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-runner? What would happen if Hillary exploited today's questionable Zogby polls, and shifted the race by putting the pressure (and expectations) onto him by suddenly making him the leader, with her in pursuit? Why not openly talk about his fast rise to the top, how his relative inexperience appeals to people, and how she admittedly can't talk it up like he can?...Hillary should be ready to tell voters that if they think Obama is better able to do these things, then they should vote for him, and make the voters confront their leap into the unknown with Obama as the front runner. Do it with humor, and not bitterness, but do it as a sign of being comfortable in your own skin. And portray yourself as being ready to earn their vote, not because you are a Clinton but because even though you may not be this year's new model car, you know the road well and can get home."

EDWARDS: Can He Compete In The South?

CBN's David Brody interviewed John Edwards in New Hampshire yesterday. They discussed, among other topics, Edwards' appeal in the South:

• Edwards: "I'm the only Democrat who has actually won in a red state. I was elected against an incumbent Republican backed by the Jesse Helms political machine, a very powerful, very effective machine. I grew up in small town rural America. What Democrats always need to do to be successful is we have to be competitative in those places. When I go to rural areas whether it be in iowa, new Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, across the South -- when people hear me talk it sounds very familiar to them -- I don't just mean the accent -- I do talk like this, but beyond the accent, I think they sense that I understand what their lives are about."
• Edwards: "I won the South Carolina primary in 2004, and I was way behind in the polls at this stage in 2004. I think all that has to happen in South Carolina is voters there need to be reminded where I'm from -- that I was born there. That I understand the closing of plants, the loss of jobs, the rural economy. Those are all things that I grew up with, and I understand them in great and intimate detail because I have lived them, and I've seen what it's like with my own family."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Horse-Race On Stilts

Linking to Jason Zengerle's New York Magazine article about America's fixation with "electability," Slate's Mickey Kaus writes:

"One reason the 'electability' issue has become so prominent -- why 'presidential primaries have become an electability bonanza,' as Jason Zengerle puts it -- is that the mainstream press likes it when electability is the issue. For one thing, 'who's electable' is a Neutral Story Line -- it seemingly doesn't require reporters and publications to take stands or sides. You can write dozens of 'Is Hillary Electable?' stories without letting on what you think about, say, government-guaranteed health care. It's harder to write 'Will Hillary be a Good President?' without doing that. Second, 'electability' questions -- like the traditional 'horse race' questions -- are in political reporter's analytic wheelhouses. Indeed, 'electability' questions are 'horse race' questions. They're the horse-race on stilts! Or, rather, they're the horse race 'process' turned through some serendipitous alchemy into candidate 'substance.' ... P.S.: I don't think 'electability' is a bogus concern in the primaries. But I think Iowa's discredited caucusers are lousy at spotting it. Howard Dean was a much more 'electable' candidate than John Kerry (and, in retrospect, than John Edwards)."

LEST WE FORGET: Face It, You're Rich

After reading Sunday's Washington Post article about the growing number of DC suburbanites hiring "lifestyle managers," The American Scene's Matt Frost writes:

"Upon consideration, though, the real story seems to be the amount of cognitive dissonance involved among the DC suburbanites who are buying these services. In places where wealth is considered part of the landscape, like Brentwood or the Upper East Side, it's assumed that the rich have servants. But the fusty Washington suburbs have until now supported an unostentatious cadre of bright but relatively underpaid bureaucrats and functionaries. After 9/11, with the heaping of the nation's wealth into the warfare/welfare state and its camp followers, the real money has arrived. Culturally, though, the idea of employing a steward, majordomo, chamberlain, butler, grape-peeler, whatever is still beyond the pale, so these workers have to define themselves with a new, insipid vocabulary. Enter the 'Lifestyle Manager.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 27, 2007 12:52 PM