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 October 24, 2007 12:37 PM