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 November 28, 2007 01:02 PM