January 11, 2008
1/11: Fred Roars Back To Life
Fred Thompson is the talk of the conservative blogosphere today thanks to his strong performance at last night's Fox News debate. Bloggers are calling Thompson's performance "powerful," "commanding," and "effective." They also love the fact that he repeatedly slammed Mike Huckabee -- who, as we've noted on multiple occasions -- is widely distrusted in the conservative blogosphere. NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez has bittersweet feelings about Thompson's performance: "Okay, where has this Fred Thompson been for the last year?...This is the man who people wanted to draft. This is the conservative guy conservatives are attracted to."
That said, many conservative bloggers are questioning why Thompson chose to direct most of his fire at Huckabee instead of his other SC rival, John McCain. Several bloggers think that by cutting into Huckabee's support among conservatives in SC, Thompson is only clearing McCain's path to the nomination. NRO's Rich Lowry writes:
"Fred can eat into Huck's support in SC, but can he beat McCain? Does he want to? Or to put it more precisely, does he want to do the things necessary to do it? I wonder. All of this is lining up beautifully for McCain, and [last night's debate] is just another indication of that."
THOMPSON: Better Late Than Never?
Conservative bloggers loved Thompson's debate performance:
RedState's Erick Erickson: "Fred Thompson owned this debate. He owned it. He dominated."
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Who put the vitamins in Fred Thompson's oatmeal? We have waited for Thompson to show up on the campaign trail, and tonight he finally did. He had energy, focus, a command of detail, and a willingness to finally engage with the other candidates on the stage. He took almost everyone else aback, and seized momentum that he only occasionally relinquished."
Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes: "Clear winner? Fred Thompson. He was commanding, funny, articulate. His rat-a-tat-tat answer deconstructing Mike Huckabee's record was incredibly effective -- a good actor can certainly memorize his lines...Thompson has to have made strides among conservatives who are not yet sold on John McCain. He could have done more to engage McCain directly -- he did so once, but it was almost passive. Fredemption?"
Commentary's John Podhoretz: "Fred Thompson is not only winning this debate, he is giving the most commanding debate performance we've seen from any candidate in either party since the beginning of this endless primary process."
NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to 'The Natural' to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background."
Michelle Malkin is impressed by Thompson's performance but remains pessimistic about his overall chances: "Fred will be declared the clear winner. There are a lot of folks on our side of the blogosphere who were pulling for him. He delivered his one-liners better than anyone else...He aggressively attacked Huckabee, showed humor, and looked comfortable on stage. But. He doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to go after John McCain. And judging from the audience reaction, Mike Huckabee's South Carolina evangelical base is sticking with him."
Rich Lowry is also pessimistic: "[Thompson's] been great. It almost makes you think if he had got in earlier, raised money, built an organization, and done all the hard work necessary in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, he could have had an excellent chance at this nomination (instead of the Hail Mary he needs in SC now)."
THOMPSON II: Drawing A Line In The Palmetto State
In other good news for Thompson, the conservative magazine Human Events has endorsed him: "The issue for us -- and for the conservative community -- boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson."
Matt Lewis thinks this is significant: "Human Events is one of the most respected conservative publications in America. This endorsement will rightly be a shot in the arm for Thompson, who needs to win South Carolina."
Erick Erickson agrees: "I have always viewed National Review as the established voice of conseravatism. If you are an opinion leader on the right, you read National Review. At the same time, I've viewed Human Events as the voice of the base within the movement -- the middle class and blue collar conservative men and women who show up to vote in fly-over country. Perhaps that is why it was Ronald Reagan's favorite newspaper...Fred Thompson came alive last night and today Ronald Reagan's favorite newspaper endorses him. Let's see what he can do with these in the next week."
Meanwhile, Thompson held a conference call with conservative bloggers yesterday. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff reports: "Thompson made it clear that he's 'drawing a line in South Carolina' -- in other words, staking his candidacy on winning the primary there. He hopes to accomplish this by advancing his claim (valid in my view) that he's the one major Republican candidate with a long record of taking conservative positions pretty much across-the-board. Thompson's theme will be that he's fighting a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party in South Carolina. His opponents, he will argue, all plan to move the party away from its Reaganite roots and towards the left."
MCCAIN: Cruising Into Michigan
Most conservative bloggers thought McCain maintained his frontrunner status last night by avoiding any damaging attacks:
Soren Dayton: "The only thing to know about tonight: No one touched John McCain. No one. Fred Thompson whacked Mike Huckabee a couple of times. Mitt Romney was nowhereto be seen . McCain wins as the untouched front-runner."
AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "[McCain] suffered no nicks, no cuts, no bruises. He was calm, once again remarkably avoided serious injury on immigration and defended fiscal restraint but also tax cuts like he meant it."
Ed Morrissey: "John McCain did as well as Thompson, if less spectacularly. He looked presidential, he also had a commanding presence, and he rolled with the tough questions that came his way."
Stephen F. Hayes: "McCain seemed as relaxed as I've seen him in this format. He is not often the most articulate man on the stage or the most fluid, but he was very solid tonight."
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "John McCain was the clear winner tonight. Both in terms of style and substance, he performed better tonight than he has in any previous debate. He was energetic and humorous, which undermines concerns about his age. He also drove home important parts of his message, including the fact that he was right about the Surge from day one -- that he would fight pork-barrel spending -- and that he has the experience to lead."
HUCKABEE: Teflon Man
Conservative bloggers continue to praise Huckabee's political skills while remaining wary of his policy views:
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Huckabee is...very good under fire -- affable, not very flappable, and humane."
Campaign Standard's Dean Barnett: "Mike Huckabee's an exceptional politician whose package of skills is often sold short. He's a lot more than an affable dispenser of one-liners who only knows how to play to the home crowd...For the first time, it was not only possible but easy to imagine Huckabee as the leader of 300 million people. He combined this newfound authority with his old standbys of off-the-charts likability and a deft way of tapping into aspirational politics. In the race for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee is going to be tough to beat."
Jim Geraghty: "Still very likeable, as usual, but I wonder if Thompson started taking the bark off him a bit tonight. South Carolina's Republicans are different from Iowa's, and I don't know if he's going to be able to smile and populist his way through it. Responding to a tough attack is never easy, and I credit him for not taking the Romney-esque, 'oh, that's uncalled for, I don't think we should make such personal attacks...'"
ROMNEY: Slipping
Campaign Standard's William Kristol: "[Romney] failed to do what he had to do...He had to get some momentum in Michigan. But after McCain slapped him down in the first exchange, Romney was passive and not much of a presence."
Dean Barnett: "The stakes were highest for Romney...If he doesn't win in Michigan next Tuesday, he's pretty much done...So it was an odd night for Romney to go invisible and say hardly anything original or inspiring. This was Romney's most lackluster debate performance of the entire campaign, and it came at a time when he could least afford it."
Michelle Malkin: "Romney was a big loser tonight. His delivery was wooden. The other candidates ignored him. In just four/five days, he seems to have completely lost that front-runner status."
GIULIANI: Hold On For One More Day
William Kristol: "[Rudy Giuliani was a] shadow of his former self...Where did the zip go?"
Dean Barnett: "Giuliani has made himself utterly irrelevant."
GOP FIELD: Democrats For Mitt?
Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas wants to make mischief in the MI GOP primary: "Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so? For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot...If we can help push Mitt over the line, not only do we help keep their field fragmented, but we also pollute Romney's victory. How 'legitimate' will the Mittster's victory look if liberals provide the margin of victory? Think of the hilarity that will ensue. We'll simply be adding fuel to their civil war, never a bad thing from our vantage point."
Several other netroots bloggers endorsed Moulitsas' idea:
Jane Hamsher: "I wholeheartedly approve."
MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I'm with kos...Not to mention the added benefit of halting McCain's mo'."
DEM FIELD: The Return Of Identity Politics
Open Left's Matt Stoller: "With no discernible differences between the candidates, this is now a massive identity fight. There's a generational split, a gender split, and a racial split. I talked to a Gen X [Barack] Obama supporter yesterday who told me that she wants the boomers out of power, but she remembers having her mouth taped shut in sixth grade for talking too much in class, a punishment never meeted out to the boys. And so she has strong sympathy for Clinton, especially when the media picks on her."
Open Left's Chris Bowers agrees, and thinks HRC will win this game: "As Matt noted yesterday, the campaign seems to be coming down to identity politics. Activists and campaigns seem ready to play full hands of age, race and gender cards. With Obama relying primarily on non-[John] Kerry supporters in New Hampshire, in order to win the nomination nationwide he will need both the overwhelming backing of African-Americans and a large influx of new primary voters. Otherwise, Clinton's domination of the Kerry vote will simply be too much. In 2004, Nevada was one of Kerry's best states, as he secured 64% in the February 14th caucuses. If Clinton's campaign really is the Kerry and [Joe] Lieberman coalitions reborn, while Obama and [John] Edwards are splitting the remainder, then Clinton probably wins out. Older women are the largest identity group in the Democratic primary electorate. It will take both a nearly unified, and greatly expanded, progressive creative class plus African-American coalition to have any chance against her."
Bowers also notes that Obama continues to lead HRC in SC (so far) and writes: "Fascinating that Clinton did not receive much of a bounce in South Carolina or nationally, as it is possible that African-Americans have swung behind Obama to stay. Still, it is best to wait for confirmation from more source on this before drawing any conclusions. No polls from Nevada yet, but that still seems like the major showdown state. The key for Clinton in Michigan is to make sure she is over 50% by as much as possible. If she doesn't break 50% with neither Obama nor Edwards on the ballot, it will be seen as a major repudiation of her candidacy. It shouldn't be a problem for her to pass 50%, but who knows?"
Meanwhile, MyDD's Jonathan Singer thinks Obama needs to be careful about managing expectations in NV: "Although receiving the endorsements of both the Culinary Workers union and SEIU within Nevada greatly increased Barack Obama's chances of winning the state's caucuses next week those endorsements also presented him with the significant challenge of raised expectations...Before the big union endorsements, Obama was sitting quite nicely in the expectations game in Nevada, trailing by a wide margin, so even a loss by less than 20 points (and certainly less than 10 points) would have beaten expectations (at least of the existing polling). Now, at least according to [Chuck] Todd and [Marc] Ambinder (even if I disagree slightly), it seems that the Beltway is now expecting a win from Obama in Nevada, and anything less would represent a failure to meet expectations."
OBAMA: A Key Netroots Endorsement?
'06 CT SEN nominee and netroots hero Ned Lamont endorses Obama : "When I decided to run for Senate, I did so because I deeply believed that the citizens of Connecticut were yearning to see fundamental changes in our politics -- changes that would make government work for them again. Today, with our Presidential primary in Connecticut less than a month away, I am announcing my support of Barack Obama for President because I am convinced that his forward-looking, progressive vision provides the best chance to enact meaningful reforms in the way Washington works. Sen. Obama has the tone and temperament to bring out the best in our people and our nation, and to bring new coalitions together in support of the progressive policies we all want to see enacted. His campaign has already reflected this, not only by bringing hundreds of thousands of new voters of all ages to the polls, but by inspiring so many who are new to politics to become activists as well."
Chris Bowers: "This is a targeted endorsement that could help Obama with the progressive, activist base."
TPM's Greg Sargent: "Lamont's backing is a decent get for Obama, for several reasons. It could open up more Web fundraising channels to him. And since Lamont has become a national figure among Dem primary voters for his successful primary challenge to Lieberman, Obama can argue the endorsement shows he's the one mounting a true challenge to the Dem establishment."
Several prominent liberal bloggers were surprised and disappointed by Lamont's endorsement of Obama:
"Both Obama and Clinton betrayed Lamont and all of us during the 2006 campaign. Hillary Clinton, while she did do a fundraiser for Lamont, had her husband go onto Larry King after the primary and back Lieberman by saying there was no difference between the candidates...At the same time, after promising to endorse the winner of the primary, Obama went through Connecticut by train and refused to stop in the state out of fear of challenging Lieberman. He had earlier in the race spoken out at the Jefferson Jackson dinner for Lieberman, his mentor.
I talked to Ned today, and expressed all of this. And he knows it. And nothing can reverse the outcome of that election, which set the stage for the complete Democratic capitulation on Iraq we saw throughout 2007.
A few weeks ago, Obama refused to help out during the Senate FISA fight, when Chris Dodd bravely filibustered the Bush administration's top priority to expand wiretapping authority and immunize telecom companies who had broken the law. The fight is probably coming around again, and Lamont promised he would advocate internally for Obama to actually stand with Dodd this time. I doubt Obama will filibuster, though it would be really good for his campaign and I would become an excited advocate for Obama were he to do so.
Still, I hope Lamont is able to persuade Obama to actually stand for principle. That would make his endorsement truly meaningful."
The endorsement seems to have created a fissure between Lamont and certain members of the netroots. In response to Stoller's post, commentator BradODonnell writes: "Nail on the head, Matt. Clearly Lamont's endorsement of Obama means we were wrong about him all along -- not Obama, but Lamont! Lamont is obviously pretty conservative and does not share our values. Right Matt?"
Stoller: "Yup. He did an extremely brave thing by running against Lieberman, but that was a temporary alignment. I will always be grateful to Ned for that, but we do not see eye to eye on political values."
Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher is similarly confused by Lamont's endorsement: "The only one of the three remaining Democratic candidates who actually went to Connecticut and put his shoulder to the wheel for Lamont was John Edwards...If Lamont had gotten Obama's agreement to filibuster FISA in exchange for his endorsement, as Matt says, I can see why Ned might have come out for Obama at this point in time. But he didn't. So under the circumstances, I'm a bit puzzled why he didn't show respect for Edwards and defer this kind of decision until his future was clear."
EDWARDS: The Spoiler?
Several liberal bloggers at The Huffington Post are urging Edwards to drop out of the Dem race and support Obama:
Brendan Spiegel: "If Edwards is in fact running on what he truly believes, and honestly thinks Clintonian triangulation needs to be stopped, then he should drop out now and endorse Obama, the only candidate who has a shot to beat Clinton. (Or he should endorse Clinton, if he thinks she's the better candidate, although that appears unlikely). The point is, John Edwards is not going to win, but he could make a huge difference, instead of playing the spoiler. If it really is just about John Edwards, he'll stay in and rack up increasingly distant third place finishes. When he finally does drop out, it will be too late for his endorsement to make a difference."
Lawrence O'Donnell: "If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation."
RICHARDSON: Cue Exit Music
Liberal bloggers react to news that Bill Richardson is dropping out of the presidential race:
TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "While [Richardson's] meandering monologues at the debates have been...frustrating...he has injected both a hard-line call for immediate troop withdrawal into the debate, as well as the most direct and repetitive discussion of climate and energy and arguably the best plan for addressing those issues."
Chris Bowers: "I know Richardson started losing support online about six months ago, but I still greatly appreciate his contribution to the campaign on Iraq. Well done, Governor."
TAPPED's Sam Boyd is less charitable: "Maybe it was his lackluster debate performances or his essential lack of ideology, but I'd like to think he never caught fire because he insisted on calling himself a 'pro-growth' Democrat -- as if there was some other kind (as Ezra pointed out last year)...Which candidate will this help? I don't know, but I'm pretty confidant it'll help America."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It Ain't Over Yet
The Atlantic's Ross Douthat thinks that people are underestimating Romney's chances:
"[McCain]'s up in Michigan, up in South Carolina. In neither case, though, is he over thirty percent. And I continue to think, despite all the talk about Romney being toast if he loses Michigan (which he probably will), that until McCain proves he can break through his current 35 percent ceiling, the Romney campaign ought to assume that the race will be a marathon rather than a sprint, and that even a slew of early-state silver medals (and the media derision that comes with them) could still translate into gold at the end.
Recall that in 2004, John Kerry quickly cemented his status as the Democratic favorite by breaking into the forties and even the fifties in the post-New Hampshire primaries. Similarly, if McCain wins Michigan with a Kerry-style 40 or 45 percent of the vote, then the Romney 'Long March' scenario (and the longer-shot Giuliani scenario) start looking like pure fantasy. But so long as he stays within the ceiling he bumped up against in 2000, the race is a long way from over."
LEST WE FORGET: One Mean Mutha Hucker
NRO's Mark Steyn likes the new "Stuck on Huck" rap:
"Who says we Republicans can't tap our feet and snap our fingers at the same time? This is the best effort at GOP youth outreach since, er, Pat Boone endorsed George W. Bush. This Huckarapper is one mean mutha Hucker. I especially liked this couplet:
Agree with me, join this chorus
Endorse the next prez like Chuck NorrisI feel Huck should embrace the rap thing wholeheartedly. Change his name to Snoop Hucky Huck or Ol' Dirty Pastor or The Notorious B.I.G. G.O.V.E.R.N.M.E.N.T."
Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 11, 2008 12:47 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
