November 06, 2007

11/6: Sagebrush Rebellion 2.0

We continued to be fascinated by the mystery that is the Ron Paul campaign. While Paul set a new GOP single day fundraising record 11/5, he still sits at only 2.6% in Pollster.com's national average. That said, Paul's strongest states (MI -- 4.5%, NH -- 3.7%, IA -- 3.5%, and CA -- 3.2%) are all early primary states. Looking at RonPaulGraphs.com's instant Per Capita Donors (donors per million in population) map, however, we were struck by how closely Paul's strongest donor states matched up with those where the federal government owns more than 25% of all land. Is it really that much of a surprise that Paul's financial support is strongest among those that have to put with the feds as their landlord?

GIULIANI: Stand By Your Man

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti reports on a 11/5 telephone interview with Rudy Giuliani where he praised retired Judge Michael Mukasey for showing "a lot of courage" through his confirmation hearings. From Giuliani: "We should not be politicizing these issues that are issues that require very delicate definitions. ... Nobody wants torture. American agents don't seek to torture anyone."

HUCKABEE: If A Huckabee Attacked In The Forrest And Nobody Responded...

Conservatives thought Fred Thompson responded effectively to Mike Huckabee's 11/5 attack on Thompson's abortion and marriage opinions, but also argued Thompson's need to respond to Huckabee underscored his weakness in early primary states. Hot Air posts video of Thompson responding to Huckabee on Fox and comments: "Thompson manages to pound Huckabee into a fine powder without ever coming across as harsh or even particularly angry. It's as solid an appearance as I've seen Thompson deliver since the official announcement that he's running."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin comments on the exchange: "Yes, Thompson's attack on Huckabee's immigration and economic record was well framed, but perhaps was the first recognition by a top tier candidate that Huckabee is worth going after ... Huckabee's movement both nationally and in Iowa poses a problem for Thompson. Should Thompson finish out of the money and Huckabee second in Iowa, Thompson's first tier status might be called into question."

Similar thoughts from The Brody File: "This is all good news for Huckabee because when other candidates start paying attention to what you're saying and actually respond in kind, you know you've arrived."

MCCAIN: Immigration Convert Surges

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff links to evidence of a John McCainpollingsurge and diagnosis: "These results represent progress for McCain. They are attributable, I think, to his strong debate performances, the improvement in Iraq since his preferred military policy was adopted, and his commitment, finally, to a secure-the-borders-first immigration policy."

PAUL: By All Means, Let's Celebrate An Attempted Assassination

Reportsvary, but it appears Ron Paul supporters, encouraged but not directed by the campaign, raised at least $4M 11/5 in conjunction with Guy Fawkes Day which QandO's Bryan Pick reports: "was recently depicted in the movie 'V for Vendetta' as a day of (individual, then popular) revolution against an oppressive state." Reactions to Paul's haul include:

• The Corner's David Freddoso: "I don't care what your politics are -- that's a sign that he needs to be taken more seriously. The test, of course, will be in how wisely the money is used..."
• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "[A]s impressive as it is to harness to thrill of a focused event and the enthusiasm of a hard core of supporters, it's unlikely that this haul will catapult Paul into serious contention for the Republican nomination. There just aren't enough people who truly want to do things like shut down the Department of Education."
• Hit and Run's David Weigel: "Even if you don't like Paul, you have to gasp at what's happening in the GOP race. There are three phenomenons running in tandem: Paul's fundraising, Huckabee's cash-strapped poll surge, and McCain's running-on-fumes poll comeback. Anybody working for the Rudy-Fred-Mitt power trio has to wonder why the Republican base is so hungry for these other choices."
• Soren Dayton: "Ron Paul's support is a protest vote. There are a lot of Republicans right now who are really angry. Republicans are furious with their party. In 2004, Dems were furious with theirs. ... Here's a hypothesis, but a difficult one to test. To some extent, Ron Paul supporters support him because he is a variety of the "Republican wing of the Republican Party". People who hate the war can support Ron Paul. People who hate the spending can support Ron Paul. Those are the primary places where the GOP is losing its base right now. And the part of the base that is leaving right now are the ones who are rich and online. Just like some of the Deaniacs."

ROMNEY: Did Paul Finally Pick A Winner?

The Brody File posts a press release announcing Paul Weyrich's support for Mitt Romney and comments: "Let me start by saying that Paul Weyrich is a huge name in the social conservative movement. ... His claim to fame is that he was one of the co-founders of the Moral Majority. ... by getting a social conservative guy like Weyrich on board, it gives the Romney campaign a big leap forward to be able to say that Romney is serious about moving a pro-family, traditional value agenda as President. It's not about the amount of influence Weyrich has today. It's about how his name is synonymous with traditional values conservatism. That's the payoff more than anything else."

Townhall's Matt Lewis also sees the endorsement as a big deal: "Weyrich's endorsement implies conservative leaders have finally given up hope of finding the perfect candidate, and have settled for Romney as the better alternative to Giuliani and Thompson. ... Weyrich is a highly-respected conservative movement leader, and my guess is his endorsement will create a sort of domino effect. ... Could conservative heavy-weights like Richard Viguerie, Morton Blackwell, and Phyllis Schlafly be far behind?

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti, however, notes Weyrich doesn't exactly have a winning track record: "In 2000, Weyrich was for Steve Forbes. ... In 1988, Weyrich endorsed Jack Kemp, who lost the nomination to George H.W. Bush. And in 1980, Weyrich backed John Connally over Ronald Reagan.

Romney also had troubled pushing back against NROJim Geraghty 's claim on abortion that, "Fred Thompson can say something that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani can't, which is, "look at my record." The Corner's Byron York looks at a Team Romney response that includes a cite to an 10/29/02 AP article which shows Romney supporting parental notification laws. York also notes: "But reading deeper into the article shows Romney reportedly arguing strongly that he was just as pro-choice as his Democratic opponent, who was once pro-life, had become pro-choice, and was accusing Romney of advocating a pro-life position, something Romney denied."

THOMPSON: There Is No Pleasing All Conservatives On This Issue

Fred Thompson's federalist approach to abortion is pleasing some conservatives and alienating others. Reactions include:

• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "He objects to a Human Life Amendment on federalist grounds. I don't really mind that he takes that position, but I would like to know whether he wants to move toward a legal regime where unborn children are protected from abortion even early in pregnancy. I couldn't quite figure out where he stands on that question from his answers on 'Meet the Press.'"
• RedState's Ericka Anderson: "His belief that life begins at conception means that life in the womb is as abundant and real and valuable as yours and mine. If that is the case, such life should be protected equally. By rejecting a Human Life Amendment, Thompson, by default, places the life of the unborn child on a different level. He essentially says that child is not as worthy of protection as a child one hour out of the womb."
• Volokh Conspiracy's Jonathan Adler: "I have no idea whether Thompson's positions will help or hurt his electoral chances. But I also suspect I am not the only one who finds this apparent commitment to principle refreshing."
• Instapundit: "Sounds good to me."

The Brody File posts Team Thompson's new Grassroots Director Shannon Royce response to the Brody File concerns social conservatives may have been turned off by Thompson's 'MTP' performance: "I am confident that on both life and marriage he would use the bully pulpit to support pro-life policies and to support marriage as the union of one man one woman." Brody also comments on the addition of Royce: "Royce is a real nice addition to Thompson's staff. She is well respected within pro-family circles. She's been the Executive Director for the socially conservative "Arlington Group" and has been actively pursuing a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-family policy agenda for years. Maybe most importantly, she's well connected within Evangelical circles."

DEM FIELD: It Ain't 2012 Yet

Open Left's Matt Stoller posts an image of "a mailer going out in Western New York" which reads: "Democrat County Legislators Want To Make It Easier For Illegals And Terrorists To Get Driver's Licenses!" Stoller adds: "I spoke to a New York state party insider who told me that candidate numbers have been dropped ten points in local elections to be held tomorrow because of immigration, across all major voting blocs. The right-wing speaks entirely in coded language about tribalism, and it's beginning to hurt our candidates badly. MA-05 may not have been a blip."

Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher links and comments: "I hope someone can explain to me the wisdom of piling on Elliot Spitzer for some perceived lack of decorum when he tried to implement a policy of giving drivers' licenses to undocumented immigrants. If there's some tactical brilliance going on here, I confess it escapes me. This is going to be an ugly battle -- as Stoller says, possibly a preview of 2008 -- and I do think it's going to be one of those issues where we all hang together or we hang separately."

Also talking immigration, TAPPED's Dana Goldstein links to E.J. Dionneworries on immigration and proposes three Dem talking points on the issue: 1. Remind voters that George W. Bush and the GOP were so focused on Iraq that they failed to protect our borders in any meaningful way; 2. Emphasize the staying power of the American Dream -- despite all our troubles post-9/11, people around the world still hunger for the American way of life; 3. Talk about values-driven immigration policies. Refuse to penalize the children of undocumented immigrants. Support a path to legalization for immigrants already here in the U.S. that keeps families together. ... The emphasis should be on making more immigration legal immigration, a proud American tradition.

TAPPED's Ezra Klein links and adds: "I'm with Dana on being pretty concerned about the role immigration will play in the coming election. Not only is it an increasingly acute -- and motivating -- concern for voters, but it's quite literally the last issue area in which polls show Republicans with the lead. ... I'd add a bit to her argument: You will, I'm convinced, need to win the border security debate before you can get into any of the more humane issues of paths to citizenship and protecting children. And while saying that Bush and the Republicans have failed for eight years may have some impact, we won't be running against Bush, Instead, my hunch is there's room for an argument saying that the modern GOP won't ever get serious about staunching illegal immigration because their main supporters large corporations, like the supply of cheap labor."

In a not completely unrelated story, Open Left's Chris Bowers notes: "Michael Dukakis is widely viewed as having lost by a major landslide, while John Kerry is widely viewed as having lost a narrow election. However, looking through exit poll data, it appears that the two candidates performed almost identically among one of the larger demographic groups in the electorate: white voters."

More Bowers: "Broad demographic changes that rendered the electorate both less white and less Christian had a significantly greater impact on the changing outcomes of the 1988 and 2004 election than did the quality of the candidates running, the issues of the time, or the strategies employed by the campaigns. ... With [20112's] electorate, even a Democratic candidate with the skill of Michael Dukakis or John Kerry could win, and no Iraq war or economic downturn would be necessary."

CLINTON: A Cap And Trade Landslide

Reviews of Hillary Clinton's climate plan are filtering in:

• Gristmill's David Roberts: "It is thoughtful, comprehensive, and though disappointingly conventional in a few areas, inspiringly bold in others. With the release of Clinton's plan, all three Democratic frontrunners for the presidency now have visionary, far-reaching energy plans that would fundamentally reorient the country away from carbon-intensive energy and toward energy efficiency and renewables.
• TNR's Bradford Plumer: "The broad outlines are just as audacious as what Edwards and Obama have proposed. She'd aim to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 -- a goal urged by a growing number of scientists and green groups -- through a cap-and-trade regime, with the pollution permits auctioned off rather than given away for free. That last bit is a key design point, and would help avoid some of the problems plaguing Europe's emissions-trading system."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "The question uppermost on my mind was whether HRC would support either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade plan, since this is frankly the only part of the standard liberal agenda on energy that's really very risky to endorse. I'm told that both are essentially the same thing in practice, so it's no surprise that the leading candidates, now including Hillary, have all chosen the cap-and-trade route, which raises energy prices but doesn't include the dread word taxes."

RICHARDSON: So Take That

Possibly responding to impressions his defense of Hillary Clinton during 10/30's debate was an audition for a VP slot, Bill Richardson blogs at Open Left:

I was surprised that what many people "took away" from my statements was that I must support Senator Clinton's positions because I thought some of the attacks were out of line. So, let me set the record straight. I deeply disagree with Senator Clinton on many issues, just as I do with the other candidates. For starters, Senator Clinton thinks we can fix No Child Left Behind; I believe we need to scrap it. I believe we must create a New Energy Revolution whereas Senator Clinton's positions are simply not bold enough on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving to alternative energy sources. ... Most importantly, I disagree with Senator Clinton's belief that we cannot end the war now and get our troops out.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We Love The '80s

Admitting that Walter Mondale's Hillary Clinton endorsement may induce "a decent amount of snickering" since "Mondale did suffer the second worst electoral defeat of any Democrat since 1924" Open Left's Chris Bowers posts an '84 Mondale campaign video and notes:

This video presents almost the exact same issue set as the current Democratic Party presents. Two older woman talk about poverty at 0:20 and 0:30 in the video. Another older woman talks about protecting Social Security at 0:40 in the video. A diverse group of children are interspersed between these women. Outsourcing manufacturing jobs comes in at 1:00. The economic struggles of rural Americans comes in right after that, and a variation on the "people versus the powerful" or "two Americas" them immediately follows that. Republican connections to corporations and the wealthy are attacked starting at 1:47 in the video.

Bowers concludes: "The Democratic message from the 1980's hasn't changed, it has simply been repackaged to better conform to the standards of contemporary mass media. ... What has changed has not been the Democratic Party, but rather the country itself. With the contemporary electorate, Dukakis would have probably defeated Bush Sr., Carter would have probably defeated Reagan, and even Mondale would have probably been within single-digits of Reagan."

LEST WE FORGET: The Dreaded 'B' Word

Open Left's Matt Stoller reports from a Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) fundraiser in NYC:

I went up to Pelosi after her odd speech to ask her in person about her support for Al Wynn. I said 'I helped organize a fundraiser for Donna Edwards', and I was about to talk about retroactive immunity and ask her to take this as a sign of frustration, as well as to tell her how proud she makes me as the first female Speaker of the House. But the moment I mentioned Al Wynn, Pelosi's whole face abruptly changed, her smile melted away, and she got hostile and said in an icy voice 'I know about that.' She then turned away to talk to someone else. That's happened to me only one other time in politics, when I said to Jerry McNerney that I was a blogger.

Posted by Conn Carroll at November 6, 2007 12:31 PM