless eavesdropping powers in the past."

Fire Dog Lake's Christy Hardin Smith urges: "Please make calls today to all of your elected representatives in the House and Senate and tell them this is important to you - and that it is important that they get this right. That means no retroactive immunity for telecom companies that may have already broken the law. No bypassing the FISA court where jurisdiction is appropriate for US citizen surveillance."

Greenwald warns: "If the Democratic Congress capitulates yet again, there will be plenty of time and opportunity for all sorts of recriminations. I think it is quite encouraging that much of the "netroots" is now devoting its energies and resources not to supporting Democrats, but to opposing Congressional Democrats who merit defeat."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Location, Location, Zoning

Virginia Postrel writes:

Dallas and Los Angeles represent two distinct models for successful American cities, which both reflect and reinforce different cultural and political attitudes. One model fosters a family-oriented, middle-class lifestyle-the proverbial home-centered "balanced life." The other rewards highly productive, work-driven people with a yen for stimulating public activities, for arts venues, world-class universities, luxury shopping, restaurants that aren't kid-friendly. One makes room for a wide range of incomes, offering most working people a comfortable life. The other, over time, becomes an enclave for the rich. Since day-to-day experience shapes people's sense of what is typical and normal, these differences in turn lead to contrasting perceptions of economic and social reality. It's easy to believe the middle class is vanishing when you live in Los Angeles, much harder in Dallas. These differences also reinforce different norms and values-different ideas of what it means to live a good life. Real estate may be as important as religion in explaining the infamous gap between red and blue states.

LEST WE FORGET: We Thought Kramer's First Names Was Kosmo

Few things piss DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas more than the flood of catalogs that seem to invade his mailbox on a daily basis. Kos blogs: "I don't request the damn things, yet somehow they seem to find their way. ... Enter Catalog Choice, a project endorsed by the NRDC and the National Wildlife Council to help stem this wasteful practice. ... You enter your personal information, check off the catalogs you receive from a list, and they contact those merchants and ask that they stop sending you their crap. And the real impact of participating and spreading the word could be huge."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:44 PM

October 09, 2007

10/9: Like Slipping Into A Nice Warm Bath

The more we think about it, the more we are convinced 10/9's 4 PM CNBC debate is the perfect forum for Fred Thompson to make his initial stand with his WH '08 GOP challengers. First, with the afternoon start time and CNBC venue, we can be sure very few voters will be watching the debate. Second, the MSM will of course be watching very closely, but either through design or luck, Thompson has lowered expectations so far that as long as he does not "make any humongous gaffes" he can walk away from the debate a winner. Finally, this debate serves as a perfect warm up for 10/21's Fox News debate in Orlando, FL. Considering how many GOP primary voters actually watch Fox, that will be Thompson's first real test. If anything tonight's debate is more like a Roger Clemens Tampa Yankees start than a major league debut.

MCCAIN: Fearsome Foursome

John McCain's web presence got a lot younger, and dare we say prettier, with the introduction of McCainBloggete. McCain daughter Meghan McCain, La-Toria Haven, Heather Brand, and UT Gov. Jon Huntsman daughter Mary Anne Huntsman will all be contributing to the blog's focus on "politics, pop culture, fashion and our adventurous spirits."

PAUL: Bigger Than Dean

In light of the fact that 70% of Ron Paul's $5 mil. 3Q haul came from the internet, Townhall's Matt Lewis asked Paul com. dir. Jesse Benton to differentiate Paul from Howard Dean: "[Paul] has had a legitimate following for over twenty years. ... the internet has matured a little bit and is more capable of translating online activism to on-the-ground organization."

ROMNEY: A Case Against

Responding to a pro-Mitt Romney blog's defense of Romney's '94 claim, "Look, I was an Independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I am not trying to return to Reagan/Bush," NRO's Jim Geraghty spells out exactly what about Romney's record troubles him including:

• If I had been called out for bragging about a state police program to deal with illegal immigrants that never went into effect, I would be embarrassed.
• Similarly, if I had several "sanctuary cities" in my state during my governorship and hadn't done much of anything to deter them, I would hesitate before going after one of my rivals on that front. Romney doesn't seem to have that hesitation.
• I'm not going to give Romney much grief about his conversion to the pro-life cause, I'm just going to note that he's got a lot of past comments loudly supporting abortion rights that any Democratic rival will use to paint him as a flip-flopper in the general election.
• Like with the abortion comments, if Romney says he's committed to Second Amendment rights, great, but he's got a bunch of comments in the past that have him backing various forms of gun control
• His health care plan's individual mandate. Romney supported individual mandates in Massachusetts, but says he wouldn't support that kind of plan nationwide.
• Finally, during the Iowa debate, Romney suggested there was something inherently unethical or wrong in describing or criticizing your opponent's positions

THOMPSON: But How Many Will Skip Oprah?

Conservatives are not expecting a command performance from Fred Thompson in 10/9's 4 PM CNBC debate. Thoughts include:

• RCP Blog's Tom Bevan: "I don't want to over hype the importance of tomorrow's debate. Fred must clear the same hurdles everyone else must clear every time they attend one of these things: appear competent and don't make any humongous gaffes. But Fred also faces additional scrutiny given it's the first week of October and it's his first time on stage. ... Negative media spin isn't going to kill Thompson's campaign, but at this point in the game it's not inconsequential."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[I]t's natural to view Tuesday's debate as Thompson's opportunity to prove he's ready for prime time. That's fair enough, as long as one keeps in mind that the people he needs to prove this to are Republican voters, not beltway insiders.
• Lucianne.com: "Fred Thompson Prepares for His First Debate. Debate begins at 4:00 EDT today. Will Fred's career be finished by 5:00.p.m? Worth skipping Oprah for the outcome?"

Few conservatives are impressed by Thompson's ex-Sen. George Allen (R-VA) endorsement either. NY Sun's Ryan Sager argues they are a match made in heaven: "If not for Mr. Allen's implosion in 2006, he would have been reelected to the Senate and crowned the presumptive standard-bearer for the continuation of the Bush legacy - a fake-southern, big-spending, social-conservative-friendly good ol' boy."

CLINTON: For those Of You Keeping Score At Home, Kos Really Does Not Like Hillary

Two separate foreign policy stories out of NH and IA are reminding the netroots why they are uncomfortable with Hillary Clinton as their nominee. Responding to Union Leader reports that Clinton endorser ret. Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy "supports Clinton's promise to withdraw the majority of U.S. troops from Iraq if she is elected President. But ... does not consider her position to be opposing the war as it is currently being conducted," DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas responds: "Huh? What the heck is she talking about? Is this some pathetic attempt to differentiate herself (and Hillary, by extension), from those dirty f***ing hippies that just want to, er, end the war? But if she wants to broadcast to all of New Hampshire that Hillary is not anti-war, then by all means, she should keep doing so."

Open Left's Chris Bowers was a bit more forgiving: "Given all of this, is Hillary Clinton "opposed" to the war in Iraq, or not? I think the answer is that she has pretty much always been in favor of the war, but in the last couple of years has also been in favor of reducing the size of our military involvement. ... Perhaps a good analogy is that her views on Iraq are more JFK than LBJ: both are hawkish, but one is narrow and targeted while the other is expansive and prone to quagmires."

Also at Open Left, Matt Stoller links to reports out of New Hampton, IA, about a "a harsh back-and-forth" between Clinton and an audience member over HRC's 10/3 vote in favor of labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Stoller suggests: "The most effective attack angle here, both for Obama (with his record breaking number of activists) and Edwards (who is running on populist rhetoric), would be to argue that this is an example of Clinton is dismissing "regular people" who disagree with her as campaign plants."

Again, Markos was less forgiving: "She's being asked that question because many can't believe that Hillary is so damn stupid as to give George Bush a rationale for attacking Iran. ... Does she think her audience is that stupid? Apparently so. ... No wonder she won't apologize for screwing up the Iraq War Authorization. She sees nothing wrong with that vote, and has every intention of casting that kind of vote over and over again."

EDWARDS: Hey, If Stanford Can Beat USC...

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas notes that he can not find anything in the FEC's regulations that prevents a party from naming its nominee before their convention and then explains how John Edwards could salvage his electability despite his pledge to accept public financing:

• He wins big in the early states and cleans up on Feb. 5.
• The rest of the candidates drop out, so he's the only candidate.
• The DNC holds a meeting (with all its delegates) and formally recognizes Edwards as the nominee.
• This one is important -- Edwards opts out of public financing in the General.
• Money flows like water, and then Edwards can truly run on "ideas" knowing that 1) he'll have the money to deliver those ideas to voters, and 2) beat back the inevitable swiftboating efforts.

OBAMA: Remember When The Netroots Expected Good Policy Out Of Barack?

Barack Obama's promise to auction off emission credits instead of assigning them to existing polluters earned his 10/8 energy plan strong netroots reviews:

• Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker: "All in all a pretty bold plan, though I would have preferred the addition of a carbon tax. However, this part [the auction part] seemed to be hinting at that."
• Gristmill's Dave Roberts: "Overall, I'm pleasantly surprised -- even shocked -- at its quality. It's a deft mix of good politics and strong, substantive policy. Here are what I see as the three headlines: 100% auction of cap-and-trade credits. ... Smart investment. ... A focus on efficiency."
• Brian Beutler: "It's extremely good. Exceptional in some places, slightly nebulous in others, perfectly in line with expectations in yet more, but also perfectly in line what we should expect from good public servants at this point, and certainly more than I expected from Obama."
• Matthew Yglesias: "The basic framework is a cap-and-trade system wherein the emissions credits are sold by the government rather than given away. I've come to the view that this is actually preferable to a carbon tax on substance since it asks bureaucrats to perform the hard-but-doable task of setting an appropriate carbon goal and then letting the market sort out what implicit price that sets on carbon emissions rather than the so-hard-it-might-be-impossible task of guestimating what price will get emissions under control.

NM SEN: An Advantage Of Early National Primaries?

Reacting to news Albuquerque mayor Martin Chavez will run for retiring Sen. Pete Domenici's (R-NM) seat, New Mexico FBIHOP reports, "Chavez will have some measure of support in Albuquerque (he has, after all, won elections to become mayor multiple times), but among progressives, his name is almost as hated as Heather Wilson."

Despite acknowledging that their Draft Tom Udall (D-NM) effort has failed, the netroots still hope to influence the primary. Real estate developer Don Wiviott appears to be the local bloggers favorite but LG Dianne Denish (D) is also a possibility. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas comments: "I don't know if Wiviott will catch fire, but people do say good things about Dianne Denish. I really hope she runs. If there's solid consensus in the NM grass- and netroots, this may be a primary in which we might want to get involved."

SurveyUSA numbers showing Bill Richardson and Udall beating potential GOP opponents Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Steven Pearce (R-NM) also have some in the community hoping Richardson or Udall will still reconsider. MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes that the filing deadline for the Dem primary is 2/15 ... 10 days after a Richardson campaign may have been dealt a crushing blow in the 2/5 WH primaries.

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: The New Whips?

In an effort to help Congressional Dems pass SCHIP, the netroots are stepping up pressure on the five House Dem who voted with GOPers against extending the program. Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher blogs: "Since the passage of the S-CHIP bill, the DCCC has been running a campaign of phone calls and radio ads to pressure Republicans who voted against it into switching their vote and overturning Bush's veto. ... But what about the five Democrats who voted against it, and still refuse to switch their vote? ... this morning Blue America is joining with BlogPac to do the same thing by placing recorded calls in the districts of the five Democrats: Jim Marshall (GA), Baron Hill (IN), Gene Taylor (MS), Bob Etheridge (NC), and Mike McIntyre (NC)."

Open Left's Chris Bowers notes that the five have already been labeled 'Bush Dogs' and promises: "If primary challenges were to appear against any of these Democrats, I would support them."

On the merits of the debate, the Dems use of 12 year old Graeme Frost to deliver the Dem radio address has sparked a heated exchange between conservatives and progressives. The Corner's Mark Steyn blogs: "The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man's job, then the boy is fair game. As it is, the Dems do enough cynical and opportunist hiding behind biography and identity, and it's incredibly tedious. And anytime I send my seven-year-old out to argue policy you're welcome to clobber him, too. The alternative is a world in which genuine debate is ended and, as happened with Master Frost, politics dwindles down to professional staffers writing scripts to be mouthed by Equity moppets."

Digby writes: "This is so loathesome I am literally sick to my stomach. These kids were hurt in a car accident. Their parents could not afford health insurance --- and sure as hell couldn't get it now with a severely handicapped daughter. And these shrieking wingnut jackasses are harassing their family for publicly supporting the program that allowed the kids to get health care. ... They'd better pray that they stay rich and healthy and live forever because if there is a hell these people are going to be on the express train to the 9th circle the minute they shuffle off their useless mortal coils.

IRAQ: A Range Of Emotions

Corner contributors Rich Lowry and Victor Davis Hanson both posted quick reactions upon returning from Iraq. Lowry writes: "I'm back from a brief trip to Iraq that left me feeling awed, encouraged, and depressed. Awed because our troops and commanders are amazing. Encouraged because we've turned the tide in a lot of places, especially Sunni areas. Depressed because Iraq has slid so far in 2006 and because what we need for this ultimately to work-some form of Sunni-Shia reconciliation-is not entirely under our control."

Hanson blogs: "[W]e might well be witnessing an historic change in Iraq that would have profound effects throughout the region. The Iraqis are just beginning to step up effectively to their own defense, and are reaching out to the Americans-rather than solely vice versa as was mostly true between 2003-6."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Primaries For Everybody

Lamenting the lack of primary challenges despite the historic unpopularity of Congress, Open Left's Matt Stoller identifies three reasons why local officials don't challenge Democratic incumbents in Congress or the Senate under the header 'The Broken Market for Democratic Primaries':

• Information Gap: It's impossible to effectively judge, as a potential candidate, whether there is support for a primary challenge.
• Resource Gap: Should a challenger emerge, there is still a resource gap. PAC directors, party committees, lobbyists, labor, members themselves - they will and do support incumbents.
• Institutional Gap: Perhaps this is the biggest problem of all - party insiders hate primary challenges and have built up a set of cultural arguments against them within donor and activist networks.

Stoller concludes: "Fixing this market is a long and slow process that started in 2006. To reorient the incentive system, we must consider supporting primary challengers wherever they appear, if only to send the message to other potential candidates that there is a guaranteed base of support for people willing to challenge calcified incumbents."

LEST WE FORGET: The Proof Is In The Parades

Matthew Yglesias comments on Indigenous People's Day: "I keep kinda sorta forgetting that today is Columbus Day. One of the United States' niftier quirks is that Columbus has been adopted as the Italian-American national hero, so in cities with large historic Italian immigrant populations you see some Columbus Day celebrations, but in places like DC there's nothing. This, in my view, is how you can tell that Baltimore -- with its Columbus Day parade -- is the southernmost of Northeastern cities whereas parade-less DC is the northernmost city of the southeast (if you doubt me, note that the original lyrics of 'Hail to the Redskins' enjoined the team to 'fight for old Dixie')."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:51 PM

October 04, 2007

10/4: Robbing Obama To Pay Paul?

Responding to colleague queries about who a now well funded Ron Paul could possibly take actual votes from, AmSpec Blog's James Antle argues: "Probably not very many from any of them, since a Republican or independent drawn toward Paul is probably too alienated from the rest of the Bush-era GOP to find the others an acceptable second choice ... Paul's bid will mostly just keep these people voting in the Republican primaries."

We tend to agree. So from what pool of voters will Paul be sharing possible converts. One needs only to visit Atlantic Voices to find out. From Andrew Sullivan: "My feeling about this election is that it reminds me very much of 1991 in its restlessness. But it's more interesting than that. ... It's obvious from this blog that I too find Ron Paul and Barack Obama by far the most interesting candidates. Not because I agree with them on everything. But because they alone represent the courage to move past the past. The rest seems exhausted to me."

Is Sullivan on to something? Both Paul and Obama sport fervent supporters in love with their candidates commitment to 'real change' and frustrated by establishment Washington. Maybe not in IA, but in a state like NH where independents can vote in either primary, we think a strong case can be made that a viable Paul campaign hurts Obama the most.

DEM FIELD: This Just In ... Television Advertising Works

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal links to Advertising Age's Evan Tracey analysis showing "Bill Richardson leads the pack, airing over 4,000 commercials in an effort to move up in the polls in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Barack Obama is close behind with close to $2 million invested in TV time, mostly in Iowa. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, because of their profiles, were able to skip the typical bio spots and have spent far less."

Blumenthal comments: "Not surprisingly, the poll trends follow the money: Richardson has seen a modest bump up in his support to roughly 12% in Iowa and 10% in New Hampshire. Obama, Tracey tells us, has run ads "mostly in Iowa." Thus, Obama's trend line is up in Iowa, but trending slightly downward in New Hampshire and elsewhere. And while he's a little unclear on exactly where Clinton has spent that $1 million on the last five weeks, he implies she's buying television in both Iowa and New Hampshire and radio in South Carolina. Her trend lines are on the rise in all three states, as they are nationally."

Blumenthal then posts a table showing favorability changes by month for the Dem Field. Open Left's Chris Bowers links and comments: "It is interesting that Clinton was leading in New Hampshire even when she had lower favorable ratings than other candidates in the field. ... I don't really know how an electability narrative helps Clinton, but I can see how it hurts her. Over the past couple of days, we have seen countless stories talking about Clinton's dominating lead in polls and fundraising. After such coverage, and with very high favorables among her main opponents, how can she not take a massive, potentially campaign-ending, momentum hit if she loses Iowa?"

CLINTON: The AFT, IUBAM, NALC, IAM, UTU Juggernaut

Two new Hillary Clinton endorsements; two very different netroots reactions. First the good, from Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Personally, this is the biggest endorsement of the campaign for me so far. The [American Federation of Teachers] has played a very large role in both my life, and the life of my family. ... I trust the decisions they make. If they decide to endorse Hillary Clinton, that means a lot to me ... The AFT endorsement of Hillary Clinton improves my image of Hillary Clinton, just as my parents endorsement of Clinton has done so in the past. I still don't think I will vote for her in the primaries, but it is yet another reason why I am definitely not anti-Clinton."

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta reports: "The move was long expected for three reasons: Clinton's historic commitment to and advocacy work around the education of children have given her deep relationships in the education community; the largest AFT affiliate is based in New York; and more than three-fourths of teachers are female. ... This brings the number of national unions endorsing Clinton to five, the others being: the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers; the National Association of Letter Carriers; the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace workers (IAM); and the United Transportation Union.

Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums' 10/1 Clinton endorsement seemed to carry less wait in the community. The Huffington Post's reports: "Dellums has been tarnished since his longtime support of Oakland's Black Muslim Bakery, run by a group of criminals who have terrorized the bakery's neighborhood for years, came to light in August when Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey was murdered, presumably as a result of his nosing around the organization."

Also at HuffPo, Marc Cooper adds: "It was a pretty straightforward political deal. The aspiring presidential candidate promised the former congressman that, if elected, she would appoint him as head of a key national policy committee. And in return, the former congressman, now the mayor of a major Democratic city, endorsed the candidate. No surprise, either, that the candidate in question was Hillary Clinton. ... Oakland is the kind of place where Greens frequently out poll Republicans and while Brown is considered a solid liberal in the rest of the state, he became reviled by many of his original boosters for allegedly becoming too centrist. Dellums might have just taken a sharp right turn down that same path."

In more positive HRC blogging, The Huffington Post's Dave Johnson and James Boyce report "we hear from senior people in other campaigns that they are impressed at how hard [Clinton] works, how good her team is, how they keep working all day, every day." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to news Clinton supporters helped defeat a ballot initiative on presidential electoral votes and comments: "Despite several reservations obvious enough that I won't go into them, I'm pretty sympathetic toward Hillary Clinton's candidacy." TPM's Josh Marshall notes ABC-WaPo polling showing "strong margins Americans believe Bill Clinton is an asset to Sen. Clinton's presidential candidacy" and remarks: "To which I would say, no kidding."

Finally, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat flags a WaPo item showing Brookings scholar and Iraq surge supporter Michael O'Hanlon is a Clinton foreign policy advisor and blogs: "Why would Senator Clinton want the support of someone who has diametrically opposed views from hers on the most important foreign policy issue of the day? ... Hillary should immediately renounce O'Hanlon's support and frankly, it is hard to fathom why he is supporting her."

DODD: Winning The TechPresident Primary

Marc Ambinder blogs on Chris Dodd's online team: "for a campaign run largely by veterans of Washington, he's used emerging technologies more fruitfully than just about everyone else. The campaign posted casual, behind-the-scenes videos of its headquarters, interviews with key staff members, blogged live from the spin room, created graphics with speaking times for candidates during debates, using Youtube videos to whip bills in the Senate."

TechPresident's Joshua Levy links and adds: "Marc Ambinder picks up on something we at techPresident have long acknowledged ... Dodd's web staff is far and way the most inventive and creative in the field."

OBAMA: Kumbaya Ain't Cutin' It

Opinions differ as to why, but the verdict is clear: Barack Obama's campaign has stalled. Explanations include:

• The Huffington Post's Adam Moorad: "If he is to make any headway as the Democratic frontrunner, his tactics must change. ... It is not that Obama is moving in the wrong direction. It is that he is not moving in any direction. ... His reputation is gradually overshadowing him. ... Attacking Clinton could jeopardize his image as the man who refuses to do things the old, Washington way. Furthermore, there is little evidence that Obama's candidacy offers much of a distinction between his and Clinton - except for her greater experience. That fact makes Obama's task all the more difficult."
• Oliver Willis: "Either Hillary Clinton is going to absolutely destroy her Democratic rivals on the way to the White House, or John Edwards and Barack Obama need to find a way to wake up their sleepy campaigns. ... I think that sort of kumbaya rhetoric is not what a post-Bush Democratic base wants to hear at all. It certainly does nothing for me, and in many ways I'm supposed to be Sen. Obama's target demo."
• Brendan Nyhan: "Obama is paying the price for the easy road he had in 2004. The collapse of his main primary opponent and his landslide win in the general election meant that he never had to go negative. As a result, he is not comfortable doing so and spends much of his time spouting goo-goo nonsense about everyone getting along. The reality, however, is that negative campaigning is essential to democratic politics, especially when you're not the frontrunner. It's how voters get (a) competition for their votes and (b) sharp contrasts between the candidates. Right now Obama's reluctance to go negative is depriving Democratic primary voters of both."
• The Plank's Michael Crowley: "I'm wondering whether there's another problem with Obama's campaign theme: namely, that Democratic primary voters don't particularly want hope right now. They want revenge! Heads on stakes! As much satisfying payback as possible. Maybe lots of swing voters really do want to end the "partisan bickering in Washington" and bridge ideological differences--but not Daily Kos readers and their ilk."

LIEBERMAN: Super Joe?

Daily Kos commenter JohnnyGunn notes that DNC has allocates 51 Senate super delegates and worriers: "Does Joe Lieberman qualify to be a super delegate at the 2008 Democratic Convention? I cannot think of a greater slap in the face than to have this shill for the Bush administration show up in Denver. But he might do so."

Gunn explains: "Lieberman recently registered as a Democrat in Stamford. So does he qualify for super delegate status? ... I contacted the Democratic National Committee's Office of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection. I was assured that Lieberman was not considered a Democrat, but was told that the delegate selection status would remain "in flux" until early March. That sounded like both a "No" and a "Maybe" answer."

Gunn urges: "If you believe, like I do, that this violates Democratic Party rules and rewards someone for ignoring the results of a legitimate primary election, then I urge you to contact party officials at the DNC."

GOP FIELD: Mega-Dittos Indeed

Supporting Rush Limbaugh against Dem attacks has become a benchmark issue for GOP WH '08ers. Official candidate responses noted by conservatives include:

• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I just got this from Fred Thompson, I'm told it will be available on his website shortly: 'Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?'
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I shot off a query to the Romney campaign ... Not only did the campaign respond immediately, Governor Romney called the show to discuss the controversy and state that Rush has 'got a long record of supporting our soldiers. There's no question that this is a man who has been very much on the side of our fighting men and women.'"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty asked John McCain, "Looking at Senator Harry Reid's reaction and the response of other Congressional Democrats, do you think this is an effort to create an equivalent to the MoveOn.org "Betray-Us" ad?" - McCain responded: "Sure. As I said, I don't think it was appropriate to say that, but really, to demand apologies and whatnot? I can't tell you the number of times I have misspoken, and when I have, I've tried to correct it and tried to move on. I think Rush is saying he was only talking about one figure. To me, this issue is closed."

GIULIANI: The Last Line Of Defense Between You And Hillary

Townhall's Matt Lewis posts audio of Rudy Giuliani's new NH radio ad and translates some excerpts:

• "They're not going to find perfection" - Translation: You know about the skeletons in my closet. I'm not gonna try to hide them...
• "There are two big things at stake for the country..." - Translation: Social issues aren't included in the "big" issues. And my personal life's not one of them, either.
• "If they agree with most of them (his issues) ..." Translation: Don't get hung up on social issues. If you agree with most of my positions, vote for me.
• "The Republican that Democrats just don't want to run against." - Translation: I'm electable. Otherwise, you'll get Hillary!

HUCKABEE: Most Improved

Mike Huckabee took wide criticism for his weak 3Q fundraising numbers, but The Corner's Stephen Spruiell looked on the bright side: "I think I spoke too soon when I compared Mike Huckabee's third-quarter fundraising totals unfavorably to Ron Paul's. If it's true that Huckabee raised "around $1 million" this quarter, that's a 31-percent increase over his second-quarter total of $766,000. ... at least the numbers are moving upward for Huckabee, which is more than one can say for Giuliani, Romney, or especially McCain."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin flags Wall Street Journal polling showing "6 in 10 GOPers think free trade has been bad for the US" and comments: "Maybe Huckabee is not as far out of the GOP mainstream as free market conservatives would like to think. ... It would seem that Republicans office holders and candidates have perhaps taken it for granted that their base understands the necessity of free trade and the benefits of globalization. As on so many topics it is time for GOP leaders including presidential contenders to make the case with voters."

MCCAIN: He Did It For The Children

NRO's Jim Geraghty scored an interview with John McCain in SC including this McCain response to a Drudge Report headline claiming 'RETREAT: MCCAIN BACKS OFF CLINTON CRITIQUE': "I was scheduled to give speech to Camden Academy. It's kind of unique, it's like a military academy, it's sort of like the Citadel, but on a high school level. They had prepared a speech for me, and these kids, they're in uniform. They want to hear stories like my Christian [I think he's referring to the guard in the POW camp who loosened his bonds and drew a cross on the ground] and the flag, and how great military service is. I scrapped the entire prepared remarks - not specifically my comments regarding Senator Clinton. ... How in the world this [headline] came is just bizarre."

Also at NRO, Geraghty shares an observation from some NH sources: "So one of my guys in the Granite State noted two nice editorials about John McCain in the New Hampshire Union Leader up there, and remembered their op-ed about 'the comeback' . He said he's seen critical house editorials from the paper on Giuliani (for taking the cell phone call) on Romney (on his pro-life credentials) and Thompson (for missing that New Hampshire debate). He wonders if that means the newspaper's potential endorsement choices have narrowed to McCain and Huckabee."

PAUL: Not Quite As Funny As He Used To Be

Reason's David Weigel confirms Ron Paul's $5+ mil. 3Q fundraising hall and then crunches some numbers: "So he's raised about $8.2 mil. and spent $2.9 mil., a burn rate of around 35 percent. That's a little lower than the burn rate for the frontrunning candidates-though if you're a cynic you could ask why Paul's investment hasn't shown up in the polls."

Voices throughout the conservosphere are also mystified as to where Paul's cash and support are coming from. Captain's Quarters blogs: "It may be time to stop laughing at Paul and start thinking about where his support originates, and whether it means anything for the general election." The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez shares an email: "I personally think that Paul is the Howard Dean of this campaign, in an that an enthusiastic, almost fanatical grassroots does not equal votes. But it does count for something. I think all the Paul people, almost all Republicans of one sort or another, are going to end up sitting out the general election."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager muses: "[H]e certainly represents a dedicated super-minority of activists and grassroots donors who have spent quite a lot of time agitating for their man online and bringing in the bucks. It hasn't brought the Big Four candidates a millimeter closer to the Paul position on the Iraq war or foreign policy generally. But the Paulites have made their presence known."

THOMPSON: Whatever You Do, Don't Call Him Newt

Some divergent takes on Fred Thompson 10/3. First the good: Instapundit thought Thompson contrasted himself with Hillary Clinton well on Hannity and Colmes and Race4'08s William Reston urges Thompson "to kill Mitt Romney" in IA and "do it now."

Next the bad: The Corner's Stephen Spruiell tracks Thompson flip-flopping on Ethanol Subsidies and NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs: "In 1996, A Thompson Spokesman Said It Was 'Inaccurate' To Say He Voted the Newt Gingrich Line."

Finally, the ugly: The Brody File posts video of Thompson's Des Moines Register editorial board meeting including this Thompson quote: "If a state chose to recognize it (gay marriage) and the Governor signed off and signed it into legislation so be it." Brody comments: "His position here is not new. But the words 'so be it' may be just a tad bit flip for social conservatives. The marriage issue could very well be a problem for Fred Thompson with many Evangelical voters. ... Comments like "so be it" don't help. ... Thompson is trying the federalism track here but here's where he gets into trouble.

NM SENATE: At Least Somebody Was Ready For This Retirement

The netroots have already identified their preferred candidate for retiring-Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM): Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM). Announcing the creation of an Act Blue fundraising page for a Draft Udall campaign, MyDD's Adam Conner pitches: "Tom Udall is the only Democratic member of the New Mexico House delegation, has won statewide twice as Attorney General, and had $715,000 in the bank at the end of July. He's also a progressive legislator who opposed the War in Iraq and has a deep interest in solutions to the global warming crisis."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer is also a fan: "Back in May, for instance, Udall voted against the Iraq supplemental funding legislation that did not include a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from the country. In short, he doesn't vote perfectly 100 percent of the time, but he is a solid progressive and would presumably continue to be one should he be elected to the United States Senate."

Matthew Yglesias dissents: "With Pete Domenici set to retire, mightn't this be a good time for Bill Richardson to consider dropping out of the presidential race and running for Senate?"

BLOGGERS VS MSM: GOPers Love Rush More Than Dems Love MoveOn

GOP Congressmen couldn't post at RedState fast enough to show they stood behind Rush Limbaugh 100%. GOPers posting include:

• Min. Chief Dep. Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA): "This issue is bigger than you or me, it is bigger than Rush Limbaugh. With the recent liberal effort to resurrect the "fairness doctrine," we have to recognize that free speech -- conservative free speech is under direct attack. ... I want to send Washington Democrats a message that their attempts to distract aren't working - I stand with Rush Limbaugh against liberal attacks."
• Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): "I believe these attacks on talk radio are a precursor for returning censorship to the airwaves of America in the form of the Fairness Doctrine. ... This week, Congressman Greg Walden and I requested that Democrat leaders bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor of this Congress immediately, and take the power away from the FCC in this, or any future administration, to regulate the airwaves of America."
• Min. Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): "This could've been an opportunity for Democrats to demonstrate real leadership by standing shoulder to shoulder with those of us who support our men and women in uniform, and condemn the reprehensible actions of people like Jesse MacBeth. Rush Limbaugh is clearly one of these men. His support for our troops is incontrovertible."
• Rep. Vito Fosella (R-NY): "Rush Limbaugh is a favorite target for the left, but his support of our men and women in uniform is unquestioned. If Senators wants to debate Rush on the merits of the war, so be it. But they should not be questioning his patriotism or his commitment to those who wear our nation's uniform."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Apparently, He's Never Seen Junior

Boi from Troy looks at Hillary Clinton's $5K baby bond proposal and asks: "But if the Baby Bond is only available to families of newborns-what does that mean to gays and lesbians? First of all, because of nature, most of us aren't creating much more than Jelly babies-and I do not think they're included in her plan. Adoptive gay parents will be left out if the payout goes to newborns, leaving only lesbians as potential beneficiaries. ... So, quite specifically, gay males are the only potential parents who are not eligible for the Baby Bond benefit. You would think that candidates would start thinking about the discriminatory effects of their ideas before they go out proposing them..."

LEST WE FORGET: Mad Frums

TAPPED's Matthew Duss asks us to "read the following and see if you can guess whether David Frum is writing about Iraq back in 2003, or about Iran today":

You want realism? It's this: The emerging US-____ confrontation is a confrontation of ___'s choice and ____'s making. It is ____ that has determined to seek nuclear weapons, ____ that has declared it will use those weapons aggressively against its neighbors, and ____ that has made a nonsense of the long negotiations with the UK, France, and Germany. We are rapidly reaching the point - maybe we have reached it already - where ____ has succeeded in reducing our choices to two: acquiesce in a nuclear bomb or stop it by force. As for the idea that the present ____ regime can be a negotiating partner - a constructive force in the region - or anything other than a menace to its neighbors or its own people, well we need another term for that. How about "fantasy"?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:40 PM

October 03, 2007

10/3: Much Ado About Everything

Fair minded people can read the transcript of Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" exchange below and decide for themselves who exactly Limbaugh was or was not referring to, but we can all agree on at least one thing: this tempest was sparked by GOPers succeess in passing motions through both the House and Senate condemning MoveOn. The netroots worry that they succeeded in damaging the credibility of one of their core institutions and they want payback. QandO's Jon Henke blogs on the subject, but first quotes lefty blogger Glenn Greenwald: "the real success of blogs comes not from single, easily identifiable spectacular achievements, but rather, by the gradual re-shaping of the dominant political narratives, by changing how political and cultural issues are discussed, by influencing how the media conducts itself in covering our political process."

Henke comments: "I am not criticizing the people quoted above for their observations. They are correct. There is nothing inherently wrong with "battlespace preparation", "media bulldozing" or attempting to shape conventional wisdom. ... But make no mistake, "battlespace preparation" is exactly what it is. The Left is keenly aware of it, and they're preparing the battlespace with an eye on the long term."

BLOGGERS VS MSM: A Controversy On Loan From God

Netroots efforts to delegitimize Rush Limbaugh intensified 10/2 with a $60k ad buy by the group VoteVets.org and the launching of a campaign by ret.-Gen. Wesley Clark to remove Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio. Clark pitches at The Huffington Post: "Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as "phony." ... It's time to put real pressure on Rush Limbaugh. His show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and this time we are going to go straight to the lifeblood of Rush's show -- Congress. Congress has the power to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio, and it won't be as easy for elected officials to ignore our call."

For the record, the transcript of what Limbaugh actually said on 9/28 can be found here. The offending exchange includes:

CALLER: And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

One minutes and fifty seconds later in the show, Limbaugh explains: "

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. ... What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. ... Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. ... Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was."

Media Matters, who originally flagged the 9/28 exchange for other bloggers to amplify, offers a 'FACT CHECK' on the controversy including:

Misinformation: On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.

Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment. Moreover, as the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq.

NRO's Byron York reports that Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" phrase was inspired by ABC's 9/24 story on "phony heroes" that also covered MacBeth's lies. York summarizes: "Where the controversy goes now is not clear. Democrats, and particularly their supporters in the left-wing blogosphere, are pressing for payback over the MoveOn.org affair. But Limbaugh's explanation will likely make it harder to make the clear-cut case against him ... The fact that Limbaugh, on the original September 26 program, brought up the ABC report, unbidden, to explain the "phony soldiers" remark suggests that that indeed was what he had in mind at the time he said it. That's also supported by the fact that he had recorded a commentary on the story the day before, and that he printed out and re-read that commentary on September 26 as he explained "phony soldiers." It was clearly on his mind."

If the netroots have their way, the controversy is heading straight to Congress. Those calling for Limbaugh's removal from Armed Forces Radio include:

• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "It's past the time for empty gestures. Senate Democrats should never have let the Cornyn bill [the MoveOn condemnation] onto the floor. Now it's done, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Take Rush off the air. Really, Senators, protecting the troops from this kind of abuse actually is your job.
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "We need to start matching our moments of outrage to policy solutions that reinforce our ideological vision for the country. Part of that vision is for a government that no longer subsidizes right-wing hate speech but instead promotes a diversity of views over the media."
• Digby: "Limbaugh is a cancer on the body politic and we have to stop being afraid of him --- or being above these "petty squabbles." One of the main sources of Republican power is their ability to gin up controversies like this latest MoveOn thing and it behooves us to go after them with the same amount of fervor when the opportunity presents itself. They will keep doing it until the price becomes too high."

CLINTON: In Clinton They Trust

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum looks at Washington Postpolling showing "there isn't a single category in which [Hillary Clinton] doesn't lead. Dems trust her on Iraq, trust her on terrorism, trust her on healthcare, and trust her on the economy. They even - hold on to your hats for this one - think she's more likely to reduce partisan bickering in Washington than either Obama or Edwards. ... Actually, believe it or not, I think that last one might even be right. Yes, the loons are still out there, but everything I've read suggests that Hillary is a pretty effective senator and works well with her Republican counterparts, who appreciate the fact that she runs a tight ship, knows what she wants, and delivers what she says she'll deliver."

Also commenting on HRC coverage, Matthew Yglesias notes a Drudge Report banner trumpeting Clinton's 3Q fundraising advantage and blogs:

I'd like to see a nominee who's approach to the right's domination of American political discourse is to challenge it, rather than try to cozy up to it. You see much the same thing in Clinton's relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Sure, as long as she's seemingly ascendant and willing to court these people, they're happy to play nice. But when the chips are down -- when the right is, say, trying to get her removed from office on a flimsy pretext -- does she think Murdoch and Drudge are going to have her back? Where are they going to be when she has a tough legislative battle? When she's looking to elect friendly members of congress in the midterms? It all seems bafflingly self-centered and short-sighted to me.

Finally, Eli at Fire Dog Lake wants to see the exceptions taken out of Sen. James Webb (D-VA)'s new bill restricting Pres. Bush's authority to go to war with Iran: "If Webb and Clinton have any sense they'll take the exceptions out of the bill, in which case I can wholeheartedly support it, even though it's more symbolic than anything else. ... It would probably go down in flames, but at least the Republicans and Bush Dogs would be forced to declare their undying love for war."

CLINTON II: Sounds Like A Great Place To Meet Single Women

The Huffington Post's Mayhill Fowler reports from a Barack Obama rally held just before Hillary Clinton's 9/30 Oakland, CA, rally:

Comparing the two block parties isn't quite fair, since the Obama event is largely in-house and doesn't feature the man himself. But I can't help it. The differences are too tempting. For Hillary, white middle class womanhood is out in force. Club 44 women and WASP-looking blonde college students organize the growing throng. Women in sensible shoes, carrying good leather purses, with short topcoats folded over their arms, stream past me to the end of the line, two blocks down Broadway. ... The carnival atmosphere is more pronounced than at Party Obama. The prospect of Hillary has attracted a juggler, a man on a tricycle in pirate costume, a chubby guy in dirty jeans and a Dr. Seuss hat trying to sell his audience on the Church of Reality, illegal merchandise vendors, and a Whiffenpoof-like singing group for Lyndon LaRouche.

DODD: The Only Non-Obama Candidate Left In The Kos Primary

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat links to a David Yepsenarticle titled '1st-Tier Dems Timidity On Iraq May Create Opening' and comments: "Chris Dodd's campaign is based on one major issue - that the leadership we will want in our next President is demonstrated by the leadership a candidate shows now on the major issues of the day. The biggest issue is, of course, Iraq, and Chris Dodd is fighting to insure a Democratic Congress does not fund the Iraq War without a date certain for ending the war. This fight is attracting notice in Iowa."

EDWARDS: Dangerous ... And Not In A Good Way

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links dKos legal expert Adam B's analysis on the implications of John Edwards decision to accept public money and comments: "This is dramatic and worse than I ever imagined. When talking to the Edwards campaign, they stressed the state limits, and how so few things applied to it (mostly advertising, and not even the full cost, at that). They neglected to tell me the far more important overall spending cap -- the $50 million figure. And that's what makes his nomination so dangerous. ... No matter how much the Edwards campaign argues that this is a decision based on principle, it's not."

OBAMA: He Knows What You Did Five Summers Ago

Barack Obama's 10/2 speech attacking Senators for the '02 AUMF vote was widely appreciated among the netroots. Reactions include:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I really, truly, and deeply despise the claim from some Democrats, including Kerry in 2004 and Clinton more recently, that the vote back in 2002 wasn't about going to war with Iraq. To argue that this vote was not about authorizing the war is to leave the reality-based community on Iraq. Period. Obama is absolutely right on this one.
• Atrios: "The Iraq war came about in large part because of a complete failure of our elite Village institutions. Bygones, they say."
• Jack and Jill Politics' rikyrah: "Whether or not you agree, he's finally bringing his 'A' game."
• Matthew Yglesias: "To try to use my decoder ring for a minute here ... He's saying that simply returning to the pre-Bush policies aren't going to resolve our problems with Iran, but that we need the sort of newer policies that he and his team of people -- people who had the courage and judgment to make the right call on Iraq, when the conventional wisdom and political pressure went the other way -- are prepared to implement."
• Andrew Sullivan: "This is more like it. The war is his issue; and it is his ace against Clinton."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "And finally, is the inherent conflict in calling these "Turn The Page On Iraq Rallies." In the same breath, the Obama campaign is asking us to "turn the page," to move on from the past and look to the future while at the same time urging us to look back five years to a moment that they believe should serve as the principle rationale for his candidacy."

SPITZER: Doing It For The Children

NY Gov. Elliot Spitzer blogs at Daily Kos and The Huffington Post: "Why I'm Suing the Bush Administration ... the Bush Administration is still refusing to let New York and other states across the country expand their State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP). The President is refusing to back down from destructive new rules his Administration has imposed - the sole purpose of which are to curb bi-partisan state efforts to insure more of our nation's children."

GOP FIELD: Well At Least They Can All Agree Bush Spent Like A Drunken Sailor

The Corner's Larry Kudlow links to two Wall Street Journal 10/2 items on the state of the GOP and blogs: "On page one we have "GOP Is Losing Grip on Core Business Vote." This all goes back to the lack of budget discipline in the last Republican Congress. ... Meanwhile, Rich Nadler's WSJ op-ed explains why a deportation, criminalization, and "enforcement first" policy is a huge electoral loser for the GOP. I mentioned this last week. Why can't the message on immigration be a balanced one? ... Republicans losing their grip on the business vote? This is very pessimistic stuff. Sure, these problems can be turned around - all of this is salvageable. But the GOP needs to make the case."

Right Wing News responds: "'Why can't the message on immigration be a balanced one?' ... Why? Because it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that if you pass security measures and an amnesty at the same time, you get the amnesty, but you don't get the security. That's because the Chamber of Commerce crowd, which includes guys like Larry Kudlow, methodically work to kill any and all security measures that may cut into the supply of cheap labor for American business."

GIULIANI: Why The Left Is Only Googlebombing Rudy

Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at polling from NH, CT, and MA and blogs: "If you want to know why I don't buy the notion ... that Rudy Giuliani isn't a threat in the general election, polling in the northeast is one of the major reasons why. If we find ourselves in a serious fight over New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, and a much closer than expected fight in Massachusetts, then the electoral math becomes extremely complicated. And just imagine Giuliani bombarding those northeast states with ads in the spring and summer while our nominee does not have the ability to fight back and is getting smeared by the Republican Noise Machine. That is a total freaking disaster in a year that is supposed to be so favorable to Democrats."

Bowers was significantly less impressed with Team Giuliani's claims he could win up to 520 electoral votes. Conservatives weren'tterriblyimpressed either. NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs: "But beyond that, is the real news in the Giuliani campaign red-blue-and-purple state map that they think Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Louisiana would be "purple" and thus competitive in a head-to-head matchup with Hillary Clinton? That's 56 of Bush's 286 electoral votes that Team Rudy admits Hillary would have a shot at. One other thought - all of the states above are purple, but Arkansas stays red?"

GIULIANI II: How Rudy Finesses On Life And Immigration

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein links to Rep. Peter Sessions (R-TX) defense of Rudy Giuliani's pro-life record and comments: "There are many arguments that can be made in Giuliani's favor as a candidate, but I agree that if he's "predominately pro-life," then words have no meaning."

At The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru blogs: "I would like to know where he stands on our policy of not giving family-planning funds to groups that promote or perform abortions overseas. It turns out Giuliani told Laura Ingraham, on her show in May, that he would "maintain" the policy. I don't know if he has ever said that he would veto attempts to weaken or abolish it, as President Bush has promised."

Fellow CorneriteYuval Levin responds: "Couldn't Giuliani help himself with social conservatives and make things simpler for everyone by committing to just upholding the status quo on social issues-abortion, embryo research, marriage, and the like? Why not say that while he's not inclined to move right he will veto efforts to move left on any of those areas, and so will keep things where they are now?"

At RCP Blog, Blake Dvorak posts video of "Joey Vento, owner of Philly's renowned "Geno's" -- the one which made all the headlines serving to only those who speak English -- talking about his guy, Rudy."

MCCAIN: Land Of A Thousand Comebacks

Captain's Quarters links to Minneapolis Star TribunepollingJohn McCain trailing Rudy Giuliani by only 5% and surmises: " The strong showing may have its roots in the endorsement of Tim Pawlenty, who signed onto the McCain campaign early and has remained adamant in his endorsement ... If he can start showing strength in Iowa, he may be back to where he was in January. His comeback does not appear to be vaporware now. If he can keep people like Pawlenty in the fold, he may still have some surprises left up his sleeve."

ROMNEY: While We Were Out Monday...

RCP Blog's John McIntyre flagged ARG results showing Mitt Romney leading Fred Thompson 26% - 10% in SC and emailed the firm to find out why their results were so out of whack with other SC polling. Dick Bennett responded: "There is always the possibility that it is the sample, but the interviewers alerted me on Wednesday night that Romney was way up in SC so I added some follow-up questions and it is tied almost exclusively to recall of Romney's TV advertising. We saw the same thing in IA and NH. ... We also know that Romney's newest ad (Change Begins With Us) is not working in IA and NH and has caused Romney to slip in those states."

THOMPSON: We Forget Where We Were, But We Were Definitely Not Watching A World Series

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru links to Fred Thompson's new 'Where Were You in 1994?' line of attack on his GOP rivals and comments: "Thompson can, I think, legitimately claim to have the most consistently conservative record of any of the top four candidates. But this back-to-the-revolution tactic illustrates how trying to win a primary makes candidates do things that aren't helpful in winning the general election. I know that a lot of conservatives believe that Republicans will come back if they recapture the ardor of 1994, but there is plenty of evidence that the country is not where it was back then."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin blogs on the theme: "First, Thompson's strength is not biography or resume. It is being the "comfort food" for conservatives hungry for a soothing figure. Sending them down memory lane is not playing to his strength and raises the "but what did he do?" comeback."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle responds: "Fred Thompson is running not just as conservative comfort food, though that is certainly part of his appeal -- he is taking advantage of conservative nostalgia for times, real and imagined, when Republicans were seen as more principled."

RedState's California Yankee is unconvinced: "Fred should be cautious here. He was part of the 1994 Republican Revolution, but his most significant Senate achievement involved the passage of the so-called campaign finance reform."

Finally, Townhall's Matt Lewis links to a Law and Order clip of Thompson and comments: "As you'll see, unlike Thompson on the stump, [New York District Attorney Arthur Branch] is neither folksy nor affable. Instead, he is confident and in command. I think the American public was expecting Arthur Branch, but got Fred Thompson, instead ... But he's an actor. He can become Branch.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Americans Still Love Cars

Responding to thoughts at TAPPED on personal vs mass transit, Atrios blogs:

Let me play a bit of a contrarian for a moment and point out that while it is true that various policies lower the price of automobile travel and make people consume more of it, ultimately the issue of roads-vs.-transit is really more of a preference issue rather than price tweaking issue. While certainly individuals respond to the choices and costs they're faced with, overall these policies exist to a great degree because that's the world people want to live in.

Or, to put it another way, lots of people like automobile-centric suburban development. Not everyone does, but lots of people do. To sell more mass transit oriented policies, one has to convince people that a world with more mass transit-suitable development is a world people want to live in. It isn't simply about building more trains and fewer roads. My guess is that people are increasingly open to moving away from the post-war American dream aesthetic, but I'm not sure of that.

LEST WE FORGET: The Hobbit Butler Revolution Is Coming

Dilbert Blog links to reports of "Australian scientists who found a new species of Hobbit-sized humans who lived about 13,000 years ago" and blogs:

I'm crossing my fingers that someday scientists will discover one of these hobbit carcasses encased in amber or whatever-the-hell would allow us to snatch some DNA and clone them. Since they aren't human, I think cloning would be legal. And although they have heads the size of grapefruits, scientists believe they were smart enough to use tools and hunt tiny elephants. That spells one thing: Hobbit butlers.

I want to be able to order a hobbit butler from a magazine and have it delivered in a box with air holes. My hobbit butler would always wear a tiny tuxedo, mostly for the cuteness. I'd call him Max, because of the irony factor, since he would be so tiny.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:33 PM

October 02, 2007

10/2: This Revolution Will Not Be Blogged

Watching the conservosphere debate the significance of social conservatives' threats to back a third-party candidate, should Rudy Giuliani win the nomination, we are struck by one thing: There is no voice in the blogosphere claiming to speak for the social conservative movement. Sure, The Brody File does a fine job delivering the opinions of established social conservative figures (like Richard Land and Tony Perkins), but there are very few bloggers who consider themselves part of the movement. Instead most conservatives bloggers speak of social conservatives in the third person.

Just look at the different terms used to describe the group. Today we quote conservatives using 'Christian Right', 'Evangelical groups', 'pro-lifers', 'pro-life grassroots', and 'Religous Right.' Whatever divide exists between social conservatives and the GOP in real life, it has definitely materialized online as well.

BROWNBACK: So Long And Thanks For All The Faith

RedState's Leon Wolf announced 10/1 that his "time as the E-Campaign Coordinator for the Sam Brownback Campaign has ended." Wolf explained: "I simply do not have the available time that is necessary to do the job properly. ... I am still, however, supportive of Senator Brownback and his campaign. I believe in his message, his character, and his vision for America. ... May God bless Senator Brownback and his efforts."

GIULIANI: '08 To Be GOP's '68?

Reports that "some of the nation's most politically influential conservative Christians" are threatening to back a third-party candidate should Rudy Giuliani secure the GOP nomination dominated conservative WH '08 blogging 10/1. Additional conservative reporting on the meeting includes:

• Family Research Council pres. Tony Perkins tells The Brody File: "This is about the life issue. There is absolutely no way that we will go with a candidate that is pro-abortion. ... We're not here to advance the agenda of the Republican Party. If they're not willing to advance the agenda of social conservatives, then we're not with them." Brody comments: "It's important to note that these Evangelical groups are still trying to find a viable candidate out there. They believe there are some alternatives to Rudy. Fred Thompson is definitely still on the table, Huckabee is receiving some support too and Romney is intriguing."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis heard AL Chief Justice Roy Moore was the early first choice for a third-party candidate, but Richard Viguerie shot down that idea in a later interview. Lewis summarizes more from Viguerie: "Viguerie believes the conservative movement has been lied to by the establishment Republicans for 45 years, and that it may be time to launch a true conservative party. He tells me that the 3rd party rumor isn't an ad hoc one-time effort to stop Rudy Giuliani, as was reported. Instead, it is a long-term paradigm shift in which conservatives will forever leave the GOP, it's natural home since Ronald Reagan."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty shares this nugget from Human Events contributor Nathaniel Blake: "Far better for the GOP to lose in 2008 than for pro-lifers to be marginalized from both parties. If Rudy gets the nomination, I will oppose him vociferously. I would want to see protesters with giant gruesome aborted baby photos crash the convention. I'd want the GOP version of Chicago in 1968."
• more from Geraghty's notes: "I took an informal poll of pro-life readers of National Review Online, and heard from about 150 grassroots who had past experience volunteering for GOP campaigns at the local, state, and presidential level. ... While the poll is unscientific, it seems reasonable to surmise that if Rudy wins the GOP nomination, anywhere from a quarter to a half of pro-life activists could be playing a different role than they did in 2000 and 2004

Reactions to these developments include:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Jim Geraghty speculates on whether a Republican can win a general election without energizing the pro-life grassroots. The way I see it, however, such a question will be rendered moot by the outcome of the GOP nomination battle. If Rudy wins, then it will demonstrate he is better at mobilizing support and getting people to the polls than his rivals. If he loses, then it will show the opposite to be true."
• Ankle Biting Pundit'sBull Dog Pundit: "I think many voters are like me. I'm solidly pro-life, and if it were up to me Roe v. Wade would be overturned and abortion left up to each individual state. However, in a post-9/11 world I'm more concerned about how the next President is going to fight the war on terror."
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Patrick Hynes: "I don't understand why some conservatives think that the GOP is entitled to the votes of the Religious Right and that religious conservatives are expected to act against their interests for the benefit of the partisan good. Indeed, I get the feeling that the Religious Right is the only group within the body politic of whom such a cynical bargain is expected."
• Captain's Quarters: "The problem with the Christian Right is that they have consistently made these threats in the past and have always dropped the idea when they started counting numbers. The groups have significant influence in the Republican Party because of their ability to organize and contribute, but their influence outstrips their actual size. Forming a third party would set them back at least a generation, and it would push Republican politics away from their agenda and towards the center, just when Democrats appear poised to abandon it."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Shrewd move. The GOP's already looking at near-certain defeat so evangelicals can walk away without worrying overly much about costing Republicans the election. Plus, the fact that they're willing to make good on their threat will put the, ahem, fear of God into the rest of the party ahead of 2012 and restore some of the emphasis on "values" that's been lost in the jumble of terrorism and Iraq."
• Soren Dayton: "Many conservative activists will point to the Goldwater experience of 1964 as an analogy. Then, the party had the luxury of no real chance in the election. The party and the burgeoning conservative movement could reshape itself along conservative principles without any real consequences. ... This kind of situation is how parties change. There is an underlying reality to a Giuliani candidacy that a lot of pundits have not understood yet. The post-George W. Bush, post-9/11 party is different than it used to be. More socially conservative, but also more conservative on the war on terror. And Rudy is their ticket to a seat at the table."

Both The Brody File and The Corner's Byron York were quick to point to a Gallup poll which York says, "shows Giuliani leading among virtually every group, including some, like regular church attendees and married women, who have been key markers in the past." Brody comments: "Read the poll results here. I'm not suggesting that Giuliani is unbelievably popular with Evangelicals. The polls show that he is more popular in other subgroups. But he does have traction with Church goers to the point where he actually is in front of every other candidate."

The Corner's Lisa Schiffren identifies a different source for Giuliani's problems: "The albatross around Giuliani's neck at the moment is his third wife, Judith. ... The problem with being a thrice-married man, whose children don't speak to him, who wants the American people to trust his judgment, is that there is no wiggle room on the personal behavior front. Not one inch. Judith is a liability and a half. She is vulgar, uneducated, grasping and insecure - and has failed to keep those attributes hidden."

MCCAIN: Oy Veh!

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin handicapps John McCain's efforts to mollify Jewish critics over his assertion that the US is a Christian nation. From McCain: "It's almost Talmudic. We are a nation that was based on Judeo-Christian values. That means respect for all of human rights and dignity. That's my principle values and ideas, and that's what I think motivated our founding fathers."

Rubin comments: "[T]here is a world of difference both factually and politically between the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "Christian" and, yes, I think McCain understands this."

ROMNEY: Which Romneys Don't Have Their Own Website At This Point?

Ann Romney hosted a blogger conference call to help launch her new website AnnRomney.com. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff blogs: "Mrs. Romney is an excellent spokesperson for her husband, and her website should help the campaign leverage this asset." Robert Bluey reports: "The site features AnnTV, her causes (she has Multiple Sclerosis), favorite recipes and links to stories about her, dubbed the AnnWire."

More from Bluey: "Regardless of what you think about Romney as a candidate, I think his campaign is making the right move by giving his family greater exposure online. Their personal stories and anecdotes from the trail help personalize Romney, arguably the candidate who needs it most because of his Mormon religion."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin was also on the call and pressed Mrs. Romney on stem cells: "I asked her about stem cell research and what she would say to MS patients and their families who think embryonic stem cell research offers hope. She pointed to the same turning point which her husband identifies as transforming his views -- the recognition that there is an 'ethical line in the sand' which is crossed when embryos are created for experimentation."

THOMPSON: Beating The Expectations Game

Conservatives are impressed but not bowled over by Fred Thompson's $8 mil. Q3 total. NRO's Jim Geraghty comments: "Had Fred come in the $5 million range, he would be largely written off at this point. Had he been well into double digits, he would be described as 'riding in on a white horse.' As it is, Team Thompson is off to a good start, enough to keep them in the game, but not enough to run away with the nomination this early."

Captain's Quarters adds: "Fred Thompson's fundraising since his announcement came to $200K per day. Extrapolated over a full quarter (90 days), that comes to $18 million -- a fundraising rate that would certainly be very impressive indeed. He also added 70,000 donors, a very substantial indication of a broad reach in the electorate." Right Wing News was also impressed: "[F]rom where I'm sitting, raising roughly $4.8 million in about 3 weeks isn't bad. It's a good indication that he'll probably be able to raise roughly $18-$25 million in the 4th quarter, which would be a very solid quarter. ... The verdict on Fred's numbers: Good, but not spectacular."

In less positive Thompson blogging, AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin challenges Howard Kurtz' claim that local media have given Thompson more positive coverage than national media: "The local press has been very tough. ... he gaffes from Florida were widely remarked upon negatively in the Florida press and, of course, the NH Union Ledger excoriated him for missing the debates there. There might be an argument that the entire press corps doesn't get him but holding up the local press as defenders of Thompson is just spin."

DEM FIELD: At Least We Can All Agree It's A Dead Heat In IA

Nobody seems terribly impressed with Newsweek's 9/29 poll showing Barack Obama with a 28% - 24% lead over Hillary Clinton among likely Democratic caucus goers. Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal notes that at the usual 95% confidence level, the +/- 7% MOE for the poll means: "that the probability of an Obama lead based on the Newsweek poll is about 50%. In other words, the odds of Obama 'leading' on this poll are no better than a coin-flip, if we were to take repeated samplings of exactly the same design."

Matthew Yglesias notes that the MOE isn't even the most dubious parts of the poll: "For something like this, uncertainty about the likely voter screen are probably going to be a bigger problem than sampling error anyway. ... But even more to the point, in a close, multi-candidate race the actual method used by the caucuses to allocate delegates starts to make a big difference. This method is, especially on the Democratic side, very complicated and tactical voting can start to make a big difference."

DEM FIELD II: We Sometimes Forget There Are Still People Who Haven't Heard Of Obama

Open Left's Chris Bowers combines data from Polling Report, Survey USA, and Rasmussen to produce Electoral College vote totals for the Dem frontrunners against Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The Romney results include:

Clinton 367 - 163 Romney
Obama 344 - 186 Romney
Edwards 362 - 176 Romney

The Giuliani results include:

Giuliani 327 - 211 Edwards
Giuliani 297 - 229 Obama
Clinton 261 - 235 Giuliani

Matthew Yglesias doesn't see much value in the numbers: "Whatever Chris Bowers' state-by-state polling may show, can't we all agree that Rudy Giuliani is not going to beat Barack Obama in Massachusetts? ... What we're learning with that post of Chris' are two things: (1) is that Hillary Clinton is plenty electable, and (2) Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are better known than Barack Obama and John Edwards. Nothing else."

CLINTON: Why Are We The Only Ones Convinced Webb Is The Next VP Of These United States?

Taylor Marsh was the first to report Hillary Clinton would be co-sponsoring an amendment with Sen. James Webb (D-VA) prohibiting the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization. The announcement comes a week after Clinton took harsh netroots criticism for voting for a Lieberman-Kyl amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Webb voted against the amendment. Marsh comments: "Joining Webb in co-sponsoring this legislation is critically important and a progressive move."

MyDD's Todd Beeton tracks the story and adds: "If anything demonstrates Clinton's sly ability to wage a general election campaign while waging a primary election campaign all as a sitting senator, it's this maneuver from Lieberman to Webb in a few short days." The Washington Note's Steve Clemons blogs: "Hillary Clinton needs to apply her ascending political weight to the passage of the Webb resolution. It is not enough to just support a resolution and watch it languish. This is a measure that needs to be passed and sent to the White House to rob legitimacy from any conflict Cheney and his followers might engineer in the waning days of this administration."

Even HRC-doubter Matthew Yglesias allows: "The political instincts that led her to vote for Lieberman-Kyle remain troubling, but this is obviously a big step forward."

CLINTON II: We've Seen This Movie Before

The netroots may not be huge fans of Hillary Clinton, but they dislike MSM HRC bashing even more. New York Times 9/30 items by Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd attacking Clinton on 'authenticity' and 'nepotism' drew lefty blog ire. For her efforts, Dowd earned 'Wanker of the Day' honors from Atrios. Other reactions include:

TAPPED's Scott Lemieux: "Frank Rich is once again trotting out asinine tautologies about the meaningless issue of Hillary Clinton's "authenticity." ... it's amazing to see Rich discussing the "conventional wisdom" of the 2000 campaign without discussing is own considerable role in the kneecapping of Gore."

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt goes after NYT's Patrick Healy for criticizing Clinton's laugh: "The implication: Hillary is a witch. As Media Matters has reported, Healy has been doing hit pieces on Democratic candidates for years while giving Rudy Giuliani a pass.

CLINTON III: If Only They Could Get 14,000 To Show Up For A Raider Game

A Left Coaster contributor reports from a Hillary Clinton 'block party' in Oakland, CA: "The most surprising thing to me was the crowd. I would imagine Sen. Barack Obama probably draws bigger crowds, but I was somewhat taken aback by the number of people that showed up. Someone who was making announcements claimed that the crowd was around 14,000 (this San Jose Mercury News article mentions a figure of 13,000, which, according to the article is a little bigger than the crowd that Obama evidently attracted in Oakland several months ago). ... One other interesting note about the crowd - even though African Americans constitute a greater percentage of the population in Oakland than Whites, the crowd seemed to have more Whites than African Americans."

EDWARDS: Campaigning On A Hsu String Budget

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta reports on a John Edwards conference call with Joe Trippi and Jonathan Prince: "the campaign is moving in a direction of intensifying its anti-Washington argument as a way of trying to draw sharper distinctions between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, taking advantage of the recent Norman Hsu fundraising scandal and Clinton's defense of lobbyists to portray her as part of 'the corroded busted rigged system of Washington,' as Trippi described it."

Franke-Ruta comments: "It seems to me that it would be political malpractice if the Obama campaign did not try to draw a contrast with Edwards in the months ahead on the topic of general election financial viability, and to sow concerns about Edwards' electability on the very financial ground upon which he has chosen to make his stand against Clinton. The Edwards-Clinton financial fight outlined by the Edwards campaign today would seem to work only in the absence of a third alternative, a candidate (Obama) who is not taking lobbyist money or bringing in the bulk of his donations through bundled large-dollar donations, and who has proved himself eminently financially fit for a general election fight."

Also talking Edwards and viability, Daily Kos' in house legal expert Adam B looks at the implications of Edwards pledge to accept matching funding: "The real cap issue is the overall spending cap for the primaries, which lasts from the start of your campaign through the end of the Convention in late August (when you're no longer seeking the nomination), and it's believed to be around $50M for 2008."

More Adam B: "As to that sum, Edwards spent $9.8M over the first six months, and is estimated to have spent about $8M more this quarter. Subtract from that the exempt expenditures, and he's got $33-35M left to spend between now and next August. ... By way of comparison, by eschewing the public financing program John Kerry was able to raise and spend $175,335,576 prior to the end of the 2004 Convention, and transferred an additional $40 million or so to various Democratic party entities."

Open Left's Chris Bowers notes the low state cap in IA (around $1.5 mil.) and sees opportunity to change standard Dem practice: "If Edwards were to rise in Iowa because of a well-executed cable buy that kept him under the spending limits while other candidates went hog-wild on broadcast but were stagnant in the polls, it could be one of those moments in campaigning that really changes institutional culture and hopefully making Democratic campaigns more innovative and efficient."

OBAMA: Against Fake Change

Commenting on the text of Barack Obama's 9/28 Howard university speech, Andrew Sullivan blogs: "He is very, very careful not to get too angry as a black candidate. Perhaps too careful for his core message: real change. What he needs to do is find a way to explain how serious he is about change while explaining that he alone can overcome the boomer polarization that has prevented it."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum isn't quite sure what Sullivan is talking about: "I hear this a lot, but I wonder if it misreads the American mood at the moment. Sure, the public is ready for "real change," but what kind of change? There are several obvious possibilities: A change from George Bush. Yes, definitely. But all three of the major Democratic candidates offer this. ... A change from movement conservatism. Ditto. ... A change from the the bitter polarization of recent years. This is obviously what Obama is hoping for, but how deep is the evidence for this? I've seen very little evidence that the American public is yearning for a round of Kumbaya. ... Change from the "I'm on a mission from God" style of leadership. ... From this perspective, Hillary Clinton is the agent of change, not Obama."

Later, Matthew Yglesias tries to set Drum straight: "I think the relevant idea here isn't 'an end to polarization' nearly so much as it is an end to what Obama has referred to as 'the smallness of our politics.' In this frame, partisanship isn't being contrasted to finer-grained efforts to find compromise nearly so much as it's being contrasted to the pursuit of broad thematic goals rather than politics as trench warfare in which the fighting is fierce but nothing ever happens."

Howard Dean WH '04 supporters were quick to discount Obama's number of new donors. Open Left's Chris Bowers notes: "He also broke Dean's record for campaign donors in a primary, although since a decent amount of that comes from people paying to get into campaign events, he is still well-off Dean's overall donation record." MyDD's Jerome Armstrong adds: "Obama's growth has trailed off though, in terms of comparison, from the previous quarters."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Like A Giuliani Supporter At A Family Research Council Meeting

Reacting to another use of the 'like a frog in a pot of boiling water' metaphor James Fallows challenges his readers:

Summary of the undisputed science on this point: ... If you put it in a pot of tepid water and turn on the heat, the frog will climb out -- if it can -- as soon as it gets uncomfortably warm. ... I will give a reward -- maybe some nice Chinese wine? -- to the person who comes up with the best simple metaphor for the underlying idea: that people get habituated to worsening circumstances that they'd reject if they considered them afresh. Only catch: the metaphor, unlike the frog story, can't violate the known facts. I bet that the whole topic of bad marriages would yield some possibilities.

LEST WE FORGET: Move Over Oprah

Working AssetsAdam Klaus noticed a 500 vote registration surge from an incoming Rock the Vote widget and investigated who was creating all these new voters:

It was, in fact, the Tyra Banks Show. Indeed, the registrations were coming from the website of the talk show hosted by none other than former supermodel and host of America's Next Top Model Tyra Banks. Her guest today was presidential contender Barack Obama, giving his first daytime talk show interview since declaring his candidacy. ... In addition to grilling the Senator on the contents of his iPod, his first date with Michelle, and the nuances of his plans for redeploying US troops from Iraq, she did something else: Tyra asked her audience to go to her website and register to vote."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

October 01, 2007

10/1: Till Tomorrow

The Blogometer is under the weather today, but will be back tomorrow. Till then please do check out our latest Bloggingheads.tv session, this time with Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis.

We discuss MoveOn's ad, the Dem frontrunner's refusal to committ to bringing all the troops home by 2013, Hillary's Iran Revolutionary Guard vote, SCHIP, and Edwards decision to accept matching funds.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.