November 30, 2007

11/30: The (Least) Trusted Name In News?

In the conservative blogosphere, the fall-out continues over CNN's use of Dem questioners at Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube GOP debate. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt called the debate "a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM," while RedState's Directors called for firings and a boycott of CNN. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's battle over their respective health care plans has sparked a lively debate in the liberal blogosphere over the efficacy of health care mandates.

GOP FIELD: Still The Clinton News Network?

The Save the Debate coalition -- a group founded by conservative bloggers Patrick Ruffini, David All, Soren Dayton, and Robert Bluey which sought to encourage the GOP candidates to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate -- issued a statement harshly criticizing CNN:

"CNN's flawed editorial process in choosing the questions asked of the candidates marred an otherwise lively debate and betrayed the trust of the Republican candidates and the YouTube user community. In the most glaring example, a questioner affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign was given a soapbox to berate the Republican candidates at the debate -- when even a cursory web search of the individual would have revealed his clear conflict of interest.
A YouTube debate should strive to minimize the media filter rather than highlight it. Instead the selection of questions for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate highlighted CNN's selection bias.
We strongly encourage YouTube and other new media platforms to refrain from working with CNN on future debates."

RedState's Directors also issued a harsh statement:

"This debate was not about Republicans asking the Republican candidates questions. This was about CNN abusing its position to push a Democratic agenda. This has all the markings of a set up and heads should roll at CNN.

In the meantime:

1.) Republican candidates for President should boycott CNN.

2) Republican viewers should boycott CNN until they fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.

3) One or more of the Republican candidates should demand a do over wherein we can have a substantive debate about substantive issues that exclude CNN's agenda, which is clearly out of touch with the Republican party, and the drivel we saw from YouTube."

Michelle Malkin sees a double-standard: "Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century's worst media sinners."

Hugh Hewitt: "CNN is of course going to the mattresses, just as every MSMer does when the collision with their own bias and/or incompetence arrives. But like Rathergate, the YouTube/BoobTube debate is already a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM."

Human Events' Jennifer Rubin: "Not that many years ago, CNN was known widely as the 'Clinton News Network.' They apparently want to renew their credentials -- or expand their services to the entire Democratic Party. This debate placed CNN in the role of director of Democratic media operations. Simply put, it is propaganda to represent the questioners as unbiased and unaffiliated voters when they are not."

Other conservative bloggers think that people are overreacting:

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Although conservatives are rightly outraged by the biased questions, I also believe some of the consternation is overwrought...Bad questions sometimes tell us more about the candidates than good ones do. For example, we learned that Mike Huckabee can take a bad question and still make lemonade (if he can do it now, imagine what he could do to the press corps)."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "CNN's main failure, and the only real 'plant', was General Keith Kerr. They didn't just allow his question, they flew him to the debate, and then allowed him almost as much screen time as Duncan Hunter to make a speech. Kerr serves on Hillary Clinton's steering committee on GLBT issues, a fact that he apparently failed to disclose to CNN, who didn't bother to use Google and spend ten minutes vetting him...The other questioners had ulterior motives in asking their questions...[but] the questions themselves weren't outrageous and certainly can be expected from the campaign trail, especially in the general election. In this loose format, questions can come from anyone -- just like a real town-hall forum -- and candidates should be prepared to answer them."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I watched the debate last night and frankly didn't have a serious problem with CNN except with respect to Gen. Kerr. The fact that a questioner once interned for Rep. [Jane] Harman or for CAIR seems immaterial. The questions reflected a cross section of points of view, some liberal and some conservative, and it was helpful for Republican voters to see how the candidates dealt with them (I thought they did well)."

Meanwhile, NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru thinks that the controversy over questioners benefits [Rudy] Giuliani: "I said that yesterday was a good day for Giuliani, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. I think today is another one. The buzz among conservatives is about CNN's perfidy -- and not about his answers on abortion and guns. If I were Giuliani, I'd make sure to denounce CNN myself."

GOP FIELD II: 'Cause We All Love To Speculate....

NRO's John Hood posits three scenarios for how the GOP race might turn out:

• "Romney the Hare. He wins Iowa convincingly, with about a third of the vote. Giuliani and Thompson are in the low- to mid-teens. The size of his victory generates a wave of free media coverage, aided by his subsequent win in the small but well-timed Wyoming caucuses on Jan. 5. Romney then dominates New Hampshire on Jan. 8, generating another media boost. In the next state, Michigan on Jan. 15, Giuliani had enjoyed a narrow lead going into January, but now Romney -- with Michigan family ties and lots of momentum -- overtakes him to win. Four days later, Nevada and South Carolina vote. He wins both. The other candidates have already dropped out or give up after Jan. 19. It's a two-man race with Giuliani going into Florida on the 29th. Now that all other conservative challengers are gone, Romney unifies the anti-Giuliani vote and wins Florida. It's over.
• Giuliani the Tortoise. With all but Romney and Huckabee essentially conceding Iowa, its results are underplayed. Giuliani's December ad campaign in New Hampshire pushes him into the mid-20s in the state -- not enough to win, but enough to shave Romney's margin and give Giuliani a Bill Clinton-like 'victory' as second-place Comeback Kid. A week later, Giuliani competes in a larger state where his national reputation and cultural affinity are helpful. He wins Michigan. A week later, he wins Nevada and is competitive in South Carolina (it would probably help if Thompson, otherwise winless, takes South Carolina and weakens Romney). Finally, Giuliani gets to Florida, parts of which are essentially a suburb of Manhattan, and wins comfortably. Then comes Feb. 5. It's over.
• Thompson the Possum. The Republican primary electorate is quirky and quarrelsome. A continued Huckabee surge in Iowa robs Romney of a convincing win, yielding a loss in the expectations game. In New Hampshire, [John] McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani do better than expected, Romney worse. He barely ekes out a victory. In Michigan, Romney sputters and both McCain and Thompson pick up anti-Giuliani votes, yielding a narrow Giuliani win but no clear momentum. Then comes Nevada and South Carolina. With Romney's collapse, conservatives edge towards Thompson. He comes in a strong second in Nevada and wins South Carolina. Given its historical importance, the South Carolina result gets more attention, and the media declare it a two-way race between Giuliani and Thompson. The Southerner then competes strongly in the Southern -- by which I mean northern -- part of Florida, upends Giuliani, and moves into Feb. 5 with momentum. It's not quite over, but the patient sleeper has supplanted the frenetic hare."

Campaign Standard's Richelieu posits a fourth scenario:

"Could [Huckabee] actually be nominated? I think he could, and his chance now is better than Thompson's and rivals McCain's, being somewhere between a long- and medium-shot.

Let me sketch one potential scenario: Huckabee wins the Iowa caucus (which is what would happen if the election were today). Romney is second. Rudy is third and Thompson fourth. Huckabee surges into New Hampshire and his communications skills help him ride the wave perfectly...The results are muddy. Huckabee narrowly wins New Hampshire by fewer than 900 votes over Romney. McCain is third, closely followed by Giuliani. Thompson is fifth and drops out.

The next week Romney narrowly beats Huckabee, now fueled by enough Internet money to run television, in Michigan. McCain runs a distant third. The media labels Huckabee's close second place finish a 'win' in a state where he has no organization. Huckabee beats the wounded Romney four days later in South Carolina. McCain drops out after a second disappointing third place finish, narrowly ahead of Giuliani, whose campaign announces they are making a final make or break stand in Florida, as they have always claimed in their brilliant Master Plan. Seeing Romney as his main opponent in Florida for the regular Republican vote, Giuliani uses his final cash on hand to launch a very tough television attack on Romney...McCain endorses Rudy. Romney interjects another $5 million in personal funds into his campaign and launches a blistering TV counterattack on Rudy. Ten days later, Huckabee wins the Florida primary...Romney finishes second. Rudy, now lagging in every February 5 state poll except New York, drops out, refusing to endorse either remaining GOP candidate. On February 5, Huckabee sweeps, losing only Connecticut, Utah, and Delaware to Romney, who then leaves the race.

On February 7, presumptive nominee Mike Huckabee pledges a campaign of 'compassion, comparison, and civility' against presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama. New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg announces the formation of an exploratory committee for an independent presidential campaign. Rumored budget: $1.5 billion. The cover of TIME magazine screams: 'Tsunami 2008: The Year of the Upset.'"

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat is dubious: "The general scenario makes sense (in long shot sort of way, obviously), but as to the details, I just can't see Huckabee, momentum or no, scraping out a victory in New Hampshire. That said, I don't think he needs to win in New Hampshire to stay competitive; what he needs, as the Cardinal's broad sketch suggests, is for both Romney and Rudy (or one of the two, plus McCain) to keep whaling on one another, and largely leaving him alone, till Florida and perhaps even beyond. I'm with Ramesh; I think Giuliani beats Huckabee in a two-man race, and I think that Romney does as well. Which means that Huckabee can only hope to win if both the current front-runners stay in and beat each other up in the hopes of being the last man standing - which, fortunately for him, they're both deep-pocketed and ambitious enough to do.

HUCKABEE: So Hot Right Now

Campaign Standard's Dean Barnett warns politicos to stop underestimating Huckabee: "[Wednesday night's debate] heralded the arrival of Mike Huckabee as a force in this race. Not a spoiler, not a wildcard, but a force. Huckamania is still running wild...A personal note to all my sophisticated East Coast friends: Don't wait for the Christmas rush -- stop underestimating Huckabee now. Unless the other guys can be a lot more effective at landing some leather on him than they were [Wednesday] night, he may win Iowa by 20 points."

RCP's John McIntyre also sees Huckabee as a threat: "The GOP race is usually characterized as either a two-person contest (Giuliani vs. Romney) or a wide open field among the five viable candidates (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee and McCain). However, what we are fast approaching is a three-man race between Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani...What we have developing is Huckabee stepping in and filling the void in the GOP field that was available to Thompson in the summer -- a void that his inept campaign has been unable to fill. So perhaps instead of the Tennessean sinking the Romney campaign it could very well be the Arkansan...An important signal to watch for over the next month will be whether Huckabee overtakes Romney in the national polls leading up to Iowa. If that were to happen concurrently with Huckabee continuing to head toward a win in Iowa that would be an important tell that Republican voters are moving toward ultimately a Huckabee vs. Giuliani showdown."

Many conservative bloggers are unhappy about Huckabee's rise, however. NRO's Andrew Stuttaford writes: "[Huckabee is] a 'disaster' on trade, taxation (historically speaking, at least), nanny state issues and, for that matter, rather basic scientific knowledge. His polling is fascinating. How he does will be another very interesting indicator of how much further the GOP will move in the direction of becoming an Americanized version of Europe's Christian Democrats."

ROMNEY: The Last, Best Hope For Traditional Conservatives?

Paul Mirengoff discusses the significance of ACU Pres. David Keene's endorsement of Romney: "I look at endorsements not for guidance on how to vote, but for a sense of how things may break. When Romney received early endorsements from congressional conservatives like Senator [Jim] DeMint, it told me that he was a serious contender for the conservative vote, and so he has been...Keene's endorsement is evidence that, late in the day, conservatives realize that this may well come down to a race between Giuliani and Romney, two men who governed as centrists, and that, as I wrote yesterday, it may make sense to prefer the top-tier condidate who now commits to conservative positions down the line to the one who says, in essence, 'I was a great mayor; take me as you find me.'"

Mirengoff later adds: "Keene's endorsement may reflect concern among traditional conservatives with the traction Mike Huckabee seems to be gaining among social conservatives. Traditional conservatives combine social conservatism with economic conservatism, as Romney does in his current positions. Huckabee is strong on the former but much less so on the latter."

Hugh Hewitt agrees with Mirengoff's assessment: "The announcement builds on a strong performance last night, and reinforces the sense that conservatives have to choose now to back Romney or tacitly agree to a Rudy nomination."

THOMPSON: Anyone Seen His Campaign?

NRO's Mark Steyn writes: "I've no handle on what it is [Thompson] thinks he's doing. Every time I see a Fred policy plan, he seems to have by far the best ideas, and the necessary zeal for reform, on taxes, Social Security and much else. But every time you see him in these TV debates he has the listless air of a bored grandparent at a dreary school play. And seeing him live in person isn't that easy to do. I get campaign e-mails about New Hampshire appearances by John McCain and Mrs Clinton and lots of others...What's the strategy here? Why does he have great ideas but no campaign?"

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes agrees: "Steyn is right that Thompson's campaign is, um, lacking. Each morning I have delivered to my inbox 'First Read', an excellent collection of news and nuggets about the 2008 election compiled by NBC political director Chuck Todd. Among many other features, First Read includes a candidate-by-candidate preview of the day's campaign events. As often as not, there is no mention of Fred Thompson. On some of these days, he is off doing private fundraisers. But there is little question that Thompson does far fewer public events than any of the other serious presidential candidates. Which is odd."

GIULIANI: Scandalous Behavior

The Democratic netroots are still buzzing about Ben Smith's Politico article revealing that Giuliani "billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons." ABC News' report that Judith Nathan used an NYPD driver and car as her "personal taxi service" has only added more fuel to the fire. Josh Marshall's team at Talking Points Memo is, naturally, all over it . This mini-scandal provides a taste of future lines of attack that Dems will likely employ against Giuliani should he become the GOP nominee.

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. The GOP front-runner is in BIG trouble. He's got a major scandal on his hands -- having taxpayers finance his affair probably won't go over so well with the GOP voters. Just imagine how insane the right wingers would be if a Democrat pulled a stunt like that and also tried to cover it up. So, let's get cranking."

Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Rudy may play at Law and Order, but does he consider himself above the law when it suits him? We're just barely getting through eight years of another President whose commitment to the rule of law (see Alberto Gonzales) was pretty shaky. Now we have Rudy, patron of the indicted Bernard Kerik, Rudy of the taxpayer-funded tryst, to consider in a job interview for the most powerful position in the world where judgment is key and ethics matter?"

Firedoglake's Jame Hamsher: "I really hope Rudy does not implode before getting the nomination, and I'm not being an insincere concern troll here. Really, I think Rudy is tied inextricably to the Bush Administration's policies and history, and when you combine that with his lack of on-camera skills and his tendency to be a brittle asshole when challenged, all the things that make the lizard brains love him will over time repulse large numbers of the electorate. Huckabee or Romney have the opportunity to run as reform candidates -- that option is not open to Rudy. George Bush hangs like a giant anvil around his neck."

Daily Kos' MissLaura uses the occasion to revisit Wayne Barrett's August article in The Village Voice, which suggested that Giuliani wanted to locate the city's emergency command center in the WTC in order to use it as a love nest for himself and Judith. MissLaura writes: "It would be inaccurate to say that Giuliani insisted on siting the emergency command center in WTC 7 so he could get it on with Nathan -- the decision had been made before he met her. But then, Nathan was not the first woman Giuliani was rumored to have had an affair with while in office, and there's no reason to believe he invented the practice of expensing adultery just for her. In fact, I bet there's more of this to uncover still earlier in his time as mayor, if some investigative reporter were to start digging. For now, what's absolutely clear is he spent taxpayer money to visit his girlfriend in the Hamptons and turned the emergency command center for the entire city into a cartoonishly over the top love nest in which to carry on an affair."

DemFromCT wants the national press to join the local NYC press in investigating Giuliani's record: "If the national press had any sense, they'd start paying more attention to Rudy's actual record than they are doing now (which, outside of NY, is not paying attention at all). That includes Rudy's record on 9/11, including the location of the emergency operations center, the radios the NYC firefighters didn't have and the health issues and air quality issues right after 9/11 and how they were handled. I don't really care if 'that might affect the outcome'. That's what a journalist's job is, and it's about time they did their job as well as Ben Smith has."

OBAMA: Are The Netroots Finally Getting His Back?

As HRC continues to attack Obama's health care plan and Paul Krugman rips Obama's plan in his New York Times column, Obama has found an unlikely advocate: Open Left blogger (and frequent Obama critic) Matt Stoller:

"[HRC's] plan is no more or less universal plan than Obama's plan. Neither would sign up everyone automatically, but at least Obama doesn't require a massive Orwellian nightmare to enforce the purchase of private insurance by those least able to afford it. Obama's response so far has been to say that he doesn't think the problem is that people can't afford health care insurance. What he should really be doing is attacking, and saying 'This is not an honest representation of of either her plan or mine, and it's the same tactic that caused her first attempt at universal health care to collapse. How is Senator Clinton going to force everyone to sign up for health care insurance? She's mentioned forcing citizens to have a health care insurance card in order to get a job, which is a crazy intrusive idea that is not acceptable. She needs to be honest about the health care situation, because it's not as simple as she is making it out to be. And she has the scars to know better.'...Mandates are horrible policy and they are really easy to demagogue as big government and big insurance companies cooperating with each to screw the consumer...That this is not obvious to the groups and politicians whose goal is to universalize health care, or even really debated, suggests that there is a lot of organizing work that needs to be done before progressives can move forward on the health care front."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Kate Sheppard criticizes HRC's accusation that Obama's plan "betrays" Democratic principles: "So do all Democratic health care plans, past and present, that differ from her current plan amount to 'betrayal'?"

OBAMA II: Smeared By...The Washington Post?

The netroots are furious about yesterday's Washington Post front-page article which discusses rumors that Obama is a Muslim.

Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Yesterday, Politico's Ben Smith nailed Rudy Giuliani for nailing his mistress on the taxpayer's dime. And in today's Washington Post, what kind of coverage does this major, investigative piece receive? Three sentences buried in the middle of their debate coverage. So, what is their big story of the day? 'Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him.' Yes, a front page story about rumors. Actually, calling them rumors gives them too much credence. It would be more accurate to call them blatant lies, yet the Washington Post has decided to give them a national platform."

TAPPED's Matthew Duss: "Today, the Washington Post demonstrates how 'respectable' news outlets keep these rumors moving in the media bloodstream...At no point in the article is there any indication that these rumors, which are nothing more than lies designed to stoke base cultural prejudices, have been exhaustively investigated and disproven...Of course, we also get the requisite denials from Obama's defenders, all of which creates (and is designed to create) the impression that there is 'controversy' where there is only gossip, 'questions' where there is only innuendo. Stay classy, Post."

Daily Kos' Hunter: "The [Washington Post] publishes completely false smears against Obama -- truly, the most poorly premised and written article I have seen since half past forever. Akin to what the Swiftboat Vet stories would have been, if the Swiftboat Vets had not even been seasoned Republican operatives but just 'some paranoid guy ranting incoherently from his South Carolina basement.'"

Digby: "That's the Washington Post recycling anonymous wingnut email trash and calling it 'rumors.' I guess we should be grateful that the paper allowed Obama to 'dispute' and 'deny' the 'charge' but considering that he isn't a Muslim, it might have been a teensy bit more responsible if they'd simply written that it's a lie and let it go at that. Instead, it blandly suggests this will hurt him more than the Romney since the polls show that even more people won't vote for a Muslim than a Mormon --- failing to note that Romney is actually a Mormon and thus could be expected to suffer from these prejudices more than someone who isn't actually a Muslim!"

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "This is about as low as I have seen an Establishment paper go. This is shameful stuff."

EDWARDS: We Like You, We Just Don't Like Your Mandate

In the NYT op-ed that we mentioned earlier, Paul Krugman praises John Edwards' plan for enforcing his universal health care mandate, which requires that individuals "show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care." Liberal bloggers -- with the notable exception of Ezra Klein -- were much more critical of Edwards' proposed enforcement mechanism.

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "First, do we really want the IRS enforcing healthcare mandates? That's not what the IRS is for, and Americans are (rightly) suspicious of using the IRS as a quasi-police agency to enforce whatever federal law the current administration feels like using it for...Second, a Rube Goldberg enforcement program like does nothing except highlight the absurdity of individual mandate healthcare plans in the first place. If you're really this serious about getting every man, woman, and child in the country enrolled, why go through all this? Why not just do it like Medicare, where the funding mechanism is the existing tax system and everyone is enrolled automatically? It amounts to the same thing and it's cheaper, easier, and less intrusive. Third, this is a political loser. Do we really want to treat people who don't sign up for healthcare like deadbeat dads and Chapter 11 refugees by garnishing their wages? Unless I'm way off base, this is just not going to go over well. Republicans will have a field day with it."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I'm in total agreement with Kevin Drum's criticisms of John Edwards' now-more-detailed individual mandate plan. And I should say that I don't think this is a problem with Edwards as such. Other advocates of an individual mandate have mostly evaded the flaws of Edwards' plan by just avoiding discussion of how this is supposed to work in practice. I think that in a whole variety of ways, it's just a fundamentally flawed approach."

Matt Stoller: "So at the end of the day, if you don't have health care, your wages will be garnished or your credit will be damaged because a collection agency will see to it that you buy your insurance. You might even go bankrupt! And since it's called a mandate, we'll need a new IRS-like bureaucracy to handle all of this, but it won't be the IRS since a mandate is not a tax, it's just a required fee you pay to a private company...Politically, this is a very attractive situation for the health care industry. If the industry can simply prevent the government entity from existing while retaining a universal mandate in the final plan, what they will essentially be creating will be a privatized tax system that moves money from individuals to insurance companies from the current crop of the uninsured by government fiat."

Ezra Klein thinks these guys are being too critical: "I think folks are overlooking the political merits of the individual mandate. I'm quite open to the idea that the best electoral move is to mention the principle and refuse to define its enforcement (though I also think politicians should be rewarded for being truthful), but setting it against an actual government enrollment program, where everyone is simply signed up through taxes, sort of misses the point....The individual mandate will still face hurdles as we argue over enforcement, but it basically trades away certain amount of economic efficiency in order to evade the political implications of nationalizing health spending."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Call This Mudslinging?

Open Left's Chris Bowers doesn't think the current Dem primary race is nearly as nasty as the '04 one:

"One of the things that strikes me about this campaign is how it turned with such comparatively modest attacks on Hillary Clinton. I remember undergraduate Clinton supporters leaving the debate and complaining about how everyone was ganging up on her, upon hearing which I barely restrained myself from telling them about what happened to Howard Dean when he was winning. Yes, studies have shown that she receives significantly more negative media coverage than Barack Obama, at least lately. However, what she is facing this campaign is absolutely nothing compared to the insane, hateful, venomous attacks Howard Dean faced. Here is an ad that some unions and fellow Democrats ran against Howard Dean in Iowa back around this same point in the 2004 campaign. No Democrat has faced attacks even close to that severe this time around...I've received some anti-Clinton email along these lines from right-wing wackos, but here we have the standard line, from both sides of the aisle, that was thrown at Howard Dean. It is blistering, full of hatred, overtly connects Dean to Osama Bin Laden and, in many cases, was funded by his own party. 'Playing the gender card,' as bad as it is, really doesn't approach this level of negative attack."

LEST WE FORGET: Entire Blogosphere Stunned By Blogger's Special Weekend Post

The Onion has the latest:

"In what is being called a seminal moment in Internet history, a rare weekend post by 25-year-old blogger Ben Tiedemann on his website bentiedemanntellsall.blogspot.com rocked the 50 million-member blogosphere this Saturday. The landmark post, which updated nearly every member of the global online community on the shelf Tiedemann was building, was linked to by several thousand sites, including Daily Kos, Digg, and The New York Times. 'Wow, what a special treat this was for all of us,' said Talking Points Memo head blogger Joshua Micah Marshal, who, along with all other bloggers, checks Tiedemann's site every day just in case something monumental occurs. 'I thought I was going to have to wait until Monday to find out if Ben decided to put [the shelf] in his bedroom or the living room. The pictures were great, too.' Within two hours of going live, Tiedemann's 15-word post received 34,634,897 comments."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:59 PM

November 29, 2007

11/29: Huck-A-Mania

Most conservative bloggers agree that Mike Huckabee won last night's CNN/YouTube debate, primarily due to his "genial," "funny," and "good-natured" personality rather than the actual substance of his positions. Bloggers also offered praise for John McCain, while giving mixed reviews to Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney and negative reviews to Rudy Giuliani. Many bloggers expressed surprise that Huckabee was able to avoid being the target of attacks for most of the night. With only 35 days before the IA caucuses and a new Rasmussen poll showing Huckabee surging ahead of Romney in IA, isn't it time for Romney to take Huckabee down a notch? Or does he fear that he will turn off Iowans by going negative?

GOP DEBATE: Talk About Mixed Reactions

The debate produced a fascinating split in the conservative blogosphere. Several bloggers (Richelieu, Jim Geraghty, Fred Barnes) felt that the preponderance of questions about immigration, guns, and gays made the GOP candidates look bad. Others (John O'Sullivan, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Matt Lewis, Ed Morrissey) believed that the YouTube questions raised important issues (such as immigration) that the MSM tends to downplay or ignore.

First, the critics:

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Not the best debate. One of the worst, actually. Based on the tone and answers given tonight, you would think that the Republican Party seethes with a blistering resentment of immigrants, with only the briefest of pauses to distinguish between those who are illegal and legal. You would think that the only tax plan that they like is the Fair Tax, and that they would like to somehow eliminate all taxes and let somebody else figure out how to fund the parts of the government that are actually needed. Guys, I thought we were small-government conservatives, not no-government anarchists."

CampaignStandard's Richelieu: "What a depressing debate...a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes. My cheers went to a listless Fred Thompson who easily qualified himself to be president in my book by looking all night like he would cheerfully trade his left arm for an early exit off the stage to a waiting Scotch and good Cuban cigar."

Campaign Standard's Fred Barnes: "It was chiefly the questions and who asked them that made the debate so appalling. By my recollection, there were no questions on health care, the economy, trade, the S-chip children's health care issue, the 'surge' in Iraq, the spending showdown between President Bush and Congress, terrorist surveillance, or the performance of the Democratic Congress. Instead there were questions...on the Confederate flag, Mars, Giuliani's rooting for the Boston Red Sox in the World Series, whether Ron Paul might run as an independent for president, and the Bible...By my count, of the 30-plus questions, there were 6 on immigration, 3 on guns, 2 on abortion, 2 on gays, and one on whether the candidates believe every word in the Bible. These are exactly the issues, in the view of liberals and many in the media, on which Republicans look particularly unattractive."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Machine-gunning immigration questions was an absurd way to spend the first 35 minutes of the debate...Lou Dobbs is making a fortune banging the anti-illegal immigration drum and talking up the threat of the North American Union. It is clear who had a great influence on this debate's design, and it wasn't a serious political journalist."

Other conservative bloggers didn't find the debate questions nearly that bad:

NRO's John O'Sullivan: "I can't help thinking that some of the sterner and anxious posts about it on the Corner and from Richelieu -- that stuff about it making the GOP look like a band of knuckle-dragging Know-Nothings -- are a little too pious. The debate was vigorous; some of the exchanges were very tough; and the audience reactions were boisterous. But it was all highly entertaining...And the clashes between the candidates on immigration (in contrast to the same topic as handled by the Dems) represented the real division of opinion between Americans on this topic."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Once again we watched a debate and saw we have some talent there on the Republican stage. Yeah, the questions could be silly or a CNN producer's caricature of what Iowa conservatives care about, but some of them happen to be important issues all the same. I would have liked more of a focus on the war, but all in all, it wasn't a disaster, especially for a YouTube debate."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The real winner tonight was CNN, YouTube, the GOP, and the American people. Yes, there were some stupid questions. But there were also some very, very good questions on important topics such as immigration, that would not have been asked by typical MSM moderators."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "I am impressed by the questions. If they are representative, then the GOP base is concerned with the right things: immigration, taxes and spending."

Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "The folks at CNN and YouTube certainly matured in their presentation of their groundbreaking debate format since July...The questions, videos, and the candidates' responses were less goofy, less gimicky, more intelligent and relevant this time around."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "The most apparent result was that CNN and YouTube did their homework. For the most part -- with a few glaring exceptions -- the network eliminated the silliness and stuck to substance. The questions hit hot topics and sparked some fierce debate. With a couple of exceptions, Republican fears of crypto-Democratic hit questions failed to materialize, and the candidates responded substantively to the rest."

GOP DEBATE II: The Plants Are Sprouting Up Like Weeds

After determining that several of the debate questioners were declared supporters of Dem candidates, conservative bloggers blasted CNN for inadequate vetting. As Ed Morrissey summarizes: "CNN and YouTube had weeks to select the questions for last night's debate...Yet within minutes of the debate, bloggers discovered what CNN missed -- that one prominent questioner flown to Florida by CNN worked on the campaign of a Democratic rival, and that at least three other questioners have declared support for Democratic candidates."

After initially praising CNN for its "coherent and well-framed" questions, Michelle Malkin discovered that Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, who asked the candidates a question about gays in the military, is a co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's National Military Veterans group. Malkin wrote: "I take back my compliment of CNN. The politics of planting rules again. Sheesh."

Glenn Reynolds: "Once again, CNN demonstrates an inexplicable failure to background-check pro-Hillary questioners...Try Google, next time. It's not that hard!"

Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Serving as the host of an intraparty debate, CNN has shown itself unable or unwilling to serve as an honest broker."

While critical of CNN, Ed Morrissey doesn't think the Dem questioners ruined the debate: "Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes. But does that negate the questions themselves? I don't think so. The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they. After all, while a primary usually involves voters of one party, the entire nation has a stake in the selection of the nominees."

DEBATE GIULIANI: A Stumble?

CBN's David Brody: "I can't quite put my finger on it but he seemed sluggish tonight. He's normally pretty sharp but the energy level wasn't there. He operated as the human punching bag tonight with Romney attacking him, Thompson attacking him and even You Tube videos attacking him."

Ed Morrissey: "Rudy was a puzzlement. I understand his desire to fire back at Romney, but he chose a poor battlefield on which to fight. He used the 'sanctuary mansion' personal attack, expecting Romney to know the immigration status of other people's employees who did work at his house. Rudy did better later in the debate, but for at least the first half, he seemed off his game."

Matt Lewis: "Rudy was mediocre, but probably benefits from the fact that Huckabee and Thompson did well (presumably, their success hurts Romney). His closing line about the Yankees was humorous, but his opening skirmish with Romney about Romney's hiring illegal immigrants seemed personal."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Rudy hit his stride in several places, but was overall, not as good as he usually is. He was confronted more boldly by voters on some of his socially liberal positions than he usually is by the press, and his answers were a little less than stellar. He made great points in places, but he took a lot of flack in the process."

DEBATE ROMNEY: Mixed Results

Hugh Hewitt: "Romney Won Debate And The Spin."

Scott Johnson: "Best performance: Mitt Romney."

Soren Dayton: "Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney? They looked bad. Bad."

Jim Geraghty: "The knives were out for [Romney] from the starting gun...The gays-in-the-military answer looks like yet another flip-flop...He didn't fall apart under this barrage, but every major candidate on that stage wants Romney knocked out first, and so he's got a big bulls-eye on his back from here on out. Easy to see his negatives rising week by week if every debate offers an extensive retrospective of his every flaw and position change."

NRO's Kate O'Beirne: "Romney's performance is his strongest in the series."

Matt Lewis: "Mitt Romney was probably was the one who most under-performed tonight. He didn't seem 'on.' In addition, he often seemed holier than thou. Some of his answers seemed to be pandering. Other questions reminded us of his past record. And some of his answers -- like the one about the King James Bible and gays in the military -- just seemed odd."

Michelle Malkin: "Romney looked strong and energetic, with one stumble on the Bible question."

David Brody: "He started off strong by going after Giuliani on sanctuary cities and seemed to have the upper hand. Yet Giuliani's line about Romney's 'sanctuary mansions' was a dagger. Romney tried to recover but the damage was done...Another stumble came when he was asked about the Bible being the literal word of God. Romney first answered that it was the word of God. But when pressed to say whether every word was true, he hesitated. Hesitation doesn't score you points with Evangelicals in Iowa. Overall, a shaky night."

AmSpecBlog's Philip Klein: "For part of the debate, I thought Romney came off quite well, both in his initial exchange with Rudy and doing a better job of deflecting the flip-flopper charge on abortion. But I thought he got crushed by McCain on the torture question, though as I stated, he may benefit from the fact that the Republican base agrees with him. On the bible and South Carolina flag questions, I thought he stumbled, and reinforced the impression that he can't take a firm position on anything."

RedState's Ben Domenech: "As for Mitt Romney -- both Bill Bennett and Kate O'Beirne think he did well. I have a really hard time seeing that. I think he got the better of the first exchange, but seemed to be getting his questions at a bad time (either having to echo those who came before or defending his Massachusetts record for the umpteenth time) throughout the night, and I think it was certainly not a helpful night for him."

DEBATE HUCKABEE: It's (Past) Time To Stop Ignoring Him

AmSpecBlog's Jennifer Rubin: "Huckabee won the night. He has mastered the art of appearing engaging and almost sweet but resolute on social issues. In a 90-second debate answer he sounds perfectly solid on other subjects like taxes. Remarkably, except for a minor scuffle with Romney on college scholarships for illegal alien kids, no one went after him. The time has passed where the other contenders can just hope he'll go away on his own and I suspect they will come after him next time."

NRO's Byron York: "I suspect that [Huckabee] has helped himself more than any other candidate on stage tonight. He's clearly on the rise in Iowa and South Carolina, and perhaps elsewhere, and my guess is that people who are considering supporting him liked what they saw tonight."

Kate O'Beirne: "[Huckabee] stands out on stage (and seemed to get more than his share of time tonight) not because of the substantive content of his answers but because he is refreshingly witty and seems extremely good-natured. People like the guy. Mitt Romney had a really good night, but it would have been even better if Huckabee hadn't had such a good one too."

David Brody: "It was Mike Huckabee who may have had the best night...Whether you agree with him or not, it seemed like every issue he talked about Wednesday had a well thought out, coherent argument behind it. When he speaks, the tone and words flow harmoniously...Huckabee really didn't come under attack tonight...It was a night where Huckabee could have been a major target. Instead, he continues to move right along."

Jim Geraghty: "I don't necessarily like how his candidacy is turning into a litmus test for the strength of social conservatives versus fiscal conservatives. But time and again, he's the smoothest, funniest, most natural campaigner on the stage, and that goes a long way."

Ed Morrissey: "Who won among the candidates? I'd have to lean towards Mike Huckabee. He steered clear of personal attacks, allowed his natural personality to emerge, and used his sense of humor to great effect. If people wonder why Huckabee has made a major move in Iowa, they saw why."

Fred Barnes: "[Huckabee] knows how to conduct himself in TV debates. He's genial, funny, extremely likable, and not very substantive. He seems to understand that a CNN-You Tube debate is not a serious forum at which serious people discuss serious issues. So he doesn't get worked up, and this posture works."

Matt Lewis: "Mike Huckabee is such a good debater that even when he's mediocre, he's still pretty good. As always, he did well and was humorous ('Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office...' was a great answer)."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Huckabee actually won. I wasn't a fan of his previous debate performances, but he dialed down the schtick. This was a debate performance he needed at a critical time."

Mary Katharine Ham: "Who Won? I'm giving it to Huckabee. He's always good in debates, always well-spoken. He parried attacks on his fiscal record well, deflecting with a lot of talk about the Fair Tax. He also got the chance to point out that he had signed the no-tax pledge, which is better than several others have done. He's riding a high, he came across as sensitive and smart, and was able to obscure his non-conservative record."

Red State's Erick Erickson: "Mike Huckabee scored the debate points on rhetoric and is the winner of this debate. He did really well. He showed up Romney. He showed up Rudy. If Mike could convince me he's actually a free market guy, I'd be tempted."

DEBATE MCCAIN: We Respectfully Won't Vote For You

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Senator McCain is making a dignified exit from national politics, and though I disagree greatly with his policies, he is a great American."

Philip Klein: "Even if you disagree with him on his position on torture, it's hard not to respect where he's coming from. He also came across as a real grown up on the stage...The trouble is, McCain still seems to rub a lot of conservative voters the wrong way. At the Values Voters Summit, I thought he gave a masterful speech, during which he made an emotional case against torture, but the audience members I spoke to after had a different view."

Mary Katharine Ham: "McCain was strong on spending and the war, and decent throughout, but came across as a little more dour than usual. I could have used just a bit more of his jokes, which are usually good, to lighten the tone. Many of his answers were moving, but won't necessarily play well with his audience -- immigration and torture, specifically. Conservatives will continue to respect him, but he wasn't working it for me tonight, except on the war and spending."

Matt Lewis: "The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was 'Presidential.'"

David Brody: "McCain is always sharp on the war yet Ron Paul stood up to him. McCain's best moments were in that context."

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes: "John McCain was strong on Iraq, as he always is, though he reached a bit by trying to engage Ron Paul on the issue. His answer on waterboarding will probably resonate with even those people who disagree with him."

DEBATE THOMPSON: It's Probably A Bad Sign When Your Best Debate Moment Is Your Ad

David Brody: "Fred Thompson's best moment was probably his campaign commercial where he slammed Romney on abortion and Huckabee on taxes. But he seemed to be more in the background tonight. If Thompson wants to make a serious move, he'll need better debate performances in the future."

Campaign Standard's Terry Eastland "The best performance wasn't turned in by one of the candidates. No, the Oscar goes to that Thompson ad. It doesn't introduce Thompson -- he doesn't even speak. The ad features Mitt Romney when he was pro-abortion rights, and Mike Huckabee when (as governor of Arkansas) he was agreeable to increasing various taxes. The ad closes by pitching Thompson as the authentic conservative in the race. It's a well-done ad, and it indicates how Thompson believes he can pull off a top-three finish in Iowa: attack Romney and Huckabee (the two are atop the Iowa polls) where they have evident vulnerabilities; get them on the defensive; force them to explain themselves."

Stephen F. Hayes: "Fred Thompson clearly sees Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as his main competition. He chose to use his 30-second YouTube spot to show old footage of Romney supporting abortion rights and Huckabee backing tax hikes. It was incredibly effective, mostly because of the way Thompson handled himself afterwards. When the video was finished, Anderson Cooper asked: 'What's up with that?' Thompson laughed heartily and said: 'Just wanted to give my buddies a little extra airtime.' Then everyone else laughed."

Matt Lewis: "My bet is getting this negative information out is a lot better use of his time than merely putting out some puff-piece."

Patrick Ruffini, who watched the debate from the hall, had a different take: "Fred's attack spot was off place. Giuliani won the battle of the YouTube ads."

Jim Geraghty agrees: "Thompson gets 30 seconds of free time, and uses all of it to showcase quotes from Romney and Huckabee? I just don't think it reflected well on him."

Ed Morrissey: "Fred Thompson did well enough to get a wash, but he needs to start doing something impressive. While his answers were fine and supportable, none of them were particularly memorable. He's the kind of man people want to support if he'd give them something to work with, but thus far, he's more analyst than candidate."

Jennifer Rubin: "Thompson was fine but sort of invisible which is baffling for a professional performer. I like him more and more as the campaign goes on but find him incapable of projecting the energy and dynamism a president or a presidential candidate requires."

Thompson supporter Erick Erickson is starting to worry: "I think Fred held his own. He did well. But he did not shine and he needed to. I did think his YouTube clip made the point he needed to make. If Fred doesn't do something soon, though, and soon as in in the next two weeks, I think he'll flat line. Don't make me have to find a new guy, Fred."

HUCKABEE: Dems' Worst Fear?

On the left side of the blogosphere, Open Left's Mike Lux is impressed by Huckabee's Iowa surge but scared by what he perceives to be Huckabee's general election strength: "I am always pleased when populist economics shows up in a political campaign, even when it comes from a Republican and even if the candidate's policy prescriptions generally suck, as is the case with Huckabee...I am also thrilled at the idea of an all-out civil war between the Christian fundamentalist wing and the economic-royalist wing of the Republican Party primary with Huckabee and, say, Giulani, as the two finalists after the smoke clears from the early states would definitely set such a conflagration off...But what scares me the most about Huckabee is that I just think he is by far the best general election candidate on the Republican side. Unlike Giuliani, McCain and Romney, he unites and excites the GOP voting base. Unlike Thompson, he is a thoughtful and articulate candidate on policy, and has real accomplishments he can point to from his time in public office. He's warm and charming and optimistic, and doesn't sound like the hardliner he is on social issues. Watching him charm and entertain Stewart, Colbert and their young, urban, liberal audiences was astonishing to me."

DEM FIELD: It's Back To Iraq

It felt like deja vu in the Dem race yesterday, as Bill Clinton's claim that he opposed the Iraq War from the start returned the war to the front of the debate and "ignited a kind of research war" between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wonders why Bill Clinton chose to make this dubious claim about Iraq: "Mr. President -- your wife is going to be in Iowa tomorrow. She is supposed to talk about health care. You don't want to step on her message by claiming that you opposed the Iraq War from the beginning! We're in the era of instantaneous fact checks...within 10 minutes of your comments, they're everywhere, and if you want to walk them back, it's not like calling Ron Fournier to walk back an AP story!"

TPM's Greg Sargent analyzes the significance of the flare-up: "Hillary has often said that she voted for the war because she wanted to give the President more leverage against Saddam Hussein, something she said at the time would make war 'less likely'...But if at the time you had figured out that Bush and Blair were going to war no matter what happened, as many argued, you understood that placing trust in Bush and Blair -- and hence authorizing Bush to use force -- was the same as supporting certain war. The Obama campaign is largely premised on the notion that the Clintons -- and Hillary, in particular -- should have figured this out, and that her failure to do so should be a factor in deciding whether she should be President. If you view our pre-war history through this prism, as Obama does, whether people said they opposed the invasion, as Bill did in certain venues, was in many ways beside the point. In this view, the only thing that constituted genuine opposition to the war was an unwillingness to grant Bush/Blair the trust or authority to wage it."

Bill's claim opened some old wounds for Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Maybe my memory is faulty, but in the run up to the invasion liberation of Iraq, I remember hoping that both of the Clintons would say something -- anything -- as W. drove the car off the cliff. They never showed up...What the hell are the Clintons thinking? Hillary's weakness is Iraq. So Bill steps in it...on Iraq?"

OBAMA: Failing To Make The Case?

On a similar topic, Washington Post columnist Peter Beinart analyzes Barack Obama's inability to use HRC's war vote against her: "Recent American history is littered with candidates who were right about war and weren't rewarded at election time...So what's Obama to do? He has to convince voters that his original antiwar stance still matters, that it's the key to understanding what makes him and Clinton different now. That's why Obama keeps trying to connect Clinton's Iraq vote to her recent vote designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group, suggesting that once again she is giving Bush the green light to launch a war. Unfortunately for him, history doesn't generally repeat. The Iran resolution was rewritten to avoid any suggestion of military force precisely because Senate Democrats don't want to make the same mistake twice."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias calls Beinart's analysis "very smart" but complains: "When [Obama] tries to engage in an intra-party argument about foreign policy, people like Peter Beinart...ignore what he's arguing in favor of making arguments about why his arguments aren't penetrating...it seems to me that the role of a journalist who's attuned to the small ins-and-outs of these debates is precisely to convey to readers things they might not otherwise pick up on, not to merely explain that people aren't picking up on stuff. And there's the rub, the differences in the positions Clinton and Obama have staked out have been subtle, but the differences keep lining up the same way."

CLINTON: Not Winning The Hearts Of Netroots

Yglesias, who's becoming one of the blogosphere's most frequent critics of HRC's foreign policy views, examines HRC's positions and concludes: "I think all the evidence points in one direction: Obama would pursue a more restrained foreign policy, more inflected by the strains of realism and internationalism that have come to predominate among the dovish camp in American politics whereas Clinton would pursue a more militarily expansive one, more in line with the thinking of the establishmentarians who got us into war with Iraq and have since come to kinda sorta regret but don't really think they were wrong."

Open Left's Matt Stoller offers what has become a standard netroots critique of HRC: "Clinton believes that if you prepare, present the evidence, and work the system, you will win. She has to believe it, because her entire career is premised on huge barricades between insiders and the public that are larger than the barricades between Republicans and Democrats. She may wish in her heart that the world worked differently, she may wish in her heart that making a strong progressive case to the public would bring great change, but she doesn't operate that way. She offers jobs to Colin Powell, a man who helped destroy Bill Clinton, she ratifies the Iraq war and refuses to consider her own huge and obvious complicity with the last seven years of our foreign policy. It's a huge problem."

EDWARDS: Is This The Beginning of Second-Choice Speculation?

The Chicago Tribune's The Swamp reports that John Edwards prefers Obama to HRC:

"The differences between Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself," Edwards told reporters after receiving the endorsement of the progressive group Caucus for Priorities, which seeks a reallocation of defense dollars into social programs.

"Down the line," Edwards said, on issues such as "What we would do in Iraq? What we should be doing about Iran. What we should be doing about corrupting influences in Washington and a broken system, (there are) really big differences between Sen. Clinton and myself."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is surprised by Edwards' statement: "Of all the attacks I have seen so far in this nearly year-long campaign, the latest one from Edwards might be the most interesting of all...Iowa is very close, so close that even a minor deal like the one Edwards and Kucinich made in 2004 could swing the state. Even leaving potential caucus-day deals aside, if both Edwards and Obama were to start attacking Clinton instead of each other, or at least if they were to start attacking Clinton more than they were attacking each other, then Clinton would be in real trouble in Iowa. For Edwards to come out and basically say that he prefers Obama to Clinton is one of the most unusual moves I have ever seen from a presidential candidate. If Obama were to say pretty much the same thing, then Clinton would be in real trouble in Iowa. Not only would she face attacks on several fronts, but it could also exacerbate her problem as a second place choice, where she already finds herself in third."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Online America Vs. Offline America

Jim Geraghty questions the usefulness of YouTube debates:

"Talking before the debate with an adviser to one of the Republican campaigns, we wondered if one of the themes that might come out of the evening was the difference between Online America and Offline America. I'm a guy who spends probably way too much time on the Internet, so I guess I'm part of the online one. But the kind of people who hear about the YouTube debate, and who go and get a web camera or digital recorder of some kind and record themselves asking a question and then hope that it gets used...it's a certain kind of person. Engaged, probably passionate, perhaps outspoken, enjoying the spotlight. Perhaps a little smug admiration in their own self-evident cleverness. I'm not certain that this pool of voters is brimming with GOP primary voters...Before this debate, I was in Patrick Ruffini's camp, in that I thought a YouTube debate was worth trying. But afterwards, I'm skeptical that this needs to turn into a new campaign tradition. The freakishly-bizarre-to-valuable-question ratio was all out of whack, much worse than the Democratic debate, I would contend."

LEST WE FORGET: Huck The Rock Star

The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg links to a YouTube clip of Mike Huckabee laying down the bass line on Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Free Bird" and analyzes Huck's stage presence:

"He's got that little leaning-back thing going. And that little upward gesture with the guitar neck. Cooler than your average former Republican governor -- maybe even as cool as your average former Arkansas governor of either party. If Huckabee's star keeps rising, a fierce debate over his chops versus Bill Clinton's will inevitably erupt. I don't propose to take sides; unless you're an expert, it's hard to compare tenor-sax apples to bass-guitar oranges. Clinton has the shades and the hair, I know that much. But if you close your eyes and open your ears Huckabee more than holds his own, in my unschooled opinion."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:03 PM

November 28, 2007

11/28: Mitt's Muslim Mess

Conservative and liberal bloggers alike are buzzing about Mitt Romney's alleged statement to an Islamic businessman that he "cannot see that a Cabinet position would be justified" for a Muslim, based on the percentage of Muslims in the U.S. Romney quickly disputed businessman Mansoor Ijaz's account of their exchange, but Ijaz stands by his telling. To make matters worse for Romney, TPM Election Central just dropped another bomb: apparently two NV GOPers had asked Romney a similar question several months ago and gotten a similar answer, which one of them even described as "racist." Will this hurt Romney among IA GOPers, who are not exactly sympathetic to Muslims? And will the topic be raised during tonight's CNN/YouTube debate?

GOP FIELD: Will The Snowman Get To Ask Another Question?

Several conservative bloggers laid out their expectations for tonight's GOP CNN/YouTube presidential debate.

NRO's Jim Geraghty writes: "Fred Thompson needs to get his groove back, and stop his slide. Romney has been knocked around like a pinata these past few weeks; he needs to demonstrate that he's the kind of guy who can take a pounding and bounce right back up. Rudy Giuliani's got to reassure folks that his victory won't lead to a social conservative revolt; similarly, Mike Huckabee's got to reassure folks his victory won't lead to a fiscal conservative revolt. John McCain seems to have been on a roll lately, but is it going to be enough to accomplish more than a nice finish in New Hampshire? And finally -- I'll take "Sentences I Never Thought I Would Write" for 400, Alex -- will Ron Paul start looking like a serious candidate, with a constituency in the GOP too vocal and large to ignore?"

Townhall's Matt Lewis predicts who will shine and who won't: "Once again, with candidates like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo still in the debate, it'll be hard for anything much to be accomplished. Nevertheless, I think this format benefits certain personality types, just as the famous '92 Town Hall debate benefited Bill Clinton over George Bush, 41. John McCain stands to do well. As a participant on his semi-weekly blogger calls, I can attest to the fact that he is used to taking any and all questions, sometimes coming out of left field...Remember, while McCain was the first to sign-up for the YouTube debate, Mitt Romney was the one who wouldn't commit. Fortunately for him, Romney has also been holding 'Ask Mitt Anything' Town Hall's, which should have helped prepare him for this. Still, I think there is a chance he could have a bad night simply because he views the format as beneath him, and that's bound to show. Rudy Giuliani is more guarded by his staff, so he's not as practiced, but he's quick on his feet and his humor can be disarming. He will probably do well. Ron Paul is the 'internet candidate,' but not because he knows about the internet. My guess is he will do just okay. Look for Mike Huckabee to do well, and Fred Thompson, I think, could go either way."

AmSpecBlog's Jennifer Rubin adds: "[Tonight's] debate will likely be a brawl with the Rudy-Romney face off on crime, taxes and healthcare as well as the Judge Tuttman story still brewing not to mention the Muslims in the cabinet story...Romney will likely be in everyone's line of fire (who doesn't benefit from having him lose in Iowa?) so how well he withstands the onslaught may help voters decide just how tough he is."

Lastly, Townhall's Patrick Ruffini is pleased that the GOP candidates are finally embracing Web 2.0: "Four months ago, there was a real danger our candidates would get left permanently behind when it came to the dominant medium of the 21st century. The YouTube snub seemed to symbolize an indifference to competing with Democrats in a key strategic battleground. Today, our candidates are getting it. Mike Huckabee is reinventing his campaign and surging in Iowa with help from his bloggers. Fred Thompson did get it for a while...until he sacked key new media savvy staffers like Mark Corallo and decided to run an uninspiring cookie cutter campaign. Mitt Romney crowdsourced admaking with results better than his traditional media team. And let's not forget rhymes-with-Pon-Raul."

GOP FIELD II: Bloggers Prefer Fred And Rudy

RightWingNews' John Hawkins emailed 61 conservative bloggers and asked them various questions about the GOP candidates:

Which candidate would you most like to see as the nominee?
(1.) Fred Thompson (46%)
(2.) Rudy Giuliani (31%)
(3.) Mitt Romney (7%)
(4.) John McCain (8%)
(5.) Mike Huckabee (3%)

Which candidate do you think is most likely to capture the GOP nomination?
(1.) Rudy Giuliani (76%)
(2.) Fred Thompson (13%)
(3.) Mitt Romney (12%)
(4.) Mike Huckabee (0%)
(5.) John McCain (0%)

Which of the candidates do you believe is the most conservative?
(1.) Fred Thompson (66%)
(2.) Mike Huckabee (19%)
(3.) Mitt Romney (7%)
(4.) Rudy Giuliani (5%)
(5.) John McCain (3%)

GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert observes: "The one thing that is rather striking, given the conservative nature of the bloggers participating, is how poorly Mike Huckabee fared. Beyond that, Fred Thompson did quite well, as did Rudy Giuliani. While there is little surprise that Fred would do well in a poll of conservative denizens of the online community, Rudy Giuliani's continued strength within this group is notable as well."

GOP FIELD III: Rudy And Huck Go Together Like Bread And Butter

NRO's Rich Lowry: "These pieces in Time and the New York Sun point out something that's been increasingly evident over the last few days: how nicely Rudy and Huck's strategies mesh. They both are attacking Romney for a lack of authenticity, with Huck blasting the former Massachusetts governor on social issues and Rudy blasting him on everything else. Together, they've got all the ground covered. The division of labor works geographically as well -- Huck is threatening Romney in Iowa, which could weaken Romney in New Hampshire, where Rudy is increasingly vested in a strong finish (so much for the old Florida and Feb. 5 strategy). At the end of the day, I'm sure that the Rudy folks would like nothing more than for Huck to win the 'conservative primary' within the Republican primary and emerge as the alternative to Rudy. Huck would be the weakest anti-Rudy contender. This seems so obvious that if I were a calculating Rudy donor who had already maxed out for my guy, I'd be tempted to send some money Huck's way."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru rejoins: "I've heard some talk about a [Giuliani-Huckabee] ticket. They would balance each other nicely: Put them together, and you've got one conservative."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren is not so sure about a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket: "Yes, they have those somewhat complementary positions on social issues. And there is much data to the effect that the vice-presidential candidate is neither much of a hindrance nor help to a ticket. But these two are so far apart that it is possible that Huckabee's Evangelical voters would dismiss him as an opportunist/sell out for running with Giuliani. And all of those secular moderate ethnic/pro-defense blue state voters (in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc.) with whom Rudy is said to have a serious chance, will dismiss him out of distaste for putting the preacher on the ticket. That would be a perfect illustration of 'too clever by half.'"

Later, Lowry reproduces yesterday's Hotline analysis, which observed: "If [McCain] and Huckabee trip Romney in IA and NH, it'd be a huge boost for Giuliani. And the more volatile the early-state scramble, the better life is for the 2/5-lovin' Rudy." Lowry notes: "Along these lines, I was talking to an unaffiliated GOP strategist the other day who argues persuasively that the likeliest scenarios are that either Romney runs the table in the early states and wins the nomination or Rudy is the nominee."

On the left side of the blogosphere, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias agrees: "It's striking when you get down to it exactly how helpful the Huckabee Surge has been to Giuliani. This is particularly noteworthy because the two candidates represent basically opposite tendencies within the conservative movement. It wouldn't shock me if you saw maxed-out Giuliani donors cutting Huckabee checks. Certainly, I think it'd be a savvy play."

Yglesias also wonders: "In retrospect, it all sort of makes you wonder why social conservatives didn't just get behind Huckabee in the first place, rather than blessing Romney's preposterous conversion to religious right values and trying to drag Fred Thompson into the race. Sure, Huckabee's not well-liked by the economic hard-right, but cultural conservatives' objections to Giuliani didn't stop his backers from pushing him on the party. If Huckabee had just a modicum of money and institutional support, I think he'd be a formidable contender, but he's got neither."

ROMNEY: He's In Quite A Pickle

Soren Dayton looks at Romney's "Muslim mess" and breaks down the repercussions for the candidate: "This may open the door to a more open discussion of Romney's religion. If he is discriminating on the basis of religion -- perhaps even a wrong-but-politically-useful position in an Iowa Republican caucus -- then why can't other people drill down on his religion? Arguing 'no bigotry' is a lot easier than arguing 'bigotry for me but not for thee.' A combination of hypocrisy and implausible repeated non-denials is good material for a feeding frenzy. At the same time as he's getting drilled for other things. There's a lot of bad synergy going on right now for Romney."

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder offers Romney some advice about dealing with the media: "Romney does not seem to relish being forced to deny the story -- perhaps he finds it too absurd to bother with -- but such lack-of-relish shows, and it's leading reporters to try and parse his statements. Answering the subject by challenging the premise and challenging the credentials of the person who made the accusations are debating techniques, but they won't the get media to leave the story alone."

Romney is now without his online defenders, however:

NRO's Andy McCarthy empathizes with Romney: "I am feeling Mitt Romney's pain. I have debated Mansoor Ijaz -- in an 'Opinion Duel' organized by NRO. I repeatedly found that he accused me of saying things I hadn't said while he took positions that were unresponsive, at times incoherent, and consistently wedded to an agenda which he pursued no matter the course of the debate...I think, within the confines of his agenda, he means well, but I would not take him to the bank as a raconteur."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey declares: "Ijaz is no disinterested bystander or impartial analyst, not even for Muslim audiences. He was a bundler for the Clintons, attempting to torpedo a leading Republican candidate with a smear of bigotry...The Christian Science Monitor owes its readers an explanation of Ijaz' background and motivations. Allowing a Democratic operative to launch that kind of smear from the CSM without noting his connections to the leading Democratic frontrunner and the party amounts to journalistic malpractice."

Power Line's Scott Johnson looks at some of Romney's other statements about hiring people "regardless of religion, race or ethnicity" and concludes: "Governor Romney may not have given a satisfactory answer to Ijaz's question at the fundraiser, but that it was at most a slight misstep with respect to which he deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Liberal bloggers, of course, were only too happy to pile on the ex-governor:

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Of all the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney should be the very last one to publicly endorse discrimination on the basis of religion."

Think Progress' Faiz Shakir: "Note to Romney: As a Mormon running for President, you're going to need to come up with a better justification for religious bigotry against Muslims."

AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "He's the guy who cries 'foul' when anyone discusses his Mormon faith (that he can't stop talking about) but he doesn't mind making a bigoted remark about Muslims. During our so-called war on terror, no less. How insulting, careless and downright offensive."

Daily Kos' Trapper John: "It's just out-and-out bigotry for Romney to say that he would apply a religious test when selecting cabinet appointees, and that he would specifically apply that test against an oft-maligned religious community. It's reprehensible, it's transparently an attempt to score points with retrograde GOP primary voters, and Romney should henceforth be shunned by anyone claiming to respect religious freedom."

ROMNEY II: Ignore Huck (And Chuck) At Your Own Peril

The Politico's Jonathan Martin examines a new Romney direct mail piece sent to Iowans which claims that Romney is the only one of the "four leading Republican candidates" to support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Martin observes: "The former governor pointedly ignores Mike Huckabee, who has emerged as his most serious challenger in the Hawkeye State and who supports the ban."

Jennifer Rubin: "Given Huckabee is clearly the second place guy in Iowa as well does it make sense for Romney to ignore him in his first 'contrast' mailing on social issues? It would seem at some point Romney is going to have to either say 'I'm better on social issues' and take value voters away from Huckabee or say 'I'm better on everything else' in a Rudy like appeal (politics is filled with irony) but ignoring the elephant in the room seems foolhardy in light of where they stand in the polls."

Marc Ambinder sees challenges for Romney in Iowa: "Savvy consultants look at two numbers to project whether, if a particular election were held today, their candidate would win. One is the head to head -- and Mitt Romney still leads, narrowly, in Iowa polls. The second is intensity -- and here, Mike Huckabee's surge breaks over the walls that the Romney Iowa organization has spent so many months carefully building. Every consultant would rather be behind by five points in the head to head match ups and ahead by double digits in terms of the level of intensity."

Rubin adds: "There is an element of class and geography at work here -- Romney is the millionaire from Massachusetts and Huckabee is the neighbor from Arkansas. In that regard the Club for Growth crusade against Huckabee, regardless of the merit of the Club's arguments and their impact nationally, may do little to harm and indeed may help Huckabee as he plays the local underdog under attack from Wall Street."

GIULIANI: Making A Push In New Hampshire

Marc Ambinder reports: "According to a tally of New Hampshire television advertising kept by one of the campaigns, Rudy Giuliani has boosted his spending in the state by 60% for the upcoming week starting tomorrow."

AmSpecBlog's Philip Klein makes some observations about Rudy's chances in NH after spending 3 days in the state: "I got mixed signals on how Giuliani is doing in the state. His crowds were thin at some events, but respectable at others. When he actually got out in public -- as he did during a stroll down Main Street in Nashua on Saturday and at a holiday parade in Salem on Sunday -- people seemed to adore him. They raced up to greet him, get his picture, shake his hand, ask for his autograph, and the crowd often broke out into cheers of 'Ru-dy!' This suggested to me that now that Giuliani has decided to compete seriously in the state, taking out television ads and doing the up close retail campaigning that voters expect, he has a lot of room to grow. At the same time, there's reason to be skeptical as to whether his celebrity status will translate into actual votes on Jan. 8. Outside one diner stop, a guy asking Giuliani to sign two magazine covers from when he was Time 'Man of the Year' was undecided, as was a teacher holding a Rudy sign who told me she wanted him to autograph it for her class."

THOMPSON: Emphasizing The Wrong Things?

Hot Air's Allahpundit critiques two new ads released by the Thompson campaign: "I like the second half of the first clip -- he really is the most stalwart conservative among the big four, a point he should be hammering at every turn. The first half and the second clip in its entirety are devoted to pushing his background as a crusading attorney fighting for what's right, a noble and notable credential although it's not obvious to me why it does him much good...He should stick to the 'true conservative' stuff and start hitting the fact that while Rudy and Mitt are throwing punches and Huckabee's chattering about faith, he's rolling out one policy proposal after another."

RedState's Erick Erickson sees hope for Thompson: "Fred has reached that interesting point where none of the other campaigns take him seriously, yet he's starting to make inroads in Iowa against Huckabee, who can't afford to spend too much time fighting off Fred when he's trying to unseat Romney."

PAUL: The Dark Horse In New Hampshire

Philip Klein shares his thoughts on Paul's chances in NH: "Don't underestimate Ron Paul. His signs are ubiquitous in the state, and his supporters are as enthusiastic in person as they are in over the Internet. If his message resonates anywhere it should be New Hampshire, where he has several constituencies to pull from. There is not only a strong libertarian streak that runs through New Hampshire, but anti-war independents will be able to vote in the Republican primary. This is also a state that Pat Buchanan once won, and Paul could tap into some of those type of voters, given his foreign policy and immigration views. Don't forget that this is a state in which Republican Sen. John Sununu opposed the PATRIOT Act, so a lot of Paul's stances that get him dismissed as a kook among Republicans in other parts of the country, will resonate in New Hampshire. Now that he has millions of dollars to spend on TV ads, he can get his message out."

CLINTON: A Hawk In Sheep's Clothing?

TAPPED's Ezra Klein is not happy about Hillary Clinton's hint that she would give Colin Powell a position in her administration: "I know we're all supposed to like Powell because, without ever saying so, he hinted, that maybe, just maybe, when he was helping to sell the world on the Iraq War and fool Hillary Clinton about those weapons that didn't exist, he had some qualms about what he was doing, and much later, concluded that he'd played a critical role in engineering one of the greatest foreign policy disasters of all time...But you know what? Bringing back key members of the Bush foreign policy team probably won't restore our standing in the world. It's the sort of thing the Washington Post editorial board likes, but little more."

Matthew Yglesias agrees: "If Clinton's looking to assuage people's doubts about her foreign policy judgment, this seems like a terrible way to do it. A lot of Clinton's pro-invasion advisors are too obscure for most people to recognize. But Powell was the public face of the Iraq sales pitch. He's also a man who did have enough independence from his commander-in-chief to undermine her husbands efforts to bring gay equality to the military when Bill Clinton was president and Powell was in uniform. But as Secretary of State he raised some skeptical questions about the war, heard some answers, and then not only hopped on the bandwagon, but used his leverage as someone with a reputation for skepticism to make the sales pitch all the more effective."

Atrios registers his disapproval by naming HRC his "Wanker of the Day."

In a separate post, Ezra Klein unfavorably compares HRC's foreign policy views to Barack Obama's: "What separates Obama from Clinton is approach. Clinton is, at least in public statements, harder line than Obama. She's more enamored with our ability to solve problems militarily, less skittish about the costs of bombing Iran, totally unwilling to concede that the theory underpinning the invasion of Iraq was a mistake (her regret is that the weapons didn't exist, not that she was conceptually wrong)."

OBAMA: The Oprah Effect

Time's Mark Halperin doubts that Oprah Winfrey can help Obama win the nomination: "So yes, expect loud, rousing rallies in all three early voting states when Oprah Winfrey comes to town with her friend Barack Obama in early December, with gobs of media attention, raucous crowds, emotion and great pictures. But don't expect those events to do anything productive to allow Obama to get over the biggest hurdle standing between him and the White House. American voters are not looking for a celebrity or talk show sidekick to lead them. Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful potential President, but Winfrey's imprimatur is unlikely to convey those traits to many undecided voters. In that respect, Winfrey's events might even be -- dare it be said -- counterproductive."

Halperin thinks that "a more important event for his chances of winning" was yesterday's New Hampshire forum featuring a number of foreign policy heavyweights: "None of these Obama supporters are, of course, as famous as Oprah Winfrey -- or particularly famous at all. But their validation -- that Obama's brand of experience and his foreign policy vision make him qualified to lead America's military and protect the nation's national security -- could well do more for Obama than anything a talk show host (even a talk show host as powerful as Winfrey) can do."

TAPPED's Kate Sheppard disagrees: "It's true that the backing of leading foreign policy thinks is more important -- for the voters who pay close (or any) attention to the candidates' foreign policy plans. But I'm guessing the overlap between those voters and the Oprah crowd is pretty small. So the idea that Oprah's endorsement -- which is less likely to drive away the foreign policy fans than the minute details of his foreign policy proposals are to draw in the Oprah lovers -- is a bad thing is at best wishful thinking. Sure, we don't want to live in a country where a talk show host has more sway than the former national security adviser, but that doesn't make it so."

OBAMA II: Boxed In?

Considering that Jesse Jackson endorsed Obama eight months ago, Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks it's noteworthy that Jackson implicitly criticized Obama for "ignoring African Americans" in his most recent column. Nevertheless, Bowers feels sympathy for Obama's predicament: "I think it is pretty fair to say that if Obama did talk explicitly talk about race in a public way, even once, he would immediately face the same wrath Hillary Clinton faced for supposedly playing 'the gender card.' Obama would be instantly accused of playing the 'race card.' All of these attacks would also sound similar, if reversed, for when John Edwards is attacked as a rich guy talking about poverty. Women can't talk about gender without playing the '[gender] card,' blacks can't talk about race without playing the 'race card,' and anyone who talks about the plight of a demographic group to which they do not belong, such as rich people talking about poor people, then that person is a hypocrite. It really is a nearly perfect, conservative, media system to prevent anyone from talking about race, gender or poverty in America."

Bowers continues: "If Obama did bring up race more explicitly, he would immediately face a withering line of conservative African-American figures trotted out by the Republican Noise Machine to supposedly refute everything he said. Obama would then be pressured to retract or refute his words in some fashion, or at least tack on a call to African-Americans to behave themselves better (or something along those lines). Obama seems to be making a choice that he can instead indirectly allude to race through his bio and presence, and as such rise in the polls instead of facing direct media assault. This is certainly an interesting choice, resulting in an interesting dynamic where Rev. Jackson clearly wants Obama to talk about race more explicitly."

EDWARDS: The Progressive Choice

Edwards supporter David Mizner articulates the views of many in the netroots community when he argues that the outcome of the Dem primary "will have a huge impact on the battle between the two wings of the Democratic Party, the PPs (progressive-populists) and the CCs (centrist-corporatists.)...An Edwards victory would be a jolt to the central nervous system of the Democratic Establishment...An Edwards loss would be a loss for the progressive wing of the party. Never mind that the loyalties of progressives are divided, the MSM and the Democratic establishment would claim that the loss demonstrates the folly of trying to appeal to progressives. Of running left."

BIDEN: Top 3 Finish In Iowa Means "I'm Going To Win"

Following Monday's interview with John Edwards, CBN's David Brody sat down yesterday with Joe Biden. They discussed, among other topics, HRC, Giuliani, and Biden's chances in Iowa:

• Biden: "My problem with Hillary is she's not decisive enough. My problem with her is she's not straightforward enough in saying this is what I'll do."
• Biden: "[Giuliani] knows so little about foreign policy he confuses terrorists cells and organizations with countries. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before this war. Al-Qaeda became a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It didn't exist until Bush went to war. Even our own intelligence community says that. But these guys buy into this silliness that if you don't fight them in Baghdad you're going to fight them in Boston. Give me a break...I can hardly wait to debate these guys. The only guy on that side with any knowledge about foreign policy is John McCain."
• Biden: "If I come out of Iowa one, two, or three, I'm going to win this nomination because you have a catapulting effect and I don't have to, how can I say it, I don't have to go way out of my way to make the case that I'm qualified to be president."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When Bloggers Collide

Patrick Ruffini disputes Chris Bowers' criticisms of the Republican netroots and offers his own harsh critique of the Democratic netroots:

"Rather than pointing fingers at Republican experimentation and innovation, Bowers would do better to examine the netroots' failure to evolve since 2003, their staggering failure to inflict so much as a scratch on Hillary Clinton's inevitability, and the fact that their online energy has been drained to celebrity-minded forums like Facebook and MySpace and in-house campaign email lists where candidates are free to ignore them. When Barack Obama, your best hope for defeating Hillary Clinton, feels free to flagrantly blow you off, what does that say for the vaunted influence of the netroots?"

LEST WE FORGET: Famous Second Bananas

NRO's Jonah Goldberg thinks of "movies where the second banana was funnier/better than the lead actor":

"Tommy Lee Jones overwhelmed Steven Seagal in Under Siege. Bill Murray stole every scene in Kingpin. Harrison Ford crushed that guy who played Luke Skywalker. Jonathan Winters outclassed Robin Williams in later seasons of Mork & Mindy (not a movie, I know, but Winters's genius never gets enough respect). But this dynamic is actually common in sitcoms (think the Fonz in the early years, Benson on Soap, Dietrich on Barney Miller, etc). Personally -- and I know this controversial -- I think James Caan was better than Al Pacino in The Godfather. Almost every movie Schwarzenegger was in he was outperformed by his sidekicks, most notably Tom Arnold in True Lies. De Niro in Angel Heart. Brad Pitt in True Romance? (okay maybe not, but it was close). Pacino in Dick Tracy."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:02 PM

November 27, 2007

11/27: Ratcheting Up The Rhetoric

The battle between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney has gotten noticeably nastier during the past few days, with the two candidates taking turns calling each other hypocrites and comparing each other to HRC. The back-and-forth between the two candidates -- and the substantial media attention it has received -- is lending weight to the growing sense among pundits and bloggers that this has become a two-person race. Politicos will undoubtedly be anticipating fireworks when Romney and Giuliani take the stage at tomorrow night's CNN/YouTube debate.

GOP FIELD: A War Of Words

In an article examining "why war broke out" between the Giuliani and Romney campaigns, NRO's Byron York suggests that Romney's campaign may have instigated last weekend's dust-up with its "steady stream of criticism": "It appears that Romney, the sunny and positive optimist, has been a bit more persistent and bare-knuckled in his attacks on Giuliani than Giuliani, the tough-guy veteran of rough-and-tumble New York politics, has been on Romney. That doesn't mean the attacks were illegitimate, or false, or out of bounds; in fact, nearly all were based on at least a few facts and involved issues, like immigration and taxes and social questions, that are important to Republican voters. But it's hard to deny that in the last two months, Romney has kept up a fairly steady stream of criticism of Giuliani, more than the other way around."

NRO's Andy McCarthy thinks Romney crossed the line by bringing up Giuliani's multiple marriages: "I am a declared Rudy guy who likes Mitt, so I'm not enjoying the cross-fire. But after reading Byron's piece, I gotta say I'm surprised -- and offended -- that Mitt claims voters are worried about a candidate who has 'been married more than once.' Like Ronald Reagan, I've been married twice. So have a lot of people. It's to his great credit and good fortune that Mitt found the right person at a young age and has obviously enjoyed an enduring, wonderful marriage. But, y'know, Bill Clinton's only been married once, too. Does Mitt really think there is upside in playing this game? I think he's gonna turn off many more people than he'll appeal to. It's not the sort of thing people base their vote on, but I liked him less after reading it than I did before."

NRO's Jim Geraghty finds the back-and-forth tiresome: "Maybe because it's after Thanksgiving, voters really are tuning in with greater intensity now, but to those of us who have been watching this campaign from the start, it's a lot of old stuff -- post-Thanksgiving leftovers. Are there any GOP primary voters who really have no idea Giuliani was a social liberal as New York mayor? Are there any out there who haven't seen differing comments between Romney's campaigns in 1994 and 2002 and his comments on the trail today? Looking at each guy's level of support -- are there many supporters who will really be dislodged by the 10,000th version of the argument, 'Rudy's not a real conservative' or 'Mitt's a flip-flopper?'"

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff writes: "Given the plausibility of their competing attacks, the main beneficiary would seem to be John McCain, who sees his two key New Hampshire rivals tarred, and who probably wins points for declining to attack them with comparable gusto."

GIULIANI: Worried About Mitt-mentum?

Yesterday we linked to Hugh Hewitt's declaration that the GOP contest has become a two-person race between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey looks at Giuliani's escalating rhetoric and agrees: "Given the attention these negative attacks receive, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this has become a two-man race. Romney has targeted Giuliani for quite a while, while avoiding confrontation with any other campaign. Giuliani's return volleys endorse the notion that Romney has developed into his chief rival, at least strategically; he also has avoided engaging in extended verbal brickbats with John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, who has gathered considerable strength in Iowa lately."

Morrissey goes on to consider the significance of Giuliani's attacks on Romney in light of Giuliani's campaign strategy: "In that sense, the news of Giuliani's attack has much more significance. It shows that Team Rudy [is] still worried about opening-act momentum in the primaries despite his insistence that the big-state strategy will suffice. Rudy leads in Florida, New York, and California, which will deliver a big chunk of what he needs to win the nomination -- but if Romney takes Iowa and New Hampshire, those states may take a second look at Romney and his organizational strength."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti concurs: "What is going on here? Both candidates spent the weekend in New Hampshire, where Romney leads and Giuliani and John McCain are about tied at second. With a little over a month before primary day, more than half of New Hampshire Republicans remain undecided. The resources that all three campaigns are pouring into New Hampshire suggest that Giuliani's so-called 'Feb. 5 strategy' of minimizing Iowa and New Hampshire and playing up Florida and other big states is no more; the compacted primary schedule really has increased -- not minimized -- the importance of the first two contests."

ROMNEY: Stronger Than People Think

Yesterday we linked to Powerline's Paul Mirengoff's analysis of the GOP race, in which he wrote: "Polling data suggests that, at least in Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney may occupy his own space. In other words, it may be that Romney has his own core of solid support, such that gains by other candidates, even Huckabee, don't come at his expense."

At the other side of the political spectrum, TPM's Josh Marshall takes a look at Charles Franklin's Iowa polling chart and draws the same conclusion: "We've given a lot of editorial attention to Huckabee's surge in Iowa and the consequences it could have for Romney. I still believe that. But the graph makes pretty clear that the issue is Huckabee's surge, not any drop off in Romney's support. He's still rising, albeit at a slower pace...I can't look at these numbers without thinking that Romney's in a much stronger position than people think."

HUCKABEE: Teflon Man

Linking to Robert Novak's take-down of Huckabee, Townhall's Matt Lewis theorizes why Huckabee continues to rise in GOP polls despite his "fiscally liberal background": "Obviously, Huckabee is fortunate to be competing against a field of candidates whose social conservative credentials are, at best, questionable. His superficial attributes; his ability to speak well (as a pastor, this is his metier) have also been a tremendous resource. But I believe there is one last ingredient which is helping him, and that is the fact that it is harder to comprehend fiscal issues, and thus, harder to indict him (and easier to indict his opponents). 'Abortion is murder,' is a bumper sticker message that is easy to understand. Arguing the byzantine differences between 'Monetarist' doctrine versus 'Keynesian' orthodoxy, by contrast, requires a bit more time and knowledge."

Later, Huckabee's Director of Research Joe Carter emails Lewis to dispute his analysis: "Hey Matt, I have an even better reason why the attacks aren't sticking: they aren't true. It's disappointing that conservatives have been duped into believing the Huckabee is a 'fiscal liberal.' He (sic) record on spending and taxes is better than any of the candidates in the race who have actual records of governance. The tax burden under Romney was (sic) the spending under Rudy were much higher than under Huckabee. Are we going to hear conservatives limning them as a 'fiscal liberals?'"

HUCKABEE II: Playing The Mormon Card?

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wonders if Huckabee's latest ad is surreptitiously designed to start a dialogue about Romney's Mormon faith: "On first watching, the assumption is that Huckabee is drawing a bright line between himself as a candidate of faith and the titular national frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, as a candidate who lacks that bearing. That may be too broad a reading. In Iowa, of course, Giuliani is nowhere and Mitt Romney, he of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is everywhere...Is Huckabee playing the Mormon card, even unwittingly? Hard to say. His campaign says absolutely not. And intent matters, of course. But this being a postmodern political world, so does reception: it depends on the extent to which the targets of his television ad are aware that Romney is Mormon and are prone to object to it."

The Politico's Jonathan Martin also views the ad as an attack on Romney: "There is, of course, the just-barely-veiled swipe at Mitt: 'I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe,' he says in the spot before 'authentic conservative' flashes on the screen at the end. And then there is the reminder that Huck is one of them as he opens by declaring that faith defines him before the words 'Christian Leader' flashes on the screen. The overall message: Don't settle for anything but that unadulterated old-time religion (as it were)."

RedState's California Yankee comments: "Huckabee's new ad...may highlight his beliefs and appeal to his evangelical targets in Iowa, but it will frighten more voters in the end...Is Huckabee on the path blazed by Pat Robertson in 1988, when Robertson finished second-place in Iowa then stalled?"

MCCAIN: Watch Out For The Underdog

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini looks at a new direct mail piece sent to NH households that pushes McCain's environmental credentials and writes: "This is going to sound crazy, but I've got a simple message for my friends in the Rudy, Mitt, Fred, and Huck camps: watch your backs for John McCain...This is McCain 1.0, going back to the well of New Hampshire independents who were so generous with their votes last time. The 2000 primary showed how it could work. This time, McCain only needs a fraction of the independents he got last time to make the same dramatic impact. This development is something to be taken seriously. McCain only works as a stealth candidate. Positions like these are what killed his frontrunner status. But if he can sneak up on you from the back of the pack..."

RedState's Erick Erickson agrees: "We should all stop underestimating John McCain now. He's going for the independents in New Hampshire, again, and might throw a wrench in Romney's plans...And as much as I detest these global warming pushes, they are working with independent voters."

In other McCain-blogging, Marc Ambinder was one of several political reporters who had lunch with McCain in Arlington yesterday. Ambinder reports that McCain:

• "Acknowledged that 'immigration hurts' him in South Carolina but was confident; said his campaign had begun to gel in New Hampshire; acknowledged that in Iowa, 'we have a great deal of work to do.' McCain returns to Iowa and NH next week and is in SC tomorrow. Admitted that he had to 'do really well' in New Hampshire in order to survive the campaign."
• "Said he remained friends with Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, said he's taken a real shine to Mike Huckabee, and said he doesn't know Romney enough to be friendly. Huckabee, McCain said, was 'the genuine article.'"

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru, a McCain supporter who also attended the lunch, reports: "[McCain said:] 'As far as I know, the mayor of New York has never been to Iraq' -- and didn't attend meetings of the Iraq Study Group."

NRO's Mark Levin, a Giuliani supporter, retorts: "What exactly is [McCain's] point? That Rudy isn't interested enough in what's going on in Iraq to go there or to have attended ISG meetings, or that you had to go to Iraq and attended ISG meetings to understand how to fight this war, or what?"

PAUL: Maybe He's Already Won...

Patrick Ruffini examines the Ron Paul phenomenon: "Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and it's slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If it's possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up...Some campaigns can win big without ever coming close to winning an actual contest. Pat Robertson's 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan sees contradictions in Ruffini's ideology: "You can see some of the many competing and contradictory themes within contemporary conservatism in Patrick Ruffini's blogpost on Hewitt's blog today. His heart is with libertarianism; but his head is with the Bush security state and current Republican coalition. When the two conflict, his brain hurts...No, you can't be a pro-wire-tapping libertarian. You can be for wire-tapping with judicial safeguards, but that's not Bush's mojo."

OBAMA: Volunteer If You Want To See Oprah

While announcing the Iowa events featuring Oprah Winfrey, Obama's campaign "said tickets to the Iowa events will be given first to precinct captains, then campaign volunteers, then to supporters and undecided caucus-goers. It said volunteers can be guaranteed a ticket by completing a four-hour volunteer shift or attending local caucus training before the event."

Edwards volunteer desmoinesdem thinks this is "a counter-intuitive way of doling out tickets": "Obama's campaign seems to have calculated that if they can get hundreds of supporters to step up their involvement by becoming precinct captains or volunteering for at least four hours, that will eventually bring in more caucus-goers than they would win over by putting several hundred undecided voters in front of Oprah. On the other hand, isn't the whole point of Oprah's visit to excite and win over women who may not ordinarily be engaged in politics? Maybe having her address a roomful of fired-up Obama volunteers is not the best use of her star power."

CLINTON: Time To Turn The Tables On Obama?

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto thinks HRC should try to increase the pressure on Obama by portraying him as the front-runner: "How well would [Obama] hold up if he suddenly became the front