Giuliani on guns: unconvincing but irrelevant
In my mind, the gun issue for Giuliani is — like Romney’s abortion stance — about authenticity, not policy:
At one point, he came close to disavowing a lawsuit against gunmakers that he initiated while mayor of New York.
The 2000 lawsuit sought to hold gunmakers liable for shootings with illegal guns (the case, by chance, was heard this week in a federal appeals court). At the time, Giuliani called it an “aggressive step towards restoring accountability to an industry that profits from the suffering of others.”
Yesterday, Giuliani backed away from the lawsuit, saying he might not uphold it if he were a judge.
No one is going to ratchet up gun control in America any time soon. The Democrats tried that in 1993, got burned in 1994 and have never forgotten it. You don’t lose a sitting Speaker of the House in an NRA district without feeling the pain. The Dems have gone underground on that issue ever since. Don’t look for a president of either party to chance it. It thus differs from other hot-button base issues, like immigration amnesty, where Bush was in a position to alienate the base in a close battle.
The NRA may go to the mattresses on this just to prove they can, to maintain their aura of political potency. But I seriously don’t think the policy implications are there, now or any time in the near future.
Romney vs. Ahmadinejad
Mitt not only talks the talk. He walks the walk. As governor, he ordered state agencies, including police, not to provide any services to the former president of Iran when he visited as a “dignitary” at Harvard. Again, he’s getting tough on the creeps:
“If President Ahmadinejad sets foot in the United States, he should be handed an indictment under the Genocide Convention,” Romney added, reiterating his point. He also urged the U.N. to revoke any speaking invitation.
Romney routinely talks about the threat the United States faced from “radical jihadists,” and he has staked out a hard-line position against Iran in particular.
In January, he called for economic sanctions against the Central Asian nation “at least as severe” as those imposed on South Africa during its apartheid era, aiming to isolate the country and convince it to give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
What’s remarkable about what Romney is saying here is how unremarkable it ought to be. Here we have a country that fuels terror throughout the region. Indeed, it is the engine of terror, with it’s fingerprints all over Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza. It’s governing regime has publicly declared it’s intention to destroy the state of Israel, and is pursuing nuclear weapons with glee and abandon.
Yet it remains worthy of note when a presidential candidate suggests they should get the South Africa treatment from the civilized world?
Rudy hits Hillary’s hypocrisy
Greenspan slams Bush, embraces Clinton
… in Greenspan’s new book:
Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton’s mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president’s 1993 economic plan “an act of political courage.”
But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. “My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan writes. “Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush’s collaborate-don’t-confront approach was a major mistake.”
Bush deserves it, certainly. Can’t be certain on Clinton, but the seething animosity reserved for Robert Rubin & Co. by Robert Reich in his book, Locked in the Cabinet, suggests that Clinton & Co. were much more cooperative on fiscal restraint than anyone expected.
One might see this as grading on a curve. Republicans were busy squandering their strength down the pork sausage chute, even as Democrats were showing unexpected restraint under Clinton. I do have a hard time arguing with Greenspan’s take there.
Rudy calls out Hillary’s suspended disbelief
Got $65K? NYTimes is running a Fall Sale:
A conservative group, Freedom’s Watch, which supports Bush’s Iraq war strategy, also plans a print ad in the Times and has demanded the same $65,000 (€46,772) rate that the liberal group paid for its full-page ad. Giuliani is getting the same rate.
Hillary, who sat in the committee room circulating jr. high school notes with her pals looking for “good bites” and “best questions,” tipped her hand with her absurd suspension of disbelief, motivated by her deep concern for pancakes. Rudy’s not amused:
Broder: Romney’s strategy is clear
A remarkable piece by David Broder on Romney. Remarkable in that it doesn’t mention, or even allude to, the man’s faith. That may be a first. The absence was so notable I felt compelled to remedy it here.
The Romney strategy has been pretty clear for quite some time: win in NH & Iowa, and vault to the fore on that basis. Could work, but the compression of the timetable makes it tougher.
Broder nails the underlying weakness of the Romney effort [aside from his, uh, religion], namely the doubling back from the left positions used to get elected in Massachusetts. I’ve long argued that the man should have moved to Michigan, where such contortions would not have been necessary, and where his father’s legacy would have severed him well.
Broder concludes his assessment,
Many events could upset this scenario. But the methodical, business-like Romney campaign has had a clear strategy — and, unlike Thompson, a stable, professional management team. For them, January — not February — is the decisive month.
In the end, everything rests on Romney himself — and that is as it should be when the presidency is at stake.
Thompson is toast
If not in the primary, then in the general. But he seems certain to fail in the primary as well. I suggested earlier that he’s a sweet old grandpa who’s losing it. George Will seems to agree:
Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: “When you look at the other current crop of candidates — Republicans — where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?” Thompson replied: “Well, to tell you the truth, I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions.”
He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported — the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know.
Just another case of the delusional pull of the presidency on the ambitious mind. This man has no business in the field. He doesn’t know why he’s there, and he doesn’t have the energy to figure it out.
In this field, he can only play the role of the spoiler, most likely crowding up the space on the right, allowing either McCain to resurge or Giuliani to hold.
[Apropos of nothing: Ron Paul is still irrelevant. I just wanted to throw that out to taunt all the Ron Paul trolls who spend their day on Google looking for places to express their man love.]
Thompson’s needs work driving to the basket
Don Surber points out that Fred Thompson is likely right that a backlash against rigid anti-smoking enforcement by the Al Qaeda thugs helped tip people against them. This was part of a larger picture of attempted extremism rejected by the populace.
Surber cites a news report in which a reporter and the audience apparently were scratching their heads about what Thompson was up to with the anecdote. Surber concludes,
Obviously, Thompson’s problem is he is better briefed and better read than the reporters covering him.
I’ll agree part way on that, but I’m going to push back a bit. The job of the speaker [or writer, or rhetorician of any sort] is to bring their point home for the audience. Diffusely making an complex analogy that has merit but failing to bring it home forcefully for the audience is like a basketball player who goes gently for a layup in a situation that calls for a muscular slam. It’s no excuse to say the ball was on target: your job was to force it home.
I remain unconvinced and worried that Thompson may lack that skill and instinct.
Mitt’s keystone cops
If you’re going to do this, you’d better know how to do it right. A key Romney supporter is apparently caught with his pants down running an anti-Thompson website titled phoneyfred.com, since removed:
The Web site was hosted by a company called BlueHost, based in Orem, Utah. Until late yesterday afternoon, a search at that company’s site for PhoneyFred.org returned the following message: “Domain phoneyfred.org is still attached to your politicalnetroots.com account as Addon.” The address http:/
/ www.politicalnetroots.com brings up the home page for Under the Power Lines, which lists Tompkins as “partner, consultant,” along with Terry Sullivan and Wesley Donehue. The PhoneyFred site, Tompkins’s own Web site and many of his other clients’ sites are all hosted on the same BlueHost server.
One of the many ironies is that it attacked Fred for having been prochoice. Pot and kettle, Mitt?
If you’re going to pull a stunt like this, one might start by learning how to hide the source?
Romney’s trust fund albatross
Huckabee is trying to exploit Romney’s wealth against him. Running kind of a populist campaign to capture the same Buchannan insurgents who took out George Bush in New Hampshire in 1992:
“The economy looks good when you measure it in macro terms,” Huckabee said Thursday during a stopover in Washington, “but a lot of families are struggling just to reach the next step on the ladder.” Having grown up in a family where “you finished everything on your plate, because you never wasted a thing,” Huckabee said that he empathizes with the anxiety of “people who have no trust fund, no safety net to fall back on.”
He didn’t have to name Romney as the “trust fund” candidate in the race. The former venture capitalist’s wealth has been well publicized. All Huckabee has to say is “I’ve walked the aisles at Wal-Mart” to make his class consciousness evident.
This is a tough one. On the one hand, I have no sympathy with class warriors, and one can legitimately argue that the vast majority of Romney’s wealth came from remarkable skill and hard work.
On the other hand, I was in Massachusetts when he ran in 1994, and I never forgot the interview his wife did in which she claimed to sympathize with the economically challenged because when she and Mitt were in college things were so tight … they had to sell some of their stock. [I know, it sounds like a punchline, but I am not making it up.]
So do Mitt & Co. understand the average Joe? Can he connect with him? I’m skeptical on both counts. Does this matter. I’m afraid it does.
It’s not the speaking, stupid.
I think what separates we real Reaganites from those who either didn’t get it or were too young is that we know the “great communicator” label is a slander. Jonathan Martin, for example, notes that Fred’s public speaking so far is weak, very un-Reaganesque:
The problem is simple — Thompson is just not a dynamic public speaker. And journalists, pundits and activists have had an expectation for his oratory that can’t and won’t be met.
Perhaps no mortal could reach the Reaganesque bar that was originally set. But every time a new set of observers see him deliver a speech, they tend to be underwhelmed. Maybe it’s his acting background or just the high hopes many Republicans had. Either way, he’s not going to deliver anything in the way of a soaring stemwinder. That’s not who he is. Problem for Team Fred is that folks expected something more.
Sure, Reagan was a fine public speaker. But to reduce Reagan to effective speech making is like reducing a meal in a fine restaurant to the effective presentation on the plate. It matters, but it aint the essence. What made Reagan click was he spoke from the gut. He had spent decades honing his political philosophy, and he knew it in and out.
My concern with Fred is not just that his delivery stinks. Though it does. My concern is s that he may lack that visceral sense of who we are, where we are going, and why his leadership would matter. I’m not sure I see that in any of the candidates, but it was never lacking in Reagan.
Mitt’s abortion baby steps
Kathryn Lopez at NRO’s The Corner, quotes and responds to Mitt’s comment on abortion in the debate last night, in which Mitt explained why changing our national perspective on abortion is matter of gentle persuasion, not straight up criminalization. Here is part of here comment:
For a presidential candidate to talk this way — to be adapting the “Women Deserve Better” message of Feminists for Life and co. is a civic contribution. I don’t know who’s going to win this nomination, but I know I’d like Republican nominee who opposes legal abortion and who understands why — that we must protect the sanctity and dignity of human life. And that there are real people — both who were not allowed to be born, and who are walking among us — who have been harmed the “choice” the liberal feminists and their fellow-travelers have put so much of their energy into. If you want to talk about changing hearts and minds, an infusion of this kind of talk is a substantial baby step.
Inclined to agree. K-Lo might be interested to know that Mitt’s perspective here is likely shaped, in part, by the words of the much-maligned founder of his religion, who wrote,
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called but few are chosen.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood. Only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness, and meekness, and by love unfeigned. By kindness, and pure knowledge which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile.
What’s with the head bobbing, Fred?
I watched this a couple of times to try to figure it out, and by the time I was done, my head was kind of spinning. For me, the head bob clearly distracted from the message. Does he do this on Law and Order as well? [I’ve never seen it.]
Please tell me when Ron Paul leaves the stage
I’m plumbing the depths of my indifference.
There are far too many debates with far too many candidates on the stage. As long as Ron Paul is up there, I see no reason to pay any attention to them at all. In that sense, I guess I agree with Fred Thompson, though I’m distinctly underwhelmed by him so far as well.
If you really must have a post-debate fix, go here.
GOP looks to New Coke fiasco as model
When New Coke became a sales and public relations debacle in April 1985, parent company Coca-Cola yanked it from shelves in 79 days, reintroduced Classic Coke, pumped millions into advertising to repair its brand and roared back as the soda giant two years later.
The Republican Party hopes it can be so lucky.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) recently created a small, ad hoc advisory group of fellow members to help restore the GOP brand as the party of small government, fiscal discipline and tough-minded foreign policy.
That actually is an astute analogy. Certainly, the Ted Stevens of the Republican party are the purveyors of political New Coke. And the Boehner’s are the defenders of the original formula. Whether the analogy works beyond that in terms of consumer loyalties remains to be seen.
I like the analogy because I always did prefer Coke to Pepsi.
Romney “concedes” Iraq is a mess. Duh.
Politico’s Jonathan Martin seems to think it’s news that Romney agreed with a voter in NH that “Iraq is a mess.” Of course, he didn’t really agree. The voter said it is an “unmitigated mess.” Romney, apparently, sees it as a mitigated mess. The mitigating factors are (a) we still can win, and (b) the consequences of failure would be horrific.
Here’s the tail end of Martin’s piece, which presents a policy image not that different from other supporters of the surge:
While emphasizing to the New Hampshire audience tonight that to withdraw precipitously would bring considerable “regional consequences,” Romney emphasized in some of the most detailed language he’s used yet about the conflict that he sees the surge that Petraeus and Crocker are to report on as the first element in a three-step process designed to minimize the American presence in Iraq.
After the surge, Romney said he envisioned a draw-down of U.S. troops where those who remained would take on a “support role” away from the front-lines.
Beyond that phase, Romney said he would then like to move to a “stand-by” posture. “Our troops are out of Iraq and are available if absolutely needed” at this point, he explained.
He said he sees these three phases “happening relatively soon,” specifically noting that if progress is made getting to the “support role” could happen next year. But while hoping for the best, Romney noted that he’d be monitoring the situation closely “to see what kind of success we are having at each stage.”
Romney is 6th in new SC poll
The good news is that 14.7 is not that bad a number in the abstract. The bad news is that he trails not only McCain and Giuliani, but also “none,” “another,” and “undecided.”
McCain 20.1
Giuliani 19.2
None 15.4
Undecided 15.1
Another GOP Candidate 14.7
Mitt Romney 14.7
Guffaw
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky that Craig “made a difficult decision, but the right one. “”It is my hope he will be remembered not for this, but for his three decades of dedicated public service,” McConnell said.
Sure thing, Bub. Just like OJ is remembered for his Heisman and Monica for her typing skills.
Pre-announcement follows noncampaign
The Thompson people announced today that they would announce on September 6th that they are, actually, running for president, after months or aggressively not running for president.
The intervening week thus falls into kind of a no man’s land, stuck between the unofficial nonannounced noncampaign and the official announced campaign.
Enright said the goal of the campaign was to position Thompson as the “mainstream conservative in this race” and take advantage of the grassroots support and Fred’s ability to “powerfully deliver his message.”
See, here’s Fred’s problem: any business consultant–Mitt, for example–would tell you he’s confused means and ends. The goal isn’t to position your candidate in the race. The goal is to get him into damn the White House, and not by way of the Lincoln bedroom.
Florida discovers the time value of delegates
Which gives you more influence in nominating a candidate? 114 delegates at a convention, with your delegates chosen after the nomination is sewn up? Or 57 delegates at the convention, but those chosen at the very early stages when it matters?
Florida appears to be choosing (b), as I would too. It’s the time value of delegates. Far better to get less early and have a chance to do more with them:
More important than delegates, however, is the momentum Florida will provide to the Republican candidate who emerges victorious.
While in past years political pundits have seen Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina as the crucial tests of a national candidacy, this year’s quirky primary schedule – featuring a February 5 “Super Duper Tuesday,” on which Americans in upward of 20 states are expected to cast votes – has turned that old wisdom on its head. Theoretically, a candidate could have a mixed result in the traditional, small early states but then use Florida as a springboard into the February 5 primary, which includes other big states, such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.
Of course, the real solution is my proposal for a primary lottery. Why should everyone else have to watch New Hampshire and Iowa steal the show every four years?
