The New Hampshire SEIU Confusion: Blame Mike Huckabee
(updated and clarifies throughout)
Per several sources close the process, here is what transpired in New Hampshire:
On October 8th, the SEIU's international executive board voted to allow each state to endorse on its own.
Endorsemet procedures vary by state. With the New Hampshire SEA, a political education committee (PE) was set to recommend an endorsement. It was composed of nearly two dozen members, Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
The PE committee held one-on-one interviews with the candidates, reviewed their health care plans and accounts of their SEIU walk-a-days.
On October 14, the PE committee met with Obama for an hour. He returned right before their vote to make a final pitch. Bill Clinton and John Edwards called in.
Edwards won the recommendation by a vote of 10 to 5 for Obama to 1 for Clinton. The process having run its course, the committee made the recommendation unanimous. They'd recommend Edwards to full state SEIU board.
The state board met on October 23. They reject the PE's recommendation of Edwards. Many of the Republicans on the committee were upset that Mike Huckabee had never been given the opportunity to solicit the endorsement. The reasoning behind his exclusion was that he had not met the SEIU's basic criteria: he had not yet proposed a universal health care plan and had not walked a day in the shoes of an SEIU member.
In protest, Huckabee supporters banded together and convinced some Obama supporters to join them. Because Edwards's supporters assumed that the PE recommendation would hold, many weren't at the meeting. By 7 to 5, Obama won an informal vote.
This news was communicated to the Obama campaign.
But "When word got out," a Democratic official says, "the place blew up."
How dare board ignore the recommendation of the PE committee?
Aware of the criticism, the full board met on Friday, October 26 and agreed to re-open the process.
On Saturday, October, 27, The NH SEA held a straw poll at a state convention in Concord. Without hearing the report of the political committee and without hearing that the endorsement had been unanimous, Edwards won.
The PE committee reconvened on Monday and re-recommended Edwards. Obama’s campaign began to re-lobby board members, as did Elizabeth Edwards.
On Tuesday, by a vote of 9 to 8, the state board voted to uphold the PE committee's recommendation, and Edwards had his endorsement.
The vote was not held in secret; critics of the process were allowed in and given the opportunity to speak
Clinton's AFSCME Endorsement
Though the outcome was never really in doubt, Clinton's AFSCME endorsement is helpful to her Iowa campaign, where AFSCME claims 30,000 active members, most of them in cities, and its budget is large.
Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, issued a statement in response:
It is a bit surprising that the union probably most concerned with state and local election results would support the candidate with the likeliest least appeal in red states
Memo Wars: Edwards Campaign On "The Real Philadelphia Story"
And there's a dig at Barack Obama on the next page:
The rest of the contenders? Well, let’s just say that even the best hype machines can’t disguise a real featherweight.
Union Split Interrupts Endorsement Presser In NH
An internal row between SEIU members in New Hampshire marred what was supposed to be a valedictory press conference for John Edwards in Concord today.
Edwards won the endorsement of the executive board by a single vote. But last week, a senior SEIU official in the state, Gary Smith, called Obama to tell him that he had won a straw vote. Obama, according to a campaign official, came away convinced that he, and not Edwards, had won the endorsement.
Officials confirm that on October 23, the executive committee of the New Hampshire State Employees Association (that's the NH SEIU) held an informal straw vote -- akin to a jury foreperson sampling members before deliberations -- and Barack Obama won 7 to 5.
During that meeting, the committee decided to hold a straw poll at the NH SEA convention in Nashua set for last weekend.
By a slim margin and with many http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/union_split_mars_edwards_endor.php, Edwards won the straw poll. He also won the vote of the political education committee, which is the internal SEA body dedicated to political action.
National Journal/NBC's reporter on the ground in New Hampshire, Mike Memoli reports that the head of a New Hampshire local union partial to Obama is strenuously objecting to the Edwards endorsement and contends that the state SEA buckled under pressure from union leaders in Washington.
DEVELOPING....
Fred Thompson's On Meet The Press This Sunday
Per the campaign:
WHAT: Fred Thompson Appears Live on Meet the Press with Tim Russert
WHEN: Check your local listings
Note: Due to the New York Marathon, Meet the Press will be airing live in New York at 8:00 am ET and at the regular local time in all other markets.
A Symphony Of "Senator Clintons"
Exclusive: a new video produced by the Clinton campaign to propell the "Politics Of Pile On" theme that's being to rebut charges that Clinton had an off-night.
.
Using reptition, the Clinton campaign wants to keep the focus on the big picture. And most newspaper headlines this morning seemed to agree, painting Clinton as a recipient of attacks or charges, and not actively, as a flubber or a calculator.
Memo Wars: Obama's Campaign On Clinton "Calculation"
TO: Interested Parties
FR: The Obama Campaign
RE: Turning the Page on Secrecy, Calculation, and Caution
DA: Wednesday, October 31, 2007
At last night’s debate, Barack Obama demonstrated the real choice in this race. On issues from Social Security to Iran to being open with the America people about her record, Senator Clinton offered more of the same Washington political calculation and evasion that won’t bring the change America needs.
The “politics of hope” doesn’t mean hoping you don’t have to answer tough questions.
Her performance raised more questions than it answered:
* Twelve hours after the debate ended, the American people are still waiting for an answer on Senator Clinton’s position on providing illegal immigrants with drivers licenses. She didn’t answer the question in the debate and her campaign couldn’t answer it afterwards. [http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/video_special_clintons_strateg.php]
* Clinton Demurred When Asked to Approve the Release of Her Records From the National Archives. When asked whether she would request that the National Archives allow the public to access emails, memorandum, and other communication between her and her husband before 2012, Clinton said, “Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're moving as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.” [Debate, 10/30/07]
* Clinton also claimed that all of the records from her health care task force had been released. However, according to Newsweek, “Some key papers from her health-care task force… remain locked away.” [Newsweek, 10/29/07]
· Clinton Refused to Answer Questions About the Circumstances Under Which She Would Attack Iran, Despite Being Asked Repeatedly; Focused on Diplomacy. When asked about her plan to deal with the threat posed by Iran, Clinton said, “I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I'm also not in favor of doing nothing...I prefer vigorous diplomacy.” Williams then asked her under what circumstances she would consider an attack on Iran justified. Clinton replied, “Well, first of all, we have to try diplomacy...I believe we should be engaged in diplomacy right now with the Iranians.” After Williams pointed out that she did not answer the question, Clinton said only, “I want to start diplomacy... [we need] a full court press on the diplomatic front.” [Debate, 10/30/07]
· Despite being repeatedly pressed by the moderators, Clinton never cleared up the discrepancy between her public refusal to discuss Social Security and her private discussion with Tod Bowman of Iowa. You can see Bowman’s endorsement of Obama by clicking HERE
Senator Clinton has clearly decided based on political calculation that her campaign strategy is to tell the American people as little as possible, avoid the difficult issues, and try to blur as many differences as possible. After last night’s debate, the choice is clear: Barack Obama is the kind of leader that will bring change we can believe in, stand up to the special interests, unite the country, and tell the American people not just what they want to hear, but what they need to know about the challenges we face. This is what the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and the other early states are seeing every day. It is why Iowa is now a dead heat between Senators Obama and Clinton and why Obama is strengthening his position in New Hampshire.
Team Clinton Spins Back: "A Strong Woman"
Here's the full memo.
The Politics Of Pile-On
What happens when the “politics of pile-on” replaces the “politics of hope?”
Hillary comes out on top.
Despite the best efforts of her six fellow candidates to trip her up, Senator Clinton stood strong and made her case on critical issues like Iran, Iraq and Social Security. She kept her focus on the real target in this election: Republicans and the Bush Administration. Instead of going after the other Democrats, Hillary made the argument for why change is needed and why she has the strength and experience to lead the Democratic Party in its efforts to make that change happen.
Sadly, Senator Obama caved to the pressure of the pundits and fundraisers who demanded that he go negative and abandoned the "politics of hope" message that sparked so much interest in him early in the campaign. Meanwhile, Senator Edwards doubled down in his effort to become the guy best known for attacking other Democrats. Not to be outdone, the rest of the pack followed suit and piled on in the hope that they’d get some media attention.
But with each attack, Senators Obama and Edwards undermined the central premises of their own candidacies. The sunny speeches and rosy rhetoric that once characterized their remarks has now been replaced by the kinds of jabs one typically sees from candidates desperate to gain traction in the polls.
The American people are looking for a President who can stand strong and come out ahead under any circumstances.
Last night, once again, that person was Hillary Clinton.
One strong woman.
RNC, Republicans See License In Immi-Driver Moment
Within moments of the end of last night's debate, Republicans knew instinctively which moment they would try to own.
“Whether the issue was driver’s licenses, Social Security, access to information concerning the Clinton presidency, Iraq, the AMT, or a host of other issues, Hillary Clinton only offered contradicting, conflicted, and confusing answers to serious questions," Danny Diaz, the RNC's communications director, told me.
"She will certainly see and hear this over and over again if she becomes the Democrat nominee.”
Within moments of the debate, Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mitt Romney, e-mailed a statement to reporters:
"Senator Clinton's troubling answer on providing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants was emblematic of someone who is both dismissive of efforts to enforce our nation's immigration laws and entirely unwilling to offer a straight answer to a very direct question.”
Rudy Giuliani used the venue of the Glenn Beck show:
GLENN BECK: “Did you watch with your mouth opening thinking, ‘I don’t even know what that answer about driver’s licenses even means from Hillary Clinton?’”
MAYOR GIULIANI: “You know, she was being attacked all night for taking different positions in front of different audiences and then by the end of the night, she took different positions in front of the same audience. It was pretty amazing. I mean, in politics I’ve never quite seen that before. I know there are some politicians like Hillary. They say different things to different people. They use different accents in different parts of the country. I’m used to that about her now. I had never seen it happen all in one place, in one minute. And Glenn, this is not a tough issue.”
The RNC sent out a research memo entitled "HILLARY'S DEBATE DODGEBALL: At Last Night's Debate, Hillary Continued "Strategy Of Avoiding Direct Answers To Questions"
And the chairman of the Michigan Republican Party began his daily activist e-mail by writing:
The Democrat’s presidential debate just made it crystal clear why America cannot afford any of them as our next president. Can you imagine Hillary leading our country…the pandering would make Granholm look modest!?! Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants??? Universal healthcare? Only Democrats see UFO’s!
Video Special: Clinton's Strategist On Illegal Immigration
Last night, the Chicago Sun-Times Lynn Sweet had questions about illegal immigration and driver's licenses and Hillary Clinton's position therein. Chief strategist Mark Penn was on hand to answer them. A raw moment from the spin room.
A Police Officer Is Shot Blocks From The Democratic Debate
Halfway through last night's Democratic debate, reporters in the spin room were momentarily distracted by the sounds of a dozen police cars whizzing down an adjacent road with lights flashing and sirens going full blast. Then we heard the churning of a helicopter.
The police, in turns out, were speeding to the scene of a shooting about eight blocks from the debate hall. A police officer named Mariano Santiago was wounded in the shoulder. He'll be ok. The shooter disappeared into a nearby mass of bridges and tunnels.
Crime in Philly is at its highest levels since the mid 1990s. The same in Dallas, Oakland, Phoenix, Orlando, Baltimore and elsewhere. Philly recorded 406 murders last year. Nationwide, the crime rate rose nearly two percent.
The presidential candidates haven't talked about the crime rate all that much. One candidate, Joe Biden, has new legislation in Congress to fund more police officers. (The Republicans have talked about it a little more, but only when prompted.).
Maybe violent crime isn't a problem in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina, although residents of Manchester can certainly disagree. Biden, in point of fact, would seem to the guy the turn to: his 1994 crime bill turned into the Clinton crime bill and he takes partial credit for the some of crime reduction that so famously is attributed to Rudy Giuliani.
Last Night Was Not Barack Obama's Last Chance
If you believe that Barack Obama somehow missed the chance last night to do whatever it is you think he needed to do...
Remember: he has millions to spend and a ground program that is the envy of his opponents.
Not counting last night, there are two and a half debates between now and Iowa. (I'm counting an NPR debate debate in December as one half -- it's on radio, so we can't see it.)
There are three full weeks between now and Thanksgiving.
And then three weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
So Obama has a month and a half to make his move, charge the line, draw the contrast, complete the argument.
That's enough time. In this lightning fast cycle, six weeks is an...well, not an eternity, but an epoch.
Images Of The Morning
War of the strategists: Mark Penn, for Hillary Clinton, and David Axelrod, for Barack Obama.
October 30, 2007
Before The Scramble To The Spin Room, Some Thoughts
For a solid hour, the Democratic presidential candidates ganged up on Clinton, and her vote in favor of the Lieberman-Kyl resolution severed as their cri de coeur. At least six questions pivoted back to Clinton’s vote, which her opponents, especially Edwards and Dodd and later Obama, claimed was a permission slip for the Bush Administration to bomb in Iran.
Moderators Tim Russert and Brian Williams gave Clinton’s rivals a wide berth to hone in. Subjects included: her non-public records in the National Archives, on Social Security, on her experience and on her electability. By the midpoint of the debate, the attacks against Clinton had been so fierce that both Dodd and Richardson chastised the rest of the field for being meanies.
Democrats watching tonight heard the entire dossier against Clinton. Maybe too much. There were so many charges strung one after the other that voters could be forgiven if they suffered from motion blindness. Who said what, exactly? Did any one candidate distinguish themselves above the din?
And if the Iran vote turns out to be the force that finally convinces Democrats to doubt her capacity to be president and their nominee, then tonight’s debate will be seen, in retrospect, as the turning point in the race. Tonight, Clinton played defense more than she has in any of the other debates, but she did not seem overly defensive.
From a policy standpoint, her arguments about foreign policy were generally credible and substantive, but her strategic ambiguity on Social Security still sounds puzzling and her defense of Eliot Spitzer's proposal to provide illegal immigrants with driver's licenses -- oh wait, was she defending the approach or the idea of dealing with the issue? The debate was not supposed to end this way!
Strategic ambiguity in this case may have provided the media with the anti-Clinton sound-bite it has long been craving. In real time, the way Clinton answered this question provided her opponents with a point of evidence to attack her credibility and character.
In the long run -- or in aggregate -- is this enough? As in -- enough to generate an anti-Clinton movement among Democrats? Probably not.
Clinton did a fair job early on by trying to inoculating herself against all the complaints by pointing out – or reminding Democrats – that she is a Clinton and the current president is a Bush.
Edwards seemed to channel Joe Trippi’s surgical sound bite repository. Too glib? Spot on? Some of his answers were memorable.
Obama’s criticisms were about philosophy and process; about another eight years of polarizing politics; about the approach to the issue, rather than the issue itself. Twice at the end he showed his sense of of humor -- very effectively.
It is too soon to tell whether Obama sufficiently abandoned his inner McClellan to satisfy some
of his allies and pacify his donors. He may not have met the expectations of the press, but those expectations are fairly ethereal. Obama will argue against Clinton on his own terms; he will not throw sound bites at her. He does not lack the fortitude to craft a zinger, he just doesn’t, as a matter of course, like to traffic in them – they are too base, too customary, too politics-as-usual for him. There is a reason why Obama only compared Clinton’s foreign policy to Bush-Cheney Lite once – he felt he had gone to too far.
So – on his own terms, yes, Obama did not temporize and drew strong contrasts with Clinton.
But:
(a) Do voters have the same standards that Obama does? Do they see the world the same way he does?
(b) The groundwork for Democrats to mistrust Clinton isn’t yet fertile. Maybe this debate
plows it a bit.
(c) Does John Edwards do a better job of talking to Democratic voters on their level, wherever that level is?
Other thoughts:
--Bill Richardson gave two substantive answers on education policy and energy policy. His domestic policy bona fides shined tonight.
--Through no fault of their own, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden seemed like Statler & Waldorf. Except for Dodd’s remarks on Iran at the beginning of the debate and Biden’s challenge to Rudy Giuliani, the format and moderators deliberately sent them to the back of the stage.
ObBiDoddWardsSonnich Versus Hillary
Bottom line, before all the analysis:
Obama confronted Clinton in his way, Edwards confronted Clinton in his way, and none of us writing about the debate can say with accuracy which approach voters prefer.
In this discordant symphony – ‘A Clintonian Lament’ -- John Edwards’s instruments of persuasion were sharper and louder; Barack Obama’s were more resonant and more subtle.
In music terms, Edwards played the French horn; Obama played the violin. Or, as the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza told me during a commercial break, “It’s the difference between someone who goes to law school and becomes a prosecutor and someone who goes to law school and becomes a law professor.”
Rudy Responds To Biden
Rudy Giuliani's Communications Director Katie Levinson had fun writing this statement:
“As the pundits work to figure out who won the debate tonight, it’s pretty clear Rudy Giuliani was the real winner. It is increasingly apparent Rudy is the one the Democrats are most worried about running against in the general election.
“Senator Biden’s comments were of particular interest. The good Senator is quite correct that there are many differences between Rudy and him. For starters, Rudy rarely reads prepared speeches and when he does he isn’t prone to ripping off the text from others. And, Senator Biden certainly falls in to the bucket of those on the stage tonight who have never had executive experience and have never run anything. Wait, I take that back, Senator Biden has never run anything but his mouth.
“Such a desperate attack from Senator Biden is to be expected considering I – Katie Levinson – have a better chance of becoming President than he does.”
Well, We're Ending The Debate With A Discussion About UFOs, But Obama has a nice line
"All I know is that there's life here on earth, and we're not taking care of kids who are alive and aren't getting health care.... and so as president, those are the people I will be attending to first."
Is Edwards Trying To Have It Both Ways On Combat Troops?
Tonight: "And I will do it in my first year in office. Combat missions ended. Combat troops out of Iraq, period.' Edwards: "We need to get combat troops out of Iraq. As president of the United States, I will do that. I think it's a requirement of leadership as president. And I will do it in my first year in office. Combat missions ended. Combat troops out of Iraq."
That's interesting.
Here's what Edwards said on September 7 – "As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war."
The question: what if Al Qaeda cells are in Iraq? Would be not deploy them there?
Clinton Won't Budge On Social Security; Russert Confronts HRC With Her Husband's Words
Russert asks: Is Clinton being inconsistent on Social Security?
"No -- In the context of that, all of these would be considered. Personally, I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of seniors and Middle Class families. I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I'm approaching fiscal responsibilities."
"I think to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican talking point."
Again, Russert confronts her with the words of her husband: he called Soc. Sec a "looming crisis" in '98... although the fiscal condition was much different.
Why Are Republicans So Eager To Attack Clinton And Democrats (Sans Biden) Don't Say Much About Giuliani?
Biden On Giuliani
"There are only three things he makes in a sentence... A noun and a verb and 9/11."
Richardson expresses his discomfort at his rivals with a “holier than thou attitude towards Sen. Do we trust her… We need to be positive in this campaign….”
Dodd agrees....castigates Edwards for taking trial lawyer money.....
Russert About The Archives Question...
"I think the archives will continue to move as rapidly as its circumstances as the system demands..."
Would HRC want to repudiate her husband's order preventing access to her communications with FPOTUS?
HRC says the same thing re: process.
Obama raises his hands. "This is not turning the page... and that means being open and transparent and accountable to the American people..."
"Part of the reasons why Republicans are obsessed with you, Hillary, is that that is a fight Republicans are comfortable with."
Brian Williams Asks HRC About Experience
The kind of experience the Republican nominees are exhibiting is the kind of experience we don't need. Cites her 35-years of experience.
Does Clinton Oppose The War?
"Absolutely. But I do not, and I don't think any of us do, oppose the men and women who have fought this war with distinction."
(Question was in re: a surrogate's contention in NH that she did not).
Clinton pivots to bringing the troops home.
Obama pivots back to Iran.
Edwards again unloads a series of very hard lines, including this one, referring to a NYT reporting ascribing HRC's Iran vote to her being in "general election mode":
“I think our responsibility is to be in tell the truth mode.”
Edwards just connected the dots that some thought Obama would connect re: the Iran issue. Early on, he's doing a better job of drawing distinctions with Clinton than Obama. Dropping "neo-con" a few times in his response on Iran was a smart way to alert Democrats of his opposition. For the true activists, "neo con" is a four-letter, um, phrase.
Russert: Will You Pledge Not To Allow Iran To Get Nuc Weap?
Clinton: "I will do everything I can do to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb." [Repeats this thrice to Russert's follow ups.]
Edwards: What I will do is take all the responsible steps that can be taken to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Obama: "I think there is a larger point at stake. We have been governed by fear for the last six years and this president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized... We have seen the Republican nominees do the same thing... It's important for us to draw a clear line and saw we will not be governed by fear."
Biden: "I would pledge to keep us safe... This is complicated stuff... the greatest threat ... an out of control Pakistan..."
Dodd: "There's a deeper question here... I think the more immediate problem is Pakistan."
Richardson: "I would make the pledge. And it would be, through diplomacy."
The Story So Far: The Entire Field Is Ganging Up On HRC
Edwards, so far, has made the clearest contrasts, but Obama has his paintbrush out too.
Edwards Gets In A Good Line On Lieberman-Kyl
"So.. to put pressure on the Bush Administration is ... to vote yes on a resolution that [looked as if it] was written by the neocons? Has anyone read this thing?"
Obama: "The Drumbeat Of War"
"This kind of resolution does not send the right signal to the region.... it weakens our capacity to influence Iran."
Now, "there may come a point where those measures have been exhausted where Iran is on the verge of taking nuclear weapons...." but we're not at there.
Clinton:
"I see economic sanctions as part of diplomacy....I think that what we're trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush Administration.... Joe is right... GB can do all of this without anybody.... I invite all of our colleagues to pass something immediately that makes it very clear.....what we're trying to do is push forward on vigorous diplomacy...I believe we should engage in diplomacy right now.... I also thing that when you go to the stage to negotiate with a rouge regime, you need both carrots and sticks."
Russert Questions Clinton On Lieberman-Kyl; Clinton Stoutly Justifies Her Vote
Russert: "Why did you vote for that amendment?"
HRC: "I am against a rush to war. I was the first person on this stage... to go to the floor of the Senate back in February and say GB had no authority ... I am also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and the Iran Rev. Guards are at the forefront of that..."
HRC calls it "A false choice... between what the GOP wants to do and what the Dems say.. between total war and total diplomacy.... HRC believes in "vigorous diplomacy" and "that includes economic sanctions."
"We can argue about what is a non-binding sense of the Senate... I think we are missing the point...which is that we need to prevent the administration from doing something on their own..."
Dodd blasts Clinton: "What you didn't learn in '02, you should have learned by now."
Biden: "I think it can be used as a declaration of war."
No Specifics Yet From Clinton On Social Security
I have a long record and standing up and fighting. I take on the special interests. I've been taking them on for many years... on specific issues, I've come up with very specific plans. On Soc. Sec, it's "start with fiscal responsibility."" ... cites 90s... she repeats bipartisan commission idea... "I am not going to balance of Social Security on the backs of seniors and working class Americans."
Edwards, Not Obama, Brings Up Lieberman-Kyl...
Obama And Clinton: And So It Begins
To Obama, the first question out of the box is re: the NYT interview where Obama hinted he'd be tougher.
It's a slow pitch over the plate......
"First of all, some of this stuff gets overhyped. I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed. Although the amazing thing is that I'm Rocky in this situation."
"We're at war...major global challenges...that's going to require big meaningul change...the way to bring that change is to offer sharp contrast with that party..."
"It requires us to be honest about the challenges that we face. It does not mean that we changing our positions when it's convenient."
He gives a litany of HRC's positions: torture, NAFTA, the war...
"I don't think, now that may be politically savvy, but I don't think it offers the contrast that we need."
Clinton in rebuttal: "I don't think the Republicans got the message that I'm voting and sounding like them."
Refers to GOP debate.
"I have stood against GWB and his failed policies."
GOPers "waiving their sabers and talking about going after Iran, I want to prevent a rush to war..."
Gives a litany... "I have been standing against Republicans ... and I think Democrats know that."
Edwards says Clinton "defends a broken system that corrupt in Washington, D.C."
Separated At Birth?
Drexel University founder Anthony J. Drexel and Obama chief strategist David Axelrod...
A fascinating university. Students here spent eight weeks in the real world for every eight weeks in the classroom. There are heavy contingents of Clinton and Obama sign-waivers, although they are outnumbered by the slightly overzealous Philadelphia Police Department.
An Edwards Memo Reinforces "Change" Theme
With a 1992 twist: "REAL CHANGE OR MORE OF THE SAME"
(More of the same might describe the language of the Edwards memo -- we've been hearing this theme for a while.)
But here's a question: what if this language begins to escape the teeth of Barack Obama? Does that change its effect? Are Democrats ready to believe Hillary Clinton is corrupt and/or untrustworthy?
In this critical election, our nation faces a crossroads. There are two paths ahead, but only one will lead us to the America we believe in and the government we deserve. As John Edwards said yesterday in New Hampshire, the road we choose will determine what kind of country we leave to our children, and whether we restore the promise of this great nation:
“Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine.
“It is the easier path. It is the path of the status quo. But, it is a path that perpetuates a corrupt system that has not only failed to deliver the change the American people demand, but has divided America into two – one America for the very greedy, and one America for everybody else….Or we can choose a different path. The path that generations of Americans command us to take. We can get up and take our country back. And be the guardians that kept the faith.”
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign has made it clear -- through its choices, its words and its silence -- that it intends to defend the broken system in Washington, where the interests of the American people are bought and sold every day by an army of lobbyists, instead of taking the path that the American people want – a path that leads to ending the corruption in Washington and bringing the big, bold change we need to America.
The real question as we enter tonight’s presidential debate on MSNBC is why, in the face of the great challenges we face as a nation, Senator Clinton chooses to so passionately defend this broken system and the damage that Washington lobbyists are doing to our nation every single day. It is these lobbyists, the corporate interests they serve, and the policies that they pervert, that are destroying the promise of America. Let us be clear - no candidate for president should be standing with lobbyists, instead of standing with the American people, and believe they are “ready to lead.”
If the American people want to take their country back, they need a leader with the strength to reject the corrupt system, say “no” to Washington lobbyists and finally make our government work for the American people once again. This election is about our hope for a better future for our children – but we will never build that future until we elect a leader who will end the broken system in Washington.
At the end of the day, the Clinton campaign may attack, but it is only Senator Edwards who has the real strength and right experience to lead this nation, while others seem determined to continue to play the Washington game.
2008 Race Rankings: The Clinton Scrutiny Continues
Another two weeks, another impressive navigation through ever-trickier waters. Hillary Rodham Clinton now has nine serious opponents -- four on the Democratic side (only Bill Richardson isn't making a compelling case against her right now) and five on the Republican side (counting Mike Huckabee).
These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Democratic Party primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling
1. Hillary Clinton -- Iowa's a problem and the campaign knows it; reinforcements are coming in whether the Clinton folks already in Iowa like it or not (parsethis sentence out and start chasing the internal-strife story). By the way, ponder this: If Clinton knew then what she knows now regarding that silly Iran vote, how would she have voted? The campaign may hate us for tossing that line of thinking out here, but come on -- they've been SO careful regarding the war to date; they would NEVER have intentionally caused themselves this problem. This wasn't a "shift" from the primary to the general; this was simply a vote Clinton didn't think was going to be a big deal and she voted her gut. Almanac Profile
2. Barack Obama -- Even the candidate senses the urgency. He's got two things on his side: Iowa and the media. Clinton is nowhere near closing the sale in Iowa. If anything, there's some evidence that she's stagnating or even dropping a tad (if one believes a couple of internal polls). And the media still wants a race. The good news for Obama is that he's slipping so much in the "perception primary" that maybe he doesn't have to be the second coming of JFK on the stump these days -- just something a little north of Gary Hart will get him decent press. Almanac Profile
3. John Edwards -- No campaign is more frustrated with the press than this one. No matter what the campaign does, when they do it or how they do it, the mainstream media want to frame this race as Clinton vs. Obama. For now, the Edwards folks believe if they scream loud enough, eventually the MSM will change that dynamic; we'll see. There's another option: Go after Obama while he's weak and remove the obstacle. That apparently isn'ton the table because they don't think it gets them anything. But what ought to scare both Clinton and Obama is that Edwards isn't getting the scrutiny they are, and if he eventually pops after Iowa, he's going to be harder to stop.
Rudy Giuliani has been married three times, in case you didn't know, and the subject is generally taboo among his Republican opponents and even among Democrats. But the DNC, in a daily e-mail sent to supporters and reporters by their research shop, isn't afraid to go there. (A spokesperson says the researchers were just being tongue-in-cheek.)
Talking to a friend the other day, Obama stated the obvious about Tuesday night’s debate (9-11 p.m. ET, airing on MSNBC and streaming live on msnbc.com). “I’ve got to do something in Philly,” he said.
Obama chief strategist David Axelrod on NBC's "Today":
first of all, let me dispute one of the premises of andrea's piece. we've always -- i know there's a fascination about national polls, particularly in the national political community, but we've always known this race goes through iowa and we've spent most of our time there in the last eight months. and as of yesterday, the university of iowa poll shows we're in a dead even race with Senator Clinton. so i don't feel the same sense of urgency that was expressed in that piece to step out of character.
On The Train To Philly For The Debate
Some YouTube videos to peruse.
The Clinton campaign provides footage of Obama and Edwards promising to be clean campaigners.
Bill Richardson's latest Iowa ad: "When I Began"
And finally, the two ads comprising Ron Paul's $1.1M New Hampshire ad buy.
Romney Seeks To Close The Deal In New Hampshire
To make sure Mitt Romney's slim but steady lead in New Hampshire holds up, his campaign will take steps to "tighten" his message there and "close the deal" with conservative voters, advisers said today.
Romney's television traffic will begin to emphasize his experience as a businessman above all else -- his tenure at Bain Capital and his stewardship of the 2002 Olympic Games. Those biographical ads, which will be reinforced on the radio and through the mail, will be interspersed with traditional issues ads on subjects like immigration and spending.
To date, Romney's campaign in New Hampshire has been aggressive and loosely focused. It has succeeded, according to public and internal polls, in attracting hard core conservatives. But his advisers acknowledge that he has not sealed the deal.
There might be too many Romney messages out there. He speaks often of the three-legged stool and the need for a Republican presidential nominee to be seen as favoring strong families, a strong economy and a strong national defense. There is no single attribute that defines Romney -- no hook on which voters can hang their support. By contrast, Rudy Giuliani is identified with September 11th and his stewardship in New York City, and John McCain's status as a hero (or as a 2000-era reformer) is often the first thing that comes to the mind of New Hampshire voters.
For Romney, that hook will be his career as a business executive and record as manager.
Romney's tightening focus comes as Rudy Giuliani begins a push to usurp Romney's first-place position there. The Giuliani campaign has about as many staffers in New Hampshire as it does in Iowa and Florida. Strategists see the state as their prime opportunity to steal a victory from the early-state frontrunner -- Romney. Indeed, Giuliani's positions on moral issues are unobjectionable to most Republicans. And his tenure as mayor of New York City poses no ontological problems for Northeastern Republicans.
To date, Giuliani has confused his rivals by his absence from the television airwaves. His campaign makes tens of thousands of voter contacts a week by mail and telephone, and his radio ads are ubiquitous.
The Clinton Rapid Response
When Barack Obama confronted Hillary Clinton's vote on Lieberman-Kyl, the Clinton campaign quickly mailed a detailed explanation of her vote to Iowans.
When Barack Obama told the New York Times that he would start to challenge Clinton more aggressively and picked her refusal to detail her Social Security fix as his first target, within 10 hours the Clinton campaign was on the air in New Hampshire with an ad attempting to inoculate any perceived vulnerabilities on Social Security.
Depending on the size of the buy, more New Hampshire residents probably saw the Clinton ad before they heard too much about Obama's charge on Social Security. And notice how Clinton frames her opposition: by using George W. Bush as a foil.
The tag line is an encapsulation of Clinton's appeal to Democrats:
"These days, it seems like every candidate on earth is coming here for You.
But which candidate has been there for you all along?"
It's also the first time a Clinton ad has even acknowledged the presence of other candidates.
October 29, 2007
The Clearest Preview Of The General Election To Date...
"This is the world we live in. It's not this happy, romantic-like world where we'll negotiate with this one, or we'll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we'll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we'll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House. Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton:
"Mayor Giuliani has stooped to a disgraceful new low that embraces the very worst legacy of George Bush and Dick Cheney's cynicism and divisiveness. We must be united in our determination to hunt down Osama bin Laden, something that George Bush and Rudy Giuliani’s disastrous Iraq War has prevented. Mayor Giuliani's cheap applause lines, unfounded political smears, and shoot-first-think-later politics are irresponsible in a campaign, and would be catastrophic in a presidency,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Antisocial
This column is not ignoring Sen. Barack Obama's contention that Hillary Clinton refuses to say how she'd fix Social Security ... it's just the old brain has no original thoughts to add to the scrum.
Also, tomorrow night's debate is certainly going to advance this charge one way or the other.
The challenge is not whether Obama can or will say Hillary Clinton's name or whether he will find something to pick at her about. It's whether he can connect his charge to the larger argument he is making. And so far, that larger argument is largely devoid of direct references to Hillary Clinton. There is a thin backbone of a litany; there is no repitition of charges; no sustained chain of logic to persuade Democrats to reject Hillary Clinton and replace her with Barack Obama.
John Edwards makes just such an argument. Privately, it's electability. Publicly, it's that she represents corruption and compromise. So far, it doesn't seem to be working. Or maybe the press won't cover it. Or maybe the argument isn't precisely the right argument.
Polling shows that Democrats have yet to be persuaded that Clinton represents the dark side of the party. Even in the states where she polls below 30%, she is the first and second choice of a majority. (So is Obama). Electability seems to be the only question that Democrats do voice. Perhaps as the caucus and primaries draw nearer, those doubts will increase. Or, perhaps by that time, they won't exist.
Primary Calendar Updates: Florida And Michigan
Florida-- Lawyers for Florida Democrats filed a new motion today in federal court seeking a quick decision on whether DNC chairman Howard Dean "and other political party bosses" violated the rights of millions of Florida Dems by refusing to recognize the state's Jan. 29 delegate selection process, a process that violated DNC rules. The DNC's filing in the case was due today. If the judge, Robert Hinkle, decides to require the DNC to recognize Florida's delegates, the DNC will almost certainly appeal.
Michigan -- Democrats and Republicans are still planning to hold their primary on Jan. 15. The GOP primary counts, but remember -- the RNC will reduce the total delegate haul by half. The DNC primary is -- well, a mystery at this point. There will be a ballot, a few names will be on it, and the press needs to figure out how they're covering to cover it.
Watch to see what the state Democratic Party does on November 7 -- at its executive committee meeting, the state Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer will make one final pitch for a post-Feb. 5 caucus. Over the long term, Dems and GOPers in the state are looking to work together to propose some sort of national joint fix to the primary calendar. There may well be a floor fight at the Republican convention in Minneapolis, and the fractious calendar fights of this year may boil over.
The Rest Of The Stories, 10/28
Jerry Zandstra, a pro-life leader in Michigan, endorses Sen. John McCain. Not a big surprise -- Zandstra was partial to McCain and Sam Brownback. And wife Cindy McCain says she won't use her personal forture to help her husband.
Portsmouth, NH mayor Steve Marchand, at one point a candidate for the Senate, has endorsed Gov. Bill RIchardson.
The late-November CNN/YouTube debate will feature all 8 candidates.
More On The University Of Iowa Poll
It may be true -- as my NBC colleague Chuck Todd reports -- that the findings of the University of Iowa poll are similar to what private candidate polls show. (And Chuck likes the open-ended question.)
But the sample size is enormous and it comports more with a sample of adult Iowans than it does with hard-core Iowa Democrats. Two different samples, two different sets of results.
A caveat here might well be that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is predicated on turning out more less frequent Democratic voters and that a broader sample captures his support more accurately than a narrower sample.
The political scientist who conducts the poll is David Redlawsk.
"Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay, when I have been touched by the same feelings," McClurkin went on. "When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody … Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality."
McClurkin's words drew raucous applause from the crowd, who had lined up around the block to get into the Township Auditorium in Columbia.
Huckabee's Money Begins To Flow
In politics, money usually chases the surging candidates. Mike Huckabee, it seems, scared it away -- until this month.
With your efforts, we have raised a total of $703,879 online during the month of October, including $331,420 over the last five days.
From October 1 through 24, Huckabee took in nearly $30,000 per day.
That's way above average.
In the first quarter, Huckabee averaged about $6,054 per day. (That's $544,880 divided by 90 days)
In the second quarter, Huckabee averaged about $8,391 per day.
In the third quarter, Huckabee averaged about $25,437 per day.
The campaign set a goal of $1,034,487 by midnigh ton October 31 -- a Million for Mike. Even one dollar -- "A Buck for Huck" -- is welcomed by the campaign.
The fundraising email states a goal of having $1.7M in the bank by end of November.
Rumor Patrol
Rumor: Fred Thompson has suddenly cancelled his New Hampshire campaign schedule today.
Fact: He's in New Hampshire; his plane just landed.
But some enterprising Obama ally made sure to send this morning's results to Matt Drudge, who, through no fault of his own, probably doesn't read too much into methodology.
Each television network has a polling unit. Presumably, producers will consult their in-house experts before broadcasting this poll without caveats.
If the U of Iowa poll becomes a talking point for a cable TV host to say "the race is tightening in Iowa," then score one for Obama's communications nexus. The fact is, the race is already pretty tight there, as all three leading campaigns will acknowledge. Tighter than a tick, an old CBS News anchor might have said.
Edwards Implies That Clinton Is Part Of "Corrupt" DC System
On the heels of Sen. Barack Obama's latest throat-clearing interview with the New York Times, Ex-Sen. John Edwards is screaming himself hoarse.
In a speech he'll give in New Hampshire, today, Edwards implies that Hillary Clinton is part of a "corrupt" Washington system "rigged by powerful special interests."
"It is not an accident that the Government of the United States cannot function on behalf of its people - because it is no longer our people's government and we the people know it. This corruption did not begin yesterday -- and it did not even begin with George Bush - it has been building for decades - until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy."
"The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America. We have a duty - a duty to end this. I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work. And I believe that, if Americans have a choice, any candidate who takes their money - Democrat or Republican - will lose this election."
Breaking: Sen. Judd Gregg To Endorse Romney
In Concord today, Sen. Judd Gregg will endorse ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, Republican sources with knowledge of the endorsement said.
Gregg is the ranking Republican on the Senate budget committee, a former Governor of New Hampshire and one of its Senators since 1992, endorsed George W. Bush in 2000.
Gregg has been a quiet fan of Romney's since the former governor began to seriously think about running for president, but he's remained publicly neutral. Many of his senior aides and advisers have joined Romney's campaign.
It's tough to say that any endorsement carries votes these days, but Gregg's ability to validate Romney's competence and economic message, as well as his freedom to act as a surrogate for Romney at events should not be underrated.
Romney will officially file his paperwork to enter the New Hampshire primary at noon:30 ET. That's when Gregg will endorse him.
The news overshadows a major push by Rudy Giuliani in the state. The former mayor is spending four days there this week, his longest stretch of campaign time to date.
New Hampshire's other Senator, John Sununu, has said he'll remain neutral for the primaries.
1. Will the average level of caucus-goer interest be greater because more folks are at home and not working? Or lower, because they're at home and watching college football, hanging out with their family, not working, etc.
2. Will this help or hurt the Obama campaign's registration efforts targeted at 17-year-olds? Where will their college student supporters be? At home? Nearby their college? Elsewhere? How does that help or hurt caucus math?
3. Will the race be frozen, in essence, by Christmas? Can any candidate on either side generate momentum from a standing start between December 24 and January 3?
4. Will there be enough television inventory for all the campaigns to advertise in December? Won't there be a heck of a lot of competition from consumer products advertising?
5. When will the major Iowa newspaper endorsements be released?
6. And finally: who will watch the Orange Bowl instead of caucusing? Which smart campaigns will rent TVs and station them at caucus sites? Is that even legal?
The New University of Iowa Poll
I've made this mistake before, so watch out: the new poll from the University of Iowa (released later this a.m) is not necessarily without merit, but given the weirdness of its likely voter screen, questionnaire and sample source, it's not really comparable to other polls and therefore shouldn't be used to see or describe a trend.
CONCORD -- When I visited Ron Paul's New Hampshire campaign headquarters this morning, only one member of his staff, Kate Rick, was there. The other six were out building a contraption to capture the unique energies of the Paul movement here. Excitement -- Paul is moving up (slowly) in the polls and has only, to this point, run a single radio ad.
A check of the parking lots at Paul events in New Hampshire finds many Vermont and Massachusetts license plates. An evolved campaign fills its crowds with voters, not just fans. Rick, the founder of the unofficial RonPaulHq.com, spent hundreds of her own dollars to print large yard signs. A campaign with millions in the bank can probably afford to pay her back.
For the longest time, many journalists, myself included, did not take Ron Paul seriously. It wasn't that his politics -- a combination of libertarian constitutionalism and social conservatism -- were unusual. It was, principally, that he was anti-war in a party where that view dare not express itself.
Paul is now emerging as a serious threat in New Hampshire, perhaps not to win it -- although the winner may need only 25% or so -- , but to influence the outcome in a way that reflects his worldview. He will spend most of the $5.3M in his campaign budget on television, mailings and field organizing in the Granite State. There are 450 people in largest Ron Paul Meetup group, and they're canvassing in Claremont and dropping lit in Manchester this weekend.
Who likes Paul? His aides say there is no single demographic. Many are former members of the Buchanan Brigade, suddenly re-energized by Paul's anti-interventionism and strong border stances. Others seem to be casual libertarians who never really found a sympathetic voice in any of the other presidential candidates. Yet others are self-described constitutionalists. They blame the monetary system for the credit crunch and for economic dislocation. Monetary policy has been Paul's other big bugbear.
Today, thousands of New Hampshire Republicans began receiving a glossy, 12-mail mailer -- the campaign's first major lit drop. The first Paul television ad should hit the airwaves soon. Paul will increase his campaign appearances here. He's hesitated to spend too much time on the campaign trail because he's a freak about serving his Texas constituents and never likes to miss a vote.
Thompson, Romney And Giuliani In New Hampshire On Monday
CONCORD -- It's a tease of early January. On Monday, all three leading Republican presidential candidates -- Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, will spend the day campaigning in New Hampshire.
Thompson will formally file his paperwork with Secretary of State William Gardner. They may even intersect: Romney holds a major rally with supporters at 11:45 a.m. in Concord. He has anl AMA -- that's the internal lingo for an "Ask Mitt Anything" event and files with Gardner at 1:45 p.m. And Giuliani,
There's even a new McCain television ad on the air, one that is more purely devoted to drawing a contrast with Hillary Clinton than it is with McCain's service to his nation as a POW.
In the minds of campaigns here, New Hampshire has taken a back seat to Iowa this cycle and candidates rarely spent more than a single day in the state at a time. The press is grumbling, too. So Monday's show of love from the Republicans may sate some appetites for a while.
Just Asking...
Has Rep. Charles Rangel already lost control of his tax reform plan?
Will the presidential Democrats let either house of Congress pass a plan that Republicans label the "Mother of All Tax Hikes"?
Why did Rangel use that Saddam-esque phrase to describe his tax reform plan? Didn't he foresee how easily it would be appropriated?
Who is defending the plan? I received a dozen e-mails from various Republicans blasting the plan yesterday..,. and heard not a peep from Democrats.
A corporation cannot fund the express advocacy of a candidate for federal office out of its treasury funds. So General Motors could not run a newspaper ad saying "Vote for Colbert for President." The same rule applies to labor unions. The funding has to come from its political action committee.
But there's an exemption in the law for "any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate."
Allison's main point is that Colbert does not control Viacom, Comedy Central, or even The Colbert Report. (I think we'd need to know a lot more about the Colbert Report's power structure before venturing a guess on the last point.) But I think she's elided over a prior question. The exemption only applies to a "news story, commentary, or editorial." It does not apply to everything Viacom does. So if Viacom took out a full page ad in the New York Post paid for with treasury funds saying "Vote for Colbert," that would be an illegal corporate expenditure regardless of the fact that Viacom could put on an express editorial saying the same thing on one of its television stations.
So the question could well turn on whether the shameless (and hilarious) promotion of the Colbert candidacy on the Colbert Report actually constitutes a bona fide news story (no way) or commentary or editorial (harder question). The fact that the show is a satire makes the interpretation question all the more difficult: does schtick count as commentary? I'm not so sure. But consider a case where Jay Leno does his comedy routine wearing a "Vote for Colbert" button. I don't think that would get the media exemption, and NBC could be in trouble. It is quite a fine line to draw.
Scott Rasmussen : The Elites Versus The Activists
One of the more fascinating manifestations of the split between the elite press and the newer media is in how they treat the robotic (or automated) polls of Scott Rasmussen . Mr. Rasmussen uses a variety of screens and can poll so often and so cheaply because he does not use humans to ask the questions. A computer-generated questioner interacts with the voter, who presses the corresponding button a touch-tone phone.
The press -- and the pollsters who consult for them and most campaign pollsters -- dismiss Rasmussen out of hand. For the latter group, there may be an element of competitive jealousy in the mix, but there are also valid reasons to be skeptical about screening and sample bias in automated surveys and contact and cooperation rates with voters. Democrats in particular tend to be skeptical because Rasmussen is a conservative.
For conservative activists, they are the equivalent of crack, and much, much less deadly.
Occasionally, the campaigns whose pollsters denigrate Mr. Rasmussen's polls often drop their skepticism and cite them when those polls bounce in a positive direction.
Yesterday, Fred Thompson's press shop issued a release with the headline: "Thompson Tied for First in National Poll; Giuliani in Free Fall."
While Fred Thompson travels the nation with his message of consistent conservatism and touts his border security and immigration reform proposal, a recent national tracking poll shows that Thompson has pulled into a virtual tie with Rudy Giuliani. This poll further shows that Rudy has lost almost a third of his support in the last 12 days. (Margin of error is +/- 4 percent)
This press release was clearly not intended for those of us who work for established publications.
It was aimed at the newer generation of opinion leaders.
But if and when anyone from Thompson's team ever dumps on the Rasmussen robots, I will be the first to let you know.
Fun fact: Scott Rasmussen is a co-founder of ESPN.
Obama's New Politics, Exemplified
Barack Obama, the press is supposed to say, is a hope-monger. He mongers hope. In a tight stump speech, it's hard for Obama to describe the content of the hope he sells. It roughly entails a complete transformation of the political system, one where deeply felt values are contested but the act of contesting them does not require one side to assassinate the other.
Borrowing the language of a certain political theorist of leftist repute, there's a dialectical element to it. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis, the bringing together of political opposites, the breaking of old habits of minds; putting it more capitalistically, Obama, in his campaign bull sessions, sees his campaign as the prelude to a creative destruction of the current political system.
Here's an illustration: this letter, signed by gay and lesbian activists and African American church leaders and released by the Obama campaign yesterday in response to protests over Pastor Donnie McClurkin's inclusion in a series of gospel concerns the Obama is performing in South Carolina. (Hat tip: Huffington Post).
At the same time, while Obama has said that he "strongly disagrees" with Pastor McClurkin's comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin.
We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters. And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree.
This expansive vision of tolerance does not comport with the Manichean universe that most partisans inhabit. It might not sit well with his audience.
Obama's campaign is acknowledging -- or stating as a fact -- that there is a fairly substantial degree of homophobia within parts of the black community. (A reality of American life: many people support gay rights unreservedly; many others oppose gay rights unreservedly; most are ambivalent.)
The beauty (or peril) of this letter is that it will enrage partisans. (How DARE Obama not exclude bigots? Would he include racists? Anti-Semites? Or -- Obama thinks black people are homophobes. How ARE he, etc.)
The partisans might be so invested in their sides and the media might be so invested in covering the world through a bifocal that Democratic primary voters may hear only the charges and countercharges and not Obama's argument itself.
That might take a speech.
Edwards: "Culture Of Greed" Has Taken Over Corporate America
In Des Moines today, Sen. John "Anti-Hillary" Edwards caps a week of modernized populism with a big think policy speech wherein he contends that a "culture" of "greed" has "overtaken corporate America" and needs to be reformed.
The key ideas: a new plan to "restore corporate responsibility" and "balance" by "modernizing the social contract."
Policy points include, per the campaign:
-- Creating retirement benefits that move from job to job by creating universal retirement accounts and honoring pension promises
-- Granting shareholders new rights
-- Capping unfair levels of executive pensions
-- Modernize labor laws to give workers a stronger voice
Here are some excerpts:
In corporate America, where a broader sense of social responsibility once held sway, a culture of greed has taken over. Instead of treating their employees fairly, being accountable to their shareholders and contributing to America’s prosperity, CEOs act like their corporations exist just to build their own massive fortunes.
What does Washington do while corporate profits climb and the wealth of the very wealthiest grows – all at the expense of the vast majority of hardworking Americans? It circles the wagons around the people who are already doing the best. Instead of protecting the compact of equal opportunity and shared prosperity, Washington protects corporate profits and hoards prosperity. That is wrong, it is shameful, and it is bad for our economy to boot.
***
The system in Washington is badly broken. It used to be that big business hired lobbyists and lawyers to help them get around the rules. That was bad enough – today, they hire them to write the rules. And it works, because the politicians who are supposed to make the rules are indebted to the lobbyists the corporations hire.
In America today, we need action measured by conviction, not just words. In this election, you face a choice between honest leadership and say anything politics, between conviction and calculation, between strength and compromise. Let me tell you something: it takes strength to say no to the lobbyists and special interests – it’s much easier to just go along to get along. But I will never compromise my principles for the sake of politics – and I’ve been saying “no deal” to the big corporations, the special interests, and the lobbyists who work for them my entire life.
October 25, 2007
Memo Wars: Iran From The Room Screaming
Shot one, from Obama adviser/ex-Clinton SAO Greg Craig:
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Greg Craig, Foreign Policy Adviser to Senator Obama, former Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State, and former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel
RE: Obama vs. Clinton: Real Differences on Iraq and Ir
DA: October 25, 2007
The current debate about the wisdom of Senator Clinton's support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment points up significant differences in Senator Obama's approach to the use of force in Iraq as compared with Senator Clinton's approach.
On September 26, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. In defending her vote, Senator Clinton points to that provision in the resolution that calls for designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, a provision incidentally that Senator Obama does not oppose. But the amendment does much more than that.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment contains language that sets forth an entirely new rationale for keeping US troops in Iraq and, if need be, for attacking Iranian forces. The problematic language in the resolution says that it is a "critical national interest of the United States" to counter Iran's influence among the Shia population of Iraq. Without a doubt, President Bush can cite that language as authorizing him to maintain and use US troops in Iraq for the purpose of containing Iran, curtailing Iran's influence in Iraq, and, if need be, to expand our troops' activities beyond Iraq's borders to pursue and attack Iranian forces.
Having seen what this Administration – with its expansive view of its Executive Power – has done in the past with Congressional resolutions, it is naive to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment without simultaneously seeking explicit assurances that the President will never cite the amendment as a legal basis for deploying US troops to counter Iranian influence whether in Iraq or Iran. In fact, just weeks earlier, the Senate agreed unanimously to a similar Iran-related amendment. In that amendment, however, the Senate made clear that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran." To a person familiar with the practices and principles governing interpretation of statutory language, the absence of such language in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is significant.
Senator Clinton voted to approve the new mission for our troops, and she blessed the new rationale for their continued presence in Iraq. Senator Obama did not. Senator Clinton was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Administration on this matter. Senator Obama was not. Her support for Kyl-Lieberman draws attention to a series of other important differences between Senators Obama and Clinton on Iraq and Iran.
It appears to be an open issue inside the administration whether the United States should attack Iran – to retaliate for Iran's support of Iraqi militias, to take action against Iran's nuclear program or both. Vice President Cheney in particular has been giving bellicose speeches and threatening Iran. Barack Obama thinks that, at this sensitive moment, Congress should be extremely careful. It should not do or say anything that might be used either to justify a US attack on Iran or to authorize prolonging the US military presence in Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted for an amendment that does just that.
Barack Obama supports vigorous diplomacy and additional pressure on Iran. He supports strengthening economic sanctions against Iran. But the Kyl-Lieberman amendment does much more than that. It builds a case for using US troops in Iraq to counter Iranian influence. This amendment:
- Opens with 17 "findings" that highlight Iranian influence within Iraq;
- Makes President Bush's case that the United States should structure "its military presence in Iraq" to counter the "capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region" (emphasis added)
- States that it is "a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran" from exerting influence within Iraq.
These expressions have nothing to do with diplomacy, they do not deal with the Revolutionary Guard, and they do not address the issue of strengthening sanctions against Iran They do, however, describe a new mission for American troops in Iraq, and they articulate a new rationale for our continued presence in Iraq – to contain Iran and curtail Iranian influence inside Iraq. The amendment also:
- Was co-sponsored by two of the most hawkish members of the Senate on Iran: John Kyl (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT);
- Was supported by all but two Republicans: Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN)
- Was opposed by ten other Senators who, like Senator Obama, support sanctioning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization: Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sherrod Brown (D-OH); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Christopher Dodd (D-CT); Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Edward Kennedy (D-MA); John Kerry (D-MA); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Blanche Lincoln (D-AR); John Tester (D-MT)
Importantly, Kyl-Lieberman does not include language that the Senate has deemed necessary to include in other provisions related to Iran, specifically a provision saying:
- "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran."
Trying to Have it Both Ways: After Senator Clinton drew criticism for her vote in support of Kyl-Lieberman on September 26, she decided to support a bill that Senator Webb introduced in March that said that the President had to obtain congressional authorization before going to war in Iran. Webb told Howard Fineman that Clinton was in such a hurry to support his bill, "I found out after she announced it," he said, laughing.'" But Kyl-Lieberman had already passed the Senate; Webb's bill has not. Signing on with Webb does not undo her vote for Kyl-Lieberman.
Shot two, from "The Clinton Campaign"
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
RE: Obama vs. Obama: The Real Differences on Iran
Who said this?
“Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.” Later in the same speech, he said: “Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.”
George Bush? Nope.
The latest from Dick Cheney? Guess again.
Language from Kyl-Lieberman? Sorry.
That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in Iraq is necessary to constrain Iran's ambitions. But that was then.
This is now: Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton. Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006. Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April. Nevermind that his colleague from Illinois – Dick Durbin – voted the same way as Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman and said “If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.”
Today, in order to justify his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Obama says that such language is bellicose and gives the President a blank check to take the country to war.
But if Senator Obama really believed this measure gave the President a blank check for war, shouldn’t he have been in the Senate on the day of the vote, speaking out, and fighting against it? Instead he did nothing, remained totally silent, skipped the vote and spoke out only after the vote to engage in false attacks against Senator Clinton. A Washington Post editorial summed it up best: “Now, trailing in the polls and sensing a political opportunity, Mr. Obama is trying to portray Ms. Clinton as a reckless saber-rattler. That is irresponsible and -- given the ease with which the charge can be rebutted -- probably naive, as well.”
That's not the kind of and strength and leadership Americans are looking for in their next President.
Hillary has been clear and consistent in saying that diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war. That’s why she took to the Senate floor last February and warned the President not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first and it’s why she’s co-sponsored Senator Webb’s legislation to make that the law of the land.
That’s the kind of strength and experience that will lead to the changes Americans want in our nation’s foreign policy.
Shot three, from Bill Burton:
All of the political explanations and contortions in the world aren't going to change the fact that, once again, Senator Clinton supported giving President Bush both the benefit of the doubt and a blank check on a critical foreign policy issue. Barack Obama just has a fundamentally different view.:"
The Rest Of The Stories, 10/25: Errant Metaphor Edition
When opening a campaign headquarters in Los Angeles, do not use the word "Fired Up" to describe the mood of your foot soldiers. At least until next month.
Mitt Romney's campaign prematurely articulated a high-profile endorsement -- again. The sheriff of Collier Co. Florida has endorsed the former Massachusetts governor but wanted him to wait until as late as possible to announce it. He's apologized to Fred Thompson, with whom he met earlier this week.
Happy Birthday, Sen. Clinton, from all your friends at the Romney campaign. "One of the ways that you help instill, if you will, family values is by having a White House be a place that demonstrates family values ... "And, you know, I think during the last Clinton presidency, the White House did not demonstrate that in a way that was helpful to our nation's culture," Romney added.
Iowa Dems Recommend Jan. 3 Caucus Date
Carrie Giddins, the communications for the Iowa Democratic Party, says that the party will recommend to the state central committee this Sunday that the Democrats move their caucuses to Jan. 3.
Lieberman, Kyl And Bears: Oh No...
Two opponents of Hillary Clinton are attempting to link the sanctions imposed by the administration against Iran today to a failure of judgment by Sen. Hillary Clinton.
There's no polling to suggest that Democratic primary voters link the saber-tapping against Iran to the run up to the war with Iraq, but Edwards, Joe Biden, Dodd and Barack Obama are beginning to fill in the picture.
First, Dodd:
"The glaring omission of any new diplomatic measures by the President today is the reason I voted, and urged my colleagues to vote, against the Kyl -Lieberman resolution on September 26.
"The aggressive actions taken today by the Administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran."
Then Edwards:
“Today, George Bush and Dick Cheney again rattled the sabers in their march toward military action against Iran. The Bush Administration has been making plans to attack Iran for many months. At this critical moment, we need strong leadership to stand against George Bush’s dangerous ‘preventive war’ policy, which makes force the first option, not the last.
“I learned a clear lesson from the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002: if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile - and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush’s new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.
Substantively, Lieberman-Kyl is not the 2002 vote. But politically, it's a minefield for Clinton. The Bush Administration seems not to be interested in proposing any new diplomatic initiatives. So every action they take will play into the hands of Clinton's rivals. They'll say: "Ok, Hillary, you promised us that Lieberman-Kyl was aimed at promoting a diplomatic course, but the Bush Administration seems to have a very different interpretation."
\
The Secret Of Hillary's Success?
Ron Brownstein and Gallup suggest that women with college degrees are accepting her more and more -- and that they account for the lioness's share of her recent surge of support.
But recent polls show Clinton dramatically gaining ground with better-educated Democratic women, both nationally and in the key early state of New Hampshire. More than any other factor, those gains explain why she has nearly doubled her lead over Barack Obama, her closest competitor, in national Gallup polls since summer, according to an analysis by Gallup for National Journal. Clinton remains very popular among downscale Democratic women, the Gallup results show, and her newfound strength among college-educated Democratic women is allowing her to cut into the core of Obama's coalition: well-educated Democrats.
Since 1968, most contested races for the Democratic presidential nomination have come down to a choice between one candidate who mainly appeals to better-educated and more-affluent voters with moderate economic positions and liberal views on social and foreign-policy issues, and a rival who relies on downscale voters drawn to populist economics and somewhat more conservative social and foreign-policy messages.
Democrats often describe these two archetypes as "wine track" and "beer track" candidates. Wine track candidates, almost always reformers with a literary sense of detachment, have included Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Gary Hart in 1984, and Bill Bradley in 2000. Beer track candidates, from Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to Walter Mondale in 1984 and Al Gore in 2000, usually offer less inspiration but greater attention to kitchen-table concerns.
That pattern quickly resurfaced in 2008 polling. Obama, with his cerebral manner, promises of political renewal, and open-collar-cool style, ran best among college-educated voters from early on. Hillary Clinton, with an appeal centered on the economic needs of working families whom she termed "invisible Americans," showed the most strength with less educated voters. (The support of John Edwards, the third major Democratic contender, varies little by class, even though his message is heavily tilted toward populist economics.)
Clinton's gender introduced a new variable to the wine/beer axis. While she runs more strongly with less educated voters than those with college degrees, she also runs better with women than men. In polls, Clinton has consistently been strongest at the point where her advantages intersect: among women without a college education. Clinton has been weakest at the point where neither advantage is present: among college-educated men. Campaign strategists for Clinton and her rivals regard the other two categories -- women with college educations and men without them -- as conflicted swing groups.
Since summer, Clinton has improved with each of these Democratic groups: Her overall average in Gallup/USA Today surveys has jumped from 40 percent in June and July to 48 percent in September and October, a trend mirrored in other national polls. Obama's support has sagged slightly over the same period, allowing Clinton to almost double her lead in Gallup, from 13 points during the summer to 24 points this fall.
What's not clear is why Clinton has improved, and whether the improvements are transitory. When Clinton's peers -- college educated women -- are reminded of some of the less salutary stereotypes about Clinton or when questions are raised about the state of the Clinton marriage, will these gains evaporate?
The Iowa Democratic Caucuses: We'll Know By Sunday
Iowa Democrats will meet this Sunday to decide whether to join the Republicans and hold their caucus date on Jan. 3. Other possibilities are Jan. 14, which is unlikely, and Jan. 5 which is slightly more likely.
It's not clear whether specific Democratic presidential campaigns have enough clout to sway the vote any which way.
Clinton Campaign Advertises on Craigslist For Iowa Jobs
More evidence that Hillary Clinton is interested in helping Iowa Gov. Chet Culver with his tax revenue.
Will Stephen Colbert's "Run" Put Comedy Central in Legal Jeopardy?
Two assertions have been made. One is that by airing Colbert, and allowing him to flak for his “campaign” the Comedy Central cable network (or Viacom) is making illegal corporate contributions/expenditures. The second is that Comedy Central will have provided Colbert with a “use” that under communications law triggering equal opportunities obligations. Let’s look at each of these in turn.
Why would the broadcast be deemed an illegal expenditure? Because, so the argument goes, the candidate is controlling the broadcasts - Colbert “controls” the Colbert Report. Thus, the broadcasts would not be exempt under campaign laws as news, commentary or editorials run by a broadcaster (the so-called “press exemption” - scroll down to 431(9)(B)) The law explicitly states that if the facilities of the broadcaster are controlled by a candidate or political party, the spending isn’t exempt.
A Romney Endorsement, A Quick Rejection Of Thompson
Gov. Mitt Romney was endorsed today by the influential Collier Co., Florida sheriff Don Hunter.
On Tuesday, Hunter met with Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson to talk about the latter's immigration enforcement plan. The fact of the meeting with Hunter was used by Thompson to roll out the plan. But the sheriff evidently was not impressed.
"I have had the opportunity to look at the records of other candidates, and it is clear that Governor Romney is the candidate with the most impressive record of accomplishment in the public and private sectors and the strongest record of enforcing our immigration laws," Hunter is quoted by the Romney campaign as saying.
Clinton Adds Staff To Iowa
News yesterday that Sen. Hillary Clinton is adding up to 100 staffers to her Iowa field and political operation does not surprise her Democratic rivals.
They see it as a sign that Clinton's campaign has failed to lower expectations for her and has concluded that victory in the lead-off state is necessary for her to survive until later contests.
Clinton aides have done their best to lower expectations. Clinton herself, in an interview with David Yepsen, called Iowa her toughest state. Advisers like to say that Tom Harkin's participation in the 1992 presidential race precluded Bill Clinton from building a campaign there and therefore that Hillary Clinton hasn't had the opportunity to present her tires for kicking.
Well -- the Clinton general election campaign went to Iowa several times in 1992. Several times (at least) during his presidency. Several times during the 1996 re-election. Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Jefferson Jackson dinner.
The more staff in Iowa, the better, right? Not necessarily.
(1) Clinton's Iowa team is renown for its ability to parrot her campaign message. It's taken the campaign months to instill this discipline in the team. The sudden influx of new staffers means more time training them in the ways of selling Hillary Clinton.
(2) Mastering the complicated Iowa caucus math -- there are at least three levels of complexity -- isn't necessarily easier with more staffers.
(3) If previous patterns hold, about 60% of caucus goers are expected to be legacy caucus goers; about 40 percent are expected to be new. Most of the Clinton campaign's energy will be focused on those 60% -- all of whom are identifiable because each campaign has purchased access to the state party's voter list. Winning them over requires personal contact with the candidate and the quality of a message -- not necessary the quantity of door knocks, a lesson that Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt learned in 2004.
October 24, 2007
40 Years Later, It's OK To Laugh...
It's everywhere else by now (the perils of traveling), but here's a link to the new John McCain ad in New Hampshire, if only to keep the McCain campaign from complaining to me.
A McCain adviser insists that this ad buy is real -- in other words, it's not a video press release (from a campaign with... not much money) designed to convince us naive press folks into running it for free. The buy, the adviser said, is "substantial" and statewide.
1. Yesterday, I attributed an apology to the Obama campaign; in fact, said apology came from Will Holley of the Romney campaign. I should have known that; I went to high school with Holley.
2. I repeatedly mispelled the name of gospel singer/minister Donnie McClurkin.
3. I mispelled the name of the RNC's eCampaign Manager, Cyrus Krohn.
I regret the errors.
A Wrinkle In The Voter Turnout Debates
The industry devoted to increasing the turnout of voters -- all those green eye shade types in Washington think tanks, those young voter consortiums with Xes and Zs to denote "coolness" -- they may want to pick up the latest issue of Scientific American and read about the experiments of James Fowler, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego.
It turns out that self-interest may motivate people to vote as much as many experts (and virtually every practicing political consultant) believes.
Monozygotic and dizygotic twin studies are a staple of experimental psychology and developmental biology. Dr. Fowler wondered whether there was a way to test whether the willingness to vote -- or, rather, voting behavior -- can be correlated with genetic variation. (Remember, identical twins -- monozygotic -- are genetically identical; dizygotic twins share roughly 50 percent of their genes.)
By studing the voting behavior of these twins, Fowler found that "genetics was responsible for 60 perceent of differences in voting turnout between twin types, with the rest coming from environmental factors or other factors." A larger sample found a similar correlation.
Another scientist found a smaller correlation, one similar to the correlation usually found for "genetically influenced personality traits in general."
I'm a little skeptical. I'd love to see a study of voting behavior among genetically identical twins who were separated at birth; that way, the environmental factors are better segretated. Also: there's not really a neat separation between environmental and biological influences; if you're a biologically cranky child, your parents will probably treat you as they would treat a cranky child, and your aggregate level of crankiness interacts with environment.
My guess is that a propensity to vote is probably linked to a personality trait like cooperation or sociability. In another study, Fowler found that one's penchant for altruistic behaviors and the degree to which people are motivated to help others in their group also drive people to increase their political participation. (Here's a bet: someone in Barack Obama's inner circle has read this study.)
What does this mean for political consultants: instead of trying to turn all young voters into new voters, it'd be more efficient to target those young voters whose parents were voters. But then you're dealing with another environmental effect: the degree to which the content of a parent's political worldview influences their offspring's.
I See Your NH Filing And Raise You More....
Time was, when a candidate filed for the New Hampshire primary, he'd' devote the entire day to the honor and majesty of the first in the nation contest. But Rudy Giuliani's campaign likes to do things differently.
He filed in New Hampshire yesterday and made the trek in person, but his campaign staged another high-profile filing ceremony in a Feb. 5 state too: in Jefferson City, Missouri, the MO House Majority Leader Steven Tilley, Giuliani's Missouri Co-Chair filed on Giuliani's behalf.
Today, Giuliani surrogates in Alabama, Florida and Alaska will formally file the candidate paperwork, hoping to generate local news coverage.
The multiple filings are a sign that the campaign remains committed to its own view of the usual Iowa-to-New Hampshire momentum swing.
A side note: Hillary Clinton will file in New Hampshire on November 2 -- the day the filing period ends and a few days before Secretary of State Bill Gardner inks in the primary date on the calendar.
Don Wilton's Turnaround: How It Plays Out
The decision by Pastor Don Wilton to retract his endorsement of Mitt Romney will probably have a chilling effect on pastors across South Carolina who have always played right up to the line.
Wilton's decision to endorse Romney's policy record provoked an intense backlash among his fellow Southern Baptist pastors, and word in South Carolina is that Wilton was sending signals as early as this weekend that he had not forseen how controversial his endorsement would be.
Pastors of large, mainline SC churches usually don't endorse; at least one candidate, Mike Huckabee, is counting on the pastoral network for support. But if they're gun-shy like Wilton -- or shy after they've fired the gun and refuse to fire again -- their collective ability to influence the religious conservative primary vote may be diminished.
A side note: Fred Thompson will pay the $35,000 ballot access fee in South Carolina today.
Romney's Latest South Carolina Ad: A Turnaround Kinda Guy
"Our next president has to be an agent of change. And as Republicans, change begins with us."
The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll: The Democrats
The Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg poll shows little of the broad demographic cleavages that marked their poll in June. No longer is Barack Obama leading among younger voters -- Clinton has swung that group nearly 30 points. Clinton now has solid leads among women with graduate degrees and college grads, too.
In head to head matchups against Republicans, Clinton and Obama both hold leads over the four top-tier Republicans, although Obama does better among Republican women than Clinton does. Clinton manages to take about a quarter of the conservative Christian vote each time. The fabled men/women gender gap appears in the matchups versus Rudy Giuliani: he takes home a commanding margin among men while the Democrats easily beat him among women.
A weird note: in a head-to-head versus Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton easily outpolls him among men.
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg: The Republicans
For pro-life conservatives, the battle is joined. Per the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg numbers, efforts to raise the profile of the issue and draw attention to Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice credentials seem to be resonating among conservative voters.
Giuliani still sports a double-digit lead over Fred Thompson, but his support is soft, the party seems confused, and Republicans seem to be growing more anxious about his moral issue liberalism.
34% of those surveyed agreed that social conservatives would be within their rights to run a third party candidate if the GOP nominated a candidate who supported abortion rights and gay rights. Paradoxically, a quarter of that 34% say they support Giuliani today.
Abortion is a bigger issue than gay rights; less than half of Republican oppose civil unions (although most oppose gay marriage).
Fred Thompson's support among "white fundamentalists" seems to be growing; that's the only discernable category in which he leads Giuliani, who still retains the support of pluralities of Republican Catholics and self-defined members of the "Religious Right."
Giuliani is much stronger among men than he is among women -- he recieved 36% of the male vote in this sample and 27% of the women's vote.
AFSCME's Endorsement Process
Larry Scanlon, the political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, confirms for us that AFSCME's presidential search committee hasn't recommended endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential candidate just yet.
On October 30 -- the same day the Democrats debate in Philadelphia -- the search committee will meet to decide whether to endorse and if so, who they ought to endorse. The next day, members of the International Executive Board of AFSCME meet.
By November 1, as Howard Fineman predicts, it should be clear to the world whether AFSCME has decided to endorse Hillary Clinton. All signs point to yes.
A side note: watch for the New Hampshire branch of the Service Employees to endorse a different candidate very soon.
Rudy The Traitor?
The tabloid wood this morning isn't that friendly.
Giuliani likes to tease Hillary Clinton by saying that while he became a Yankees fan growing up in New York City, she became one growing up in Illinois. The implication: she embraced the Yankees because it was politically feasible.
Now Clinton can return the tease..
ONE's President Will Become Consultant
After Susan McCue helped her boss, Sen. Harry Reid, win back the Senate for Democrats, multimillion dollar offers from K Street flooded in. McCue went on a different track; for the past eight months, she's been the president of the ONE Campaign, which has played a measurable role in convincing the presidential candidates to talk seriously and think seriously about global poverty and public health.
This morning, duty calls again: McCue will announce that, come December, she's going to step down as president and become a ONE consultant so she can more closely help Sen. Reid, a task that, as president of a bipartisan non-profit, was often more difficult. McCue will remain heavily involved with ONE but will spend more time helping Reid's war room and guiding his strategic communications strategy.
LAT/Bloomberg's Latest: HRC Strong, Rudy Soft
Here's the way Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times headline their latest joint poll:
HILLARY CLINTON SHORES UP DEMOCRATIC VOTES
GIULIANI’S LEAD IS SOFT WITH MOST SAYING THEY COULD CHANGE THEIR MINDS
More on this in a bit.
Thompson Loses A Member Of His Media Team
Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant and media strategist who managed to survive the waves of turnover in Fred Thompson's campaign, has resigned, Republican sources said.
Update: he's confirmed the resignation to Adam Nagourney.
October 23, 2007
A Major Romney Endorser's Non-Retraction Retratction.
It turns out that Don Wilton, the former president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention may not have endorsed Mitt Romney after all.
Pastor Wilton tells Baptist News that he never intended to endorse Romney nationally -- only "in my capacity as an individual citizen."
OK -- but he admits he gave his "consent to the local campaign to use my affirmation of the governor's stance on family values."
Said Wilton: "It was my personal error to agree to support Romney's campaign. Until this incident I had never endorsed any person running for any elected office, Democrat or Republican."
So what he's saying, basically, is that he was fine being used as a validator of Romney's record, but he never meant to endorse Romney's candidacy and never realized that his words would be construed as a national endorsement.
The Romney campaign may get a lot of guff for this, but it doesn't seem to be warranted.
Pastor Don either changed his mind or really seems to be confused about politics.
Kevin Madden, Romney's spokesman, told me:
"He’s a great leader in the community. We respect any decision he makes with regard to his involvement with the campaign."
Here's Wilton's full statement:
"While I did give my consent to the local campaign to use my affirmation of the Governor's stance on family values in my capacity as an individual citizen, I made the mistake of not realizing the extent to which it would be used on a national basis. It was my personal error to agree to support Romney’s campaign. Until this incident I had never endorsed any person running for any elected office, Democrat or Republican. While I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of fine candidates over the years I continue to believe my role and responsibility is to preach and teach the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am committed to pray for our elected leaders as well as for the wisdom of the American people as they are compelled to make choices based upon their deep and abiding convictions. The future of this great nation is at stake and the morality of her people in relationship to the God of our founding fathers is critical to our future. While I will vote my constitutional right as an American citizen, and while I implore all eligible Americans to do the same, I will continue to use my personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ as the only standard by which I determine who to vote for in any election."
The Rest Of The Stories, 10/23
The fires: Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is donating $10,000 to the Red Cross
Is Mitt Romney losing the expectations game in Iowa?
Here is Sen. Barack Obama's statement on the Donnie McClurkin controversy:
"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country. I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."
Rudy Giuliani is questioned by a voter about where his political views differed from conservative orthodoxy. He does not answer.
Spooky Traffic
The Republican National Committee's latest viral game, Scariest Democrat, is getting loads of traffic. RNC eCampaign manager Cyrus Krohn says that as of 4:00 pm ET, 65,000 visitors had viewed the site and nearly 9,000 people had spent the time to give the RNC their e-mail address in order to vote.
The scariest: guess-who-lary Rodham Clinton. 91% think so.
Barack Obama, Donnie McClurkin And the Limits Of Tolerance
Trying to run a campaign that's a step above the fray -- that's higher than the interest group balkanization that characterizes our modern politics -- is not easy. Values often compete.
Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin is very popular among black Christians in South Carolina. Obama's success in South Carolina is predicated on his ability to convince these voters that he is temperamentally conservative like them, not Muslim, and electable.
McClurkin happens to hold a traditional American evangelical view of homosexuality. He is a Pentecostal minister.
Is McClurkin popularity and willingness to embrace Obama -- a staunch supporter of gay right's -- more important than the sensitivies of Obama's gay donors? As of this writing, that's up in the air -- the Politico's Ben Smith reports on a calm-the-waters conference call that David Plouffe has to take time from his campaign manager duties to attend.
There's a legitimate conflict here: in Obama's vision of America, are anti-gay views acceptable? Does Obama, as a modernist evangelical, accept the support of those Christians who believe that homosexuality is a curse? Politically, does McClurkin gospel message -- and the way it helps validate Obama's religious identity -- trump the parochial concerns of an interest group? And why did a campaign staffer fail to search McClurkin name in Wikipedia? And does the Democratic political class include a space for people who think homosexuality is immoral? And can any candidate win the gay vote and the conservative African American vote at the same time in the same state with the same message?
Fortunately for the Obama campaign, virtually no one in South Carolina is paying attention to this controversy. The press has barely touched on the story.
The Second Civil War ... On November 1
Ronald Brownstein's new book ships next week and it's going to be an awesome read.
If you want more direct access to Ron's mind -- access that we, as members of the Atlantic Media Company now get on a regular basis -- well, you can have it.
Next Thursday morning, Ron, National Journal's Linda Douglass and the Hotline's Amy Walter will host a networking breakfast at the tony Columbus Club at Union Station.
The conversation is free and the breakfast is freer. Eat on us.
So if you're in Washington, love Ron Brownstein and want a free breakfast, RSVP here.
Clinton May Get Her AFSCME Endorsement Next Week
Newsweek's Howard Fineman reports that Sen. Hillary Clinton is expected to get the formal endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees next week. That's the same union that endorsed Bill Clinton at a key point in 1992.
But the vote of the union's executive committee hasn't happened yet...
Romney's Poke At Obama
Responding to a bit of Romney Obama-Osama confusion, Sen. Barack Obama told reporters in New Hampshire:
"I don't pay too much attention to Mitt Romney."
Romney's Pollster Credits Advertising For A Jump In South Carolina
(The State's Aaron Gould Sheinin first had the news of a Romney internal poll showing him gaining some ground in South Carolina. The Romney internals have him at 20 percent, second only to Fred Thompson.)
This column has gotten its grubby hands on the full memo.
As interesting as the raw numbers is the corresponding analysis from Romney's chief pollster, Jan van Lohuizen.
He writes:
Our gains have not been from undecided voters, but have been take-aways; we’ve draw[n] away support from Thompson and Giuliani. Thompson in particular has lost ground since
August. While he is still in first place, he has lost significantly on the ballot question (-8
from 32 to 24%). Similarly Giuliani dropped 6 points since late August. McCain’s
numbers are not moving; the small comeback McCain staged in the national polling and
in some states did not materialize in South Carolina.
Why is Romney improving? This chart tells the story, according to van Lohuizen:
In other words, Romney's support rises among those respondents who recalled seeing a Romney television advertisement.
van Lohuizen interviewed 400 Republicans using his own likely voter screen, which is a fairly healthy size sample.
Two other points from the internal memo:
Consistent with this we gained in all parts of the state and with all voter groups. In fact we are currently in first place in the Columbia market and in second place in the
Greenville / Spartanburg market.
Finally, we continue to have ground to gain. The best indicator of this is name id.
Favorable impressions currently are at 68% well short of the 80 percent range numbers
we have seen in Iowa and New Hampshire.
A Reagan Zone Of Freedom From Contact With Illegal Immigrants.
Not really, but his plan, spurring attrition through macho enforcement, is already getting rave reviews from the tough-to-please enforcement-first crowd.
A Thompson release announcing the proposal includes a subhead jab at GiulianI: "Giuliani Told Illegal Immigrants He Would Protect Them"
Romney Confuses Obama With Osama
Mitt Romney today, in Greenville:
"
Actually, just look at what Osam, uh, Barack Obama, said just yesterday. Barack Obama calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. That is the central place, he said. Come join us under one banner."
Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman, responds:
"Apparently, Mitt Romney can switch names just as casually as he switches positions, but what's wrongheaded is continuing a misguided war in Iraq that has left America less safe. It's time to end the divisiveness and fear-mongering that is at the heart of Governor Romney's campaign."
NBC/NJ's Erin McPike adds an apology from the Romney campaign:
Romney's South Carolina spokesman Will Holley told reporters several hours later that Romney misspoke when discussing Obama at another point in the speech, as the AP first reported, by saying "Osam-." It was a slip of the tongue," Holley said.
(Chaser...)
Malone And Cellucci
Say this for Mitt Romney: he so went his own way as Massachusetts governor that he managed to reunite the Mass. Republican Party's Hatfield and McCoy, former Gov. Paul Cellucci and former treasurer Joe Malone.
(Many Romneyites were Maloniacs, including campaign manager Beth Myers).
Today, Malone endorsed Rudy Giuliani. And Cellucci has become of Giuliani's senior advisers.
Not Beth Myers, Mitt Romney's campaign manager, who takes home about $7,000 a month after taxes, or Michael DuHaime of the Giuliani campaign, who makes $14,386 per month after taxes... it's Chip Saltzman, Mike Huckabee's campaign manager, who makes about $15,000 per month.
Saltzman's estimated $250,000 per year is about seven percent of what Huckabee has raised to date -- $2,345,798.
2008 Race Rankings: The Republicans
With less than 70 days to go until the Iowa caucuses, we realize there are only seven or so of these left before we get to pretend we had it right all along.
These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Republican primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling. Click here for Democratic rankings.
1, Rudy Giuliani -- The decision to move Iowa to Jan. 3 creates a slight problem for Giuliani's strategy, especially if Democrats don't follow suit. If the Republican contest is first, you can bet the media will pay attention. It's possible that Giuliani could fail to win a single state between Iowa and Florida. At the same time, he might come in second in all of those states, and therefore lead in the delegate race by Jan. 29. This week, his Values Voters speech was much ado about very little. Giuliani had little to gain from this crowd; the less scary he appears to these voters, the less likely it is that they will body-block him.
2. Mitt Romney -- Romney received three big endorsements this week -- all of them from evangelical conservatives, two of them in South Carolina. But his opponents sniped at him at the Values Voters conference, and Huckabee's strong finish may have prevented some other evangelical leaders from coalescing around him.
3. Fred Thompson -- He did better in the second debate and has gotten over his fear of drawing contrasts with his opponents. But his inexplicable failure to campaign regularly is hurting him.
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign said it has mailed this postcard to 100,000 Iowa voters in an effort to bracket the defensive mailing sent by Hillary Clinton.
While others went along, Obama opposed Bush’s war plans.
Barack Obama is the ONLY major candidate for president to oppose both the Iraq War from the very start and the Senate amendment that raises the risk of war with Iran.
BACK:
While other Democrats voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, Barack Obama opposed another Bush foreign policy fiasco.
"Why is this amendment so dangerous? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language to justify keeping our troops in Iraq as long as they can point to a threat from Iran. And because they could use this language to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq."
-Barack Obama
Judgment we can trust.
Barack Obama. President.
October 22, 2007
Rudy Should Worry About Colbert In South Carolina
Here's a thought chain.
Colbert the flesh and blood man is a Democrat; he'll run his satire/protest candidacy as a Republican so he can mess with Republicans.
Liberal young Republicans who enjoy Colbert's show are probably, in a three way Giuliani, Thompson and Romney race in South Carolina, inclined to support Giuliani.
Giuliani can win a three way race if he gets some national security evangelicals and most of the social moderates, assuming conservatives split between Romney and Thompson.
If Colbert picks off a point or two, it's not hard to conclude that it'll come from Giuliani's tallies.
Although, just having written that, Colbert could siphon support from Ron Paul's crowd.
That they would be in this predicament is overdetermined. The Democrats overpromised to get elected and voters overexpected; or maybe they've just transferred their hopes and political interest to the presidential race.
The Democrats regained Congress because of Iraq, Republican corruption and scandals. Since they are constitutionally incapable of ending a war, perhaps it was a little bit of a stretch for them to promise to hold President Bush to account for it. No matter; they were in their rights; that's why we have elections.
Holding hearings and passing resolutions, manipulating symbols and stoking bases -- this is the stuff of a lame duck Congress. Almost definitionally, a Congress from one party elected during a turbulent, polarizing time will find itself having less power than the lame duck president.
But Democrats shouldn't worry. And in many respects, what they're doing is the only thing a smart political party should do until they can elect their president.
A few more rousing Washington press conferences with John Sweeney isn't going to change much.
One Victory, Two Elections, Four Lessons For Republicans
Since this column is focused like a laser beam on the 2008 presidential election, I don't have all that much to say about down ballot races and elections.
But given the recent Massachusetts CD 5 special election and Bobby Jindal's victory in LA, a few points come to mind.
(1) Even without Katrina, Louisiana has a political milieu all of its own, and Jindal ran as an anti-corruption, can-do reformer. You would not know, from his ads, that he was a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent.
(2) Jim Ogonowski was universally regarded as a better candidate that Nikki Tsongas; this war vet he ran to the left of many Democratic presidential candidates on the war; he benefited from grassroots Republican internet support; Tsongas was treated roughly by the press; -- talented Republicans who run campaigns that comport to the moods of their districts can be competitive against Democrats.
(2.5) -- Backed by the national party, Tsongas defeated a popular Lowell councilwoman in the Democratic primary; shades of Tammy Duckworth: Tsongas drew the resentment of liberal activists whose candidate she defeated.
(3) The RNC's get-out-the-vote machinery is still potent and formidable; they greatly assisted Jindal in voter registration, voter re-registration and his GOTV efforts.
(4) Neither Jindal nor Ogonowski ran as ideological ciphers; not as social conservatives (although Jindal is a social conservative), not as a doctrinaire free-marketeer, not as national security conservatives. They ran specifically, not generally.
What's The Huckabee Problem?
Item: Mike Huckabee gets the most votes of those Value Voter voters who heard the presidential candidates speak in person. Huckabee did so well, I am told, that several impending endorsements of Mitt Romney were forestalled.
Item: Mike Huckabee has won many such straw polls.
Item: Mike Huckabee is exceedingly pro-life, exceptionally evangelical, a former pastor in the Southern Baptist Church; a proponent of covenant marriages.
Item: Mike Huckabee is that rare species of conservative Christians: the media sees him as a three-dimensional political figure.
Item: Mike Huckabee remains popular in Arkansas, a state that a Hillary Clinton nomination will put in play for Democrats.
Item: By rights, Mike Huckabee has more of a claim to an endorsement by socially conservative political leaders than any other candidate; more of a claim, certainly, that the man who, until three years ago, was functionally pro-choice and who bragged about out-gay-righting Ted Kennedy; etc...
And yet..
Huckabee is not going to get it. Sources say that a rough consensus has not gelled among the 40 or so evangelical leaders who met in private this weekend to figure out what to do next. Some are resigned -- not enthusiastic about, but resigned -- to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. The hope is that he feel indebted to social conservatives if they rally around him and will be thus inspired to reward them somehow in office.
The social conservatives do not want to rally around Huckabee because he is as distasteful to fiscalcons as Rudy is to socons. Even Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, said he hoped the social conservative candidate would be palatable to the fiscal conservatives out there. Huckabee is not.
What he means is: the Club for Growth, principally, viscerally dislikes Huckabee because Huckabee raised taxes (he cut many more, but he also raised them) and refuses to apologize for it. And many conservative intellectuals think the Fair Tax, schema, which Huckabee supports, is loony. I think Erickson is about three-quarters right. I'm not sure how many fiscal conservatives vote on spending or deficits or subsidies. I'm pretty sure that members of the GOP donor class are happy with their tax cuts and the variety of promises from everybody that their corporate taxes will be cut, that the capital gains tax will be axed, that the estate death will die forever.
Here is a variation on the theory: the SoCon establishment in Washington fears Huckabee because Huckabee can empower social conservatives DIRECTLY, without the mediating influence, or dollars, of the SoCon establishment.
Putting these theories together:
Huckabee has an independent streak. The establishment is threatened. Their interests are at stake and they want candidates who are beholden to them. Huckabee doesn't fit the bill.
Obama's Campaign Seems To Have A Drudge Pipeline, Too
In today's New York Times, Jim Rutenberg reports on the curious, profitable alliance between Hillary Clinton and Matt Drudge, a connection mediated entirely through intermediaries.
For a while, Clinton seemed to be the only Democrat whose allies managed to open a pipeline to the South Florida-based web traffic master.
But not anymore.
When in early October a Clinton "source" leaked Drudge her third quarter fundraising numbers, a curious bit of counter spin appeared in a Drudge subhead just moments later.
It noted that Barack Obama had, in fact, raised more money for the entire year, and it used the exact same language than an e-mail sent to reporters later by the Obama campaign just happened to contain.
Florida: Two Men, 57 Delegates
If, as expected, the Republican National Committee decides to penalize the Florida Republican Party for holding its primary before the RNC-sanctioned window opens in February, two men -- only two men -- could determine which presidential candidate is allocated the remaining 57 delegates.
They are Gov. Charlie Crist and his representative, Jim Greer, the chairman of the state committee. (**Generally, the RNC awards three delegates to the candidate who wins each congressional district, and then gives bonus delegates to states with elected Republican office holders -- Florida has plenty of them -- and a history of voting for Republicans in presidential elections. That's where 114 comes from.)
In August, the PROF's rules committee set up a contingency plan for the eventuality that the RNC reduces the state's delegates from 114 to 57.
If that happens, Greer is empowered to select which 57 delegates will count toward the nomination. But these will be "unity" delegates. They won't be distributed proportionally; the winner of the entire state will receive all the delegates. And they'll be required to stick with their candidate through three rounds of balloting instead of the usual two. That means that candidates can't persuade delegates to change their affiliation after the fact.
Here's a sketch of the scenario. Let's say that Rudy Giuliani manages to win 45% of the vote and seven congressional districts. He'd take around 55 delegates. Mitt Romney winds up winning all remaining 18 CDs for a total of 51 delegates. But then the RNC ax is applied. The state only has 57 delegates to give out. All of them will be "given" to Giuliani; Greer will personally select the identities of the allocated delegates from the pool of elected delegates; they'll be required to stick with their candidate preference -- Giuliani -- through three rounds of balloting at the national convention, making it much harder for candidates or campaigns to persuade delegates to change their minds if the convention is brokered.
This weekend, Greer told me that he would not act without Gov. Crist's express permission. Hence -- the two men who control delegate selection in Florida.
October 21, 2007
The Republican Debate: First Take
As the Republicans debated who is more conservative tonight, two voices stood out: Mitt Romney's and Rudy Giuliani's.
At long last, Romney defended and touted and bragged about the singular political and policy accomplishment of his tenure as Massachusetts governor: the health care system reform that provides every resident there with insurance. Watching him at other debates, it was easy to get the sense that he wasn't sure how to integrate his Massachusetts experience into his campaign narrative. The plan itself was written with the help of Heritage Foundation experts but it did not, in the end, comport with every conservative principle.
But it stands out as an prime example -- perhaps the ultimate example -- of conservative governance. Romney worked hard at health care in Massachusetts; he worked with Democrats; he worked with Republicans; he wound up with a novel program that, while not perfect and not transferable to other states, stands out as a real accomplishment. Romney calls himself an executive and a manager; with health care, he executed and managed in real time. At their Michigan debate, Republicans seemed a bit reality-deaf and barely acknowledged the sense of economic dislocation that middle class Republicans feel; Tonight, Romney demonstrated that, given the right scenario, he can connect with those voters better than just about any candidate up there.
His best moment may have been when he said that an insurmountable problem like the health care crisis can, indeed, be solved. It wasn't just a candidate saying he was optimistic; he showed how optimism, will and plod can be potent problem-solving forces.
After a tentative start, Giuliani again proved that he is so adept in these formats and can handle really any question with finesse. And he showed, again, that he is the Republican who best frames the race against Hillary Clinton. He's a natural at it. Also: Giuliani should get some props from Ezra Klein: he accurately pointed out that Medicare is in much worse shape than Social Security and is a much more serious problem. At the end of the debate, he gave an answer on Iran that sounded reasonable and not Podhoretz-esque.
Fred Thompson started off better than he finished -- a meandering answer on Turkey did not come off very well. At one point, he seemed not to recognize that the Armenian Genocide proposal is already, well, dead. He did have a cute final answer on his laziness.
John McCain -- the only standing ovation belonged to him for his classic line about Hillary Clinton's Woodstock museum earmark: "I’m sure it was an historical and pharmaceutical event… I was tied up at the time." He tried hard -- at times too hard -- to rise above his opponents, talking just a little too slowly and softly at times. Substantively, he was crisp and detailed.
Ron Paul -- what to say about a man who draws more boos than Hillary Clinton from the crowd?
Mike Huckabee -- Last debate, he faded into the background while Thompson came into relief; this time, Huckabee stood his own, but didn't have any breakout moments.
Fred The Good Ol' Boy
Just made a Garrison Keillor reference.
It Took Romney Long Enough...
But even his rivals have to admit: when he admits he's proud of his health care record in Massachusetts, when he's not afraid to explain what he did, when he wields his accomplishment as a sword... he's very compelling. Say what you will about the guy: he expended political capital, he worked hard, and he did something meaningful to reform the health care system in his state. Very few candidates on either side can say that.
More Statements And Rebuttals
-- FL GOP DEBATE: FORGETFUL FRED NEVER MET AN UNDESERVEDPAYCHECK
-- Giuliani Wanted to "Protect" Illegal Immigrants
-- FL GOP DEBATE: RUDY WAS NOT CRIME FIGHTING CHAMP
-- MittCare vs. HillaryCare: Two equally bad ideas
-- Thompson: Small Government Legal Reforms
-- MAYOR GIULIANI TURNED DEFICIT INTO SURPLUS BY SLASHING CITY SPENDING
Thompson, The Planned Parenthood Lobbyist...
His private law practice, not his public life.
"Frankly, I'd forgotten about it. But they've come forward now, because I'm their worst nightmare."
Giuliani's Same-Sex Marriage Ban In...
Rudy's position: if too many gays get married, then he favors a ban. (i.e., if more states than Massachusetts legalize gay marriage by judicial fiat, then he's consider a constitutional amendment.)
But just a few of them... it's ok.
He's a New Yorker, after all.
Everyone's Bashing Rudy On The Budget
Headline from a Thompson: press release: "Giuliani on the Budget: Reality Check"
DNC: "FL GOP DEBATE: RUDY STILL INFLATING TAX RECORD"
Another McCain Zinger To Romney
"Governor Romney, you've spent the last year trying to fool people about your record. Gov. Romney, I don't want you to fool people about mine."
Romney's Voice Is Hoarse
But that annoying tuft of hair is gone, thankfully.
The Giuliani Campaign Cites Laurie Rubiner
In response to Mitt Romney:
Clinton Senate Legislative Director Laurie Rubiner: “It’s sort of funny to me that [Romney] would cast it as a big government solution, when it’s essentially what he enacted in Massachusetts …” (Ben Smith, “Firing Back,” Politico’s “Ben Smith Blog,” www.politico.com, 9/17/07, Accessed 9/18/07)
Ok, Check That.
McCain: "I didn't manage for profit, I led for freedom."
McCain Is Straining Not To Attack Mitt Romney
You know he wants to.... you can see it coming out of his ears.... but he's laudably keeping it to himself.
Ok, We Wanted An Actual Debate
And now we have one.
Chris Wallace: you rock.
In The Debate So Far...
** Rudy Giuliani let go an obligatory George Will reference
** Giuliani took credit for cutting 23 taxes...when he deserves credit for pushing only 15 of them
** Mitt Romney said ya can't beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton
** Fred Thompson said that Giuliani "agreed with Hillary Clinton" on a variety of issues.
** Giuliani said: "Fred was the single biggest obstacle to tort reform in the United States Senate. He voted with Democrats, over and over again."
** Thompson said that tort reform is a state issue.
October 20, 2007
Clinton Defends Iran Vote In Iowa Mailer
In an unusual campaign mailing sent to voters in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton defends her vote in favor of the so-called "Lieberman-Kyl" resolution on Iran, calling it a "vote for stepped up diplomacy" and not permission for the Bush Administration to invade the country. (Full mailing here and here.)
Two rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, have compared the September vote to the 2002 authorization granting President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, accusing Clinton of another failure of judgment.
That Clinton takes pains to explain the Lieberman-Kyl vote, which declared Iraq's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization and linked the structure of U.S troop presence in the Middle East in part to the Iranian threat, suggests that the Edwards-Obama charges have gelled, if only a bit.
A copy of the mailing was obtained from a Democrat in Iowa.
"Let me clear on Iran," Clinton writes. "I am opposed to letting President Bush take any military action against that country without full Congressional approval." Clinton notes that she -- "long before others" -- that is, long before Barack Obama -- supported legislation requiring the president to get Congress's permission before such an invasion.
A second page of the letter includes validation testimony from Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark and from Sen. Dick Durbin, who has endorsed Obama.
The Spin And I
From a Giuliani campaign aide in re: the values voters straw poll:
"I saw this thing a bit different – i.e., among those in attendance, the Mayor was only 17 votes behind Fred and only 39 votes behind Romney, who got a shout-out for organizing folks to pay $1 and vote online."
Me:
Noted -- and Giuliani seemed to be well received, and this column, for one, has never understated Giuliani's support among evangelicals. But organizing the heck out of these things is what Romney has to do, and one can't begrudge him a headline if he wins. That said, if it turns out that Romney paid people to sign up, then i'd be more sympathetic.
Romney, Huckabee Top Values Voters Straw Poll
By one half of one percent, by 30 votes, ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney won the Family Research Council's straw poll, besting Fred Thompson, whose surrogates attacked Romney with pamphlets, by more than 1,000 votes.
But Huckabee won the majority of votes from activists who attended the FRC's Washington, D.C. briefing this weekend and voted onsite -- 488, or 51%. Note: since 2500 members registered to attend, some of those who saw the candidates in person may have elected to vote online.
About 80 percent of ballots were cast by FRC members online, and Romney's narrow victory comes from those votes.
Huckabee has made a habit of performing well at straw polls like these; there did seem to be a fair number of FairTax supporters, and they may have helped. But Huckabee;'s victory -- without much organizing -- suggests that his powers of persuasion are mighty and that the social conservative activists have come to know who he is and what he's about.
Romney's victory is the latest in a string of positive developments for his campaign's ever-so-careful outreach to evangelicals. He was endorsed by three major evangelical figures this week, two of them hailing from South Carolina. If these indications are a leading edge, his support among evangelicals in South Carolina and Iowa and maybe elsewhere may shoot up.
Ron Paul came in third with 15% of the vote, followed by Thompson with 9.77% of the vote. Rudy Giuliani finished slightly ahead of John McCain, who just can't catch a break with these conservatives. Giuliani received 107 out of the nearly 6,000 votes cast.
Giuliani At The Values Voters Briefing
Giuliani was well-received. He received at least 10 rounds of applause during his speech.
To my mind, here are the two lines that stick out:
"I'm not going to pretend to you I can be all things to all people, I'm just not like that. I cant do it. And you know we have areas of disagreement., but we have many more areas of agreement."
"Please know this, you have nothing to fear from me. I have trouble with those who are trying to make me an activist for liberal causes. If you believe that, please read any editorial in the New York Times."
A 2008 Election Milestone
One presidential candidate, at the Family Research Council D.C. Briefing, passed a little noticed milestone:
Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson used campaign funds to pay for a pamphlet that casts his fellow candidates in a less-than-flattering flight. It's the first example of non-email contrast advertising -- in this case, printed advertising, used by any major candidate, Republican or Democrat.
The pamphlet is entitled "Where Are They On The Issues That Matter Most To Your Family?" --
A subhead says that 'Fred Thompson Has A "Demonstrated Record Of Supporting Human Life." "Rudy Giuliani Is Vocally Pro-Choice." "Mitt Romney Was Proudly Pro-Choice Until 2005." The picture of Romney is captioned "Romney, moving to the left of Ted." As in Kennedy.)
The bottom includes this disclaimer: "Paid For By Friends Of Fred Thompson, Inc."
The content is factual; the context is only slightly misleading in the way that most candidate contrast ads are misleading, but not misleading enough to warrant the adjective "outright." It's fair -- if a bit simplistic.
One of the big remaining questions of this race is whether and when the challengers -- Romney, Thompson, Obama, Edwards, will air television ads that mention the frontrunners, Giuliani and Clinton. If they do, those ads will probably be labeled as "negative," but that's not an accurate description.
Still, Thompson's small step is one big step for campaign-kind. In a sense, it opens the door for other candidates to follow him. And it suggests that Thompson won't hide behind good ol' Southern manners in the forthcoming debates.
October 19, 2007
Giuliani And The Evangelicals
It's worth pointing out that, all other things being equal, Rudy Giuliani doesn't really need any more evangelical/conservative support than he already has.
He doesn't need more in New Hampshire; He doesn't need more to win a three way race in South Carolina; he has, at the moment, more support from churchgoing protestants than Mitt Romney does, according to Gallup's polling. Not more in Michigan. Not more in Florida. The more doctrinal evangelicals split between Romney and Thompson, the better for Giuliani.
What he needs is for these voters not to body block him; not to launch a movement to stop him; not to distract him and the party during the period between his presumed securing of the nomination and the election.
Tomorrow, he might as well say: I know you won't vote for me... just don't not vote because of me. Expect him to use the words "Hillary Clinton" -- as in, y'all know..ok, he won't say y'all, he'll say you awl -- you awl know that I'm going to be the nominee and you know that Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee, and I'm really the only person who can beat her. (That reality is sinking in here: I overheard Terrence Jeffries of Human Events acknowledge that he didn't think, until recently, that Giuliani could actually win the nomination.)
His campaign isn't saying much about the speech, but it's not hard to guess that Giuliani will spend the bulk of his time talking about the clash of civilizations -- the [Christian] West versus the [Radical] Muslim east; the threat to our core values; the implicit Sean Hannity notion that you can't begin to fight abortion if you're dead.
Interviews with more a dozen attendees here, randomly chosen, suggest that they won't be receptive at all.
Not Carol Franz, wearing a green "Survivor of Adult Stem Cell Research" shirt.
I'm basically going on life issues because I've gotten off the death bed twice in my life," she said.
When Giuliani speaks here tomorrow morning, I asked Steve Pickett of West Palm Beach, Florida, what he would like to hear?
"I resign. I'm out of the race," he said.
Beth Picket said he wouldn't vote for Giuliani under any circumstances.
"Not even if Hillary..."
"Nope."
Romney Scores An Important South Carolina Endorsement
It's Dr. Don Wilton, the pastor of the largest Baptist Church in Spartanburg and the immediate past president of the South Carolina Southern Baptist convention. Do not be surprised if his endorsement -- combined with the public endorsement of Bob Jones, III, give Romney the momentum he needs to cross that last threshold -- what Mark DeMoss, a Romney adviser, calls the "I'm not for a Mormon. I'm for THIS Mormon" effect.
That is -- Romney's relentlessness and often monotonous repetition of his conversion story, the hours he spends with each evangelical leader his campaign pursues, the work of key advisers like Peter Flaherty and Gary Marx, the fecklessness of Fred Thompson's late entrance, the public opposition to Rudy Giuliani, James Dobson's tacit acceptance of Romney -- it's working.
(Do not underestimate same-sex marriage in Massachusetts -- where Romney, in real time, fought for his conception of families and subsequently saw doors open to him.)
(Do not underestimate the implied comparisons between Ann Romney and brood with the Giuliani wives and personal life and Thompson's colorful reputation.)
When doctrinally sensitive Southern Baptist leaders start to support Romney (over former Southern Baptist ministers), Fred Thompson has, at most, a few weeks to prevent his cup from runnething over.
"I am proud to stand alongside Governor Romney as he pursues our nation's highest office. His values are my values – protecting the sanctity of human life, defending marriage and strengthening the family. We need someone in Washington who will stand up for traditional families and Governor Romney is that person," said Dr. Wilton. "While we may not agree on theology, Governor Romney and I agree that this election is about our country heading in the right direction. Governor Romney is the best candidate to stand for conservative values in Washington."
Excerpts from Romney's FRC speech are after the jump.
FRC DC Briefing: Thompson Describes How His Heart Met His Head
His head hunched and his voice dry and cracking, Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson told evangelical activists today that the death of one daughter and the birth of another reconciled his heart with his head about abortion.
"My political record and my head were always there, always has been there, but I must say that it took life's experiences for me to absorb the real importance of it all. I had been blessed early in my life when I was young...and I have been blessed when I was not so young. I've had the
the ultimate tragedy that a father can have and the ultimate blessing that a father can gave.
With regard to Ms. Hayden, I can only say that after the first time in my life, seeing the sonogram of my own child. I will never think exactly the same again. I will never feel exactly the same again. Because my heart now is fully engaged with my head."
Later, to a standing ovation, Thompson said that in the first hour of his administration, "I would go into the Oval Office and close the door and pray for the wisdom to do what is right."
Here are his applause lines:
"We've been together for a long time, We've not always agreed on perhaps the right approach to everything, but the goal has been the same."
"Our basic rights come from God, and not from any government."
"Our people have shed more blood than any nation in the history of the world."
"I'm proud to have been a consistent conservative, cutting taxes, balancing the budget, reducing regulation, promoting welfare reform, fighting for good conservative judges with a100 percent pro-life voting record, and I'm proud of that record."
He also:
** Had praise for John Roberts and Sam Alito
** Described his proposed constitutional amendment to prevent judges in one state from recognizing another state's same-sex marriage laws.
** Called entitlement reform a moral issue
** Predicted that the "struggle against radical Islam" would be "long" and arduous.
FRC DC Briefing: An Anti-Giuliani Pamphlet
Allies of Mitt Romney -- without any official sanction from the campaign -- are passing this out.
FRC DC Briefing: Excerpts From John McCain's Speech
I missed the beginning, but note that he did exit to respectful and appreciative applause.
I know that before I can win your vote, I have to win your respect. And to do that, you expect me to be honest with you about what I believe. I'm a conservative Republican, and proud of it. I'll match my record of defending conservative principles against any other candidate in this race. I know you might not always agree with me on every issue, but I hope you know I'm not going to con you. One of the most important things we have in this life is our self-respect. I don't expect you trade yours for empty promises. And I'm not going to trade mine for anyone's vote. I'm going to tell you what I believe and let the chips fall where they will.
Wisdom is a virtue. Sometimes all wisdom asks of us is that we recognize common sense. Don't federalize issues not addressed in the constitution. Don't constitutionalize issues where federalism has a chance to work. But sometimes, wisdom, as do all other virtues, requires courage. Wisdom suggests we should be reluctant to change a definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years, but it takes courage in this day and age to insist that a mother and a father have unique and complementary roles in the raising of children, and that marriage reinforces public support for those roles. Wisdom suggests that we should be willing to give an unborn child the same chance that our parents gave us, but it takes courage in this political climate to insist on the protection of unborn children who can't vote, have no voice, and can't reward you with support and donations. Wisdom suggests that when activist federal judges impose their social views on the citizens of every state, the result is going to distort our politics in terrible ways, but it takes courage to insist that the courts have to return to their proper role. I will appoint strict constructionist judges that won't legislate from the bench.
FRC DC Briefing: Thompson Socks It To 'Em
Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson has by far the largest contingent of supporters here. They've got volunteers at the main entrance to the hotel, the convention entrance, at the bottom at top of escalators, near Radio Row, in the exhibit hall, near the cafe. They're carrying flyers comparing Thompson's record on gays and abortion with Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The quotations are fairly selective, and Thompson, of course, does not mention his brief stint as an abortion rights lobbyist.
But he really wants to win this straw poll.
Book Buzz: Bedell Smith On The Clintons; DeFrank On Ford
Sally Bedell Smith's For Love Of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years. First, note the Bill and Hillary construction instead of the other way 'round. The bok features plenty of probing, if familiar, insights into their marriage and shared visions. There's a good section on the triangular power struggles between Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and POTUS. Someone in the Clinton universe obtained a pre-publication copy of the book and doesn't seem to be all that concerned; a spokesman declined to comment. The book goes on sale next Tuesday; Bedell Smith's PR tour starts late this week.
For a movement in crisis, for a group whose influence is allegedly waning, the Family Research Council sure knows how to pack a room. Last year's Washington Briefing was held at the equivalent of a tier-3 facility: the respectable, venerable Omni Shoreham. The main ballroom seated perhaps 500. This year, they've upgraded.
Right now, I'm sitting in the back of the international ballroom of the Washington Hilton -- a tier 2 facility -- listening to Sen. Sam Brownback's campaign eulogy with about 1,500 other folks; the media contingent numbers in the hundreds; all the television networks, major newspapers, 25 nationally known bloggers, even Jeff Greenfield, and a lot more. For the media, maybe it's the equivalent of blood in the water for a shark, but the three weeks of build-up to this convention has turned it into the single most important political event for Republicans this fall.
Warren Buffett Channels Ann Romney
October 18, 2007
Will Parties Ignore Gardner, Continued...
Responding to this earlier post, New Hampshire Democratic Party communications director Pia Carusone said that chairman Ray Buckley hasn't really "floated" the idea in conversations with others in the sense that he has begun to plan for an alternative selection process, but, she said:
"Buckley doesn't deny that this is a set of problems that the party will have to face if the December 11th primary were named. Changing our delegate selection process is not off the table until a December 11th primary is off the table. Despite everyone's conspiracy theory, the New Hampshire Democrats are not sitting around and strategizing as to how this is going to end."
Buckley and the New Hampshire Democrats don't want to give the impression that they're plotting behind Gardner's back -- and, indeed, there is no evidence that they are.
What Else Is Worth Reading, 10/18
Chris Cillizza has more on Sam Brownback's decision to leave this here race and who his leaving might benefit.
The Romney campaign's first Iowa web ad begins Friday:
Script For "Our Home" (TV:30):
ANN ROMNEY: "We have five boys – five boys and ten grandkids. Big family.
"Mitt says his greatest success is being able to say 'I have been a good father, and a good husband.'
"Sometimes I'd be home with those five boys, and it was rough.
"He'd call home and remind me that what I was doing was much more important than what he was doing.
"Mitt says there's no work more important than what goes on within the four walls of the American home. And that's the way it was in our home.
"I'm Ann Romney."
Speaking of: Insider Advantage's Matt Towery wonders whether South Carolina will wind up being for Mitt Romney what West Virginia was for John Kennedy in 1960: "In the 1960 race, West Virginia was viewed as a crucial test of how seriously his Roman Catholic faith affected Kennedy’s election chances. Kennedy won the West Virginia primary and went on to the presidency."
Obama Hires A Rapid Responder
"Much needed" and "long-awaited," Barack Obama's presidential campaign has hired veteran Democratic strategist John Del Cecato to handle a newly created rapid response portfolio.
A memo sent to campaign staff this morning by senior aide Dan Pfeiffer says that Del Cecato will work with press secretary Bill Burton and research director Devorah Adler to "help push back on attacks from the media and our friends in rival campaigns."
The memo calls Del Cecato's addition "much needed" and "long awaited," which will undermine any attempt by the Obama campaign to portray his hire as routine.
When Obama began his campaign last winter, aides engaged in rapid response selectively, deliberately trying to draw a constrast between their big picture approach and the trench warfare that's become a trademark of Clinton campaigns.
But the volume of "attacks" and the degree to which they often bumped parts of the campaign off-message convinced the campaign to hire a single senior staffer devoted solely to rapid response.
"It is much needed is because the pace of the campaign has picked up dramatically in recent weeks," an Obama aide said. Still, while staffers work around the clock, Obama's Chicago headquarters lacks an official warroom, a staple of modern campaigns. Researchers and press aides sit together around large desks in an open area.
The campaign's quest to find a rapid response guru began in August; ultimately, they found him in house. Del Cecato is a named partner at the consulting firm founded by Obama's senior strategist David Axelrod.
Del Cecato is a 15-year veteran of Democratic politics. He's worked on campaigns in New York, Iowa and Pennsylvania is a former DCCC spokesman.
A copy of the e-mail was provided to this column by a Democrat who does not work for Obama.
Hillary On The Brain
It occurs to me that the average Republican National Committee staffer thinks about Hillary Clinton about as much as James Fallows thinks about China.
This is about a third of the e-mails they've sent out.
Could New Hampshire's Parties Ignore Bill Gardner?
(With reporting from Mike Memoli, a National Journal / NBC News campaign reporter stationed in New Hampshire)
New Hampshire’s Republican and Democratic parties might hold alternative delegate contests if Secretary of State Bill Gardner schedules the primary for December.
Ray Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic Chairman, has floated the idea, sources said.
Only primaries and caucuses sanctioned by the two national parties allocate delegates, and both national parties could easily allow separate contests in January. Many influential Republicans and Democrats staunchly oppose a December date, believing that it would completely dilute the state's ability to influence the delegate selection process. And Kathy Sullivan, the former state party chair and current co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the state, has pointed out that because party rules require New Hampshire Democrats to choose their delegates at a caucus before the primary, an early December primary wouldn't provide state Democrats enough time to give due notice to potential delegates. The December contest would automatically become a meaningless test of support -- no delegates could be allocated because none were previously chosen, Sullivan said.
Holding a separate primary would be too cost-prohibitive. But a caucus – which involves many fewer polling sites and would be controlled entirely by the party – is feasible, requiring the party to pull its current delegate selection plan, which presumes a January primary, and replace it with a plan to select delegates by caucus.
Under this scenario, Gardner’s December primary would not count toward the nomination, awarding no delegates, and candidates would be tempted to downplay its significance.
Fergus Cullen, the state Republican chairman, said that if Gardner were to choose a December there, there would be "plenty of time subsequent to that to have alternate delegate selection arrangements.”
“But,” he said, “we're making no alternative plans at this time."
NH Dems press secretary Pia Carusone said: "There's certainly no official strategy that's being discussed or implemented. ... Bill Gardner sets the date, and until then we go on and do other work. ... We can't say or do anything with clarity until the schedule [is set]."
Gardner has said that Michigan’s primary, scheduled for January 15, would prevent him from scheduling the New Hampshire primary any later than January 8, a duration that is required by state law. Gardner also endorses a separation between Iowa and New Hampshire, which would, in theory, give New Hampshire voters time to consider the candidates without being too heavily influenced by the winner of the Iowa caucuses.
If Iowa Democrats decide to hold their caucus on Jan. 5, Gardner has said he believes that the candidates would have little time to campaign in New Hampshire – just 48 hours. His allies have hinted that a Jan. 3 date would be amenable – and not coincidentally, Republicans in Iowa will caucus then, too. But Gardner also worries that Michigan will move even earlier.
Hillary's Vice Presidential Criteria
Aside from Bill Clinton, there is probably no person in the world who has a better handle on who Hillary Clinton might ask to join her ticket than Patti Solis Doyle, her campaign manager and senior-most adviser.
Solis Doyle spoke Tuesday night to students at George Washington University, one of whom asked her about what qualities Hillary would look for in a vice president.
Patti replied that it was too soon for her to have talked about that with Hillary. But she then said that knowing Hillary for 16 years, Hillary would pick a vice president that could be ready to be president if she became incapicitated.
It's easy to read too much into that, but there are some potential candidates who clearly aren't qualified, in Clinton's opinion, to be ready from day one.
Here's what else I found interesting:
She got a few questions about the Florida/Michigan primaries, the primary system in general etc. Patti said that Hillary was disappointed that she couldn't campaign in Florida and Michigan. If Hillary was fortunate enough to win the nomination, she would immediately race to Florida and Michigan and start campaigning there. It seemed very important to her, b/c she repeated the campaign's intentions of aggressively campaigning in those states when the primaries were over several times.
She could have bragged about how well she had run the campaign, but she didn't. She made it clear SEVERAL times throughout the speech that Hillary's nomination was not a given.
A Day In Hillary Land
The hundreds of women who packed into the Capital Hilton yesterday experienced the full magic of Hillary Clinton's extended political orbit. Reporters weren't allowed in except for a brief interlude when Clinton herself spoke, which is a shame, because a copy of the agenda, obtained by this column from a friendly Clinton donor, is a testament to, well, something about the presidential race.
The day began with Denyce Graves singing the national anthem. Rev. Marcia Dyson gave the invocation.
Terry McAuliffe and Clinton's finance director, Jonathan Mantz, provided an update on the state of the campaign's bottom line. (Short version: it's peachy).
Before politics, there were issues: former Clinton chief of staff Maggie Williams moderated a panel of heavyweights: former Amb. Richard Holbrooke, Ret. Gen. Claudia Kennedy and Rep. Jane Harman, Gene Sperling, Laura Tyson, Neera Tanden, Hilda Solis, Tammy Baldwin. After an "inspiration" break from author, actress and activist Victoria Rowell, the fun stuff: a panel with Cheryl Mills, Patti Solis Doyle, Minyon Moore, Mark Penn, Mandy Grunwald, Teresa Vilmain and Karen Hicks. (Presumably, Penn joined the roster of women because his wife, Nancy Jacobson, organized the day. Or -- he's the chief strategist.)
Then came Hillary Clinton herself. Then came an inspirational panel with writer and therapist Susan Magee called "Making History: Electing The Future Woman President."
Then the Call to Action ... after "inspiration" from Billie Jean King, "sports legend and social activist." Democratic financiers -- Beth Dozorets and Susie Buell joined with Democratic field operatives -- Vilmain and Clay Haynes.
Then the summit ended.
McCain's Campaign Pours Water On Giuliani's Electability Argument
Or tries to, anyway.
From: Rick Davis
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:24 AM
To: @ALL
Subject: Good Polling News
As I mentioned in this morning's staff meeting, Fox News released a survey last night that shows what you and I have known for a long time - John McCain is the Republican candidate best positioned to beat Hillary Clinton. As we all saw on the Fox News ticker, "GOOD NEWS FOR MCCAIN ... FOX NEWS POLL SHOWS THE AZ SENATOR DOING BEST AMONG GOP CANDIDATES WHEN MATCHED UP AGAINST SEN HILLARY CLINTON."
In a matchup against Hillary Clinton, John McCain is the only Republican candidate neck and neck with Senator Clinton and within the poll's margin of error of +/-3 percentage points. Rudy Giuliani trails Hillary Clinton by four points; both Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson would lose to her by twelve points. General election matchups, according to the October 9-10 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll....
This poll confirms the Rasmussen poll, released on Monday showing John McCain only one point behind Hillary Clinton, compared to Rudy Giuliani who would lose to Hillary Clinton by 7 points.
In addition to the general election matchups, the Fox poll also shows Hillary Clinton easily beating Rudy Giuliani if a conservative third candidate enters the general election race, as Rev. James Dobson has threatened and as many other conservatives have suggested will happen. With a "Christian conservative third party candidate" in the race, Hillary Clinton beats Rudy Giuliani by ten points, 44% to 34% for Giuliani with 14% for the third party candidate.
What do these polls mean? They mean that John McCain's experienced leadership, courageous service and the bold solutions he is proposing on the campaign trail are resonating with the American people. They also mean that our party can nominate a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton without compromising the bedrock principles and values that are our party's foundation. Republican primary voters are figuring out that supporting a candidate who is not prepared to be Commander in Chief from day one, or one who is out of step with our party's core values, is a recipe for another Clinton Administration.
Today, we need to spread the important news of these two recent polls and ask our grassroots and finance supporters to do the same. With the Iowa caucuses now set for January 3, 2008 and the New Hampshire primary date still up in the air, we are less than 80 days from the first votes being cast. Let's keep up the good work!
My guess: he endorses Giuliani or McCain, or makes some sort of deal with one of them vis-a-vis his Iowa organization.
Values Voters: Bopp Warns Of Rudy Win Unless Social Conservatives Rally Around Romney
James Bopp Jr., the legendary pro-life activist and attorney, has turned into one of the more effective surrogates for Mitt Romney and his pro-life conversion.
In a letter Bopp sent to hundreds of social conservatives this week, he agrees with fellow Romney adviser Mark DeMoss that unless social conservatives coalesce around Mr. Romney, the nomination is Rudy Giuliani's to lose. With 100 days to go, Bopp writes with a sense of urgency. His e-mail was obtained from a Romney supporter.
Writes Bopp, "While several of the other candidates are certainly fine social conservatives, none has established his viability as a serious presidential contender. Only Mitt Romney has the resources to compete with Rudy Giuliani for the nomination."
"Other evangelical leaders have weighed in on the acceptability of the leading Republican candidates. Dr. James Dobson, America's most influential evangelical leader, has expressed his opinion that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson are not acceptable, based on their positions on various important conservative issues. I have explained Fred Thompson's adamant support of McCain-Feingold, while in the Senate and when it was before the U.S. Supreme Court in the McConnell case."
Two other prominent evangelical leaders, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention have recently expressed their view that Mitt Romney is an acceptable choice for social conservatives.
So it does come down to two things: (1) the viability of the candidate, which only Mitt Romney has demonstrated among the socially conservative candidates, and (2) whether social conservatives will have the courage to rally around the only viable social conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani. A divided field means that Giuliani is likely to win the nomination. This is our choice to make, and we don't have long to make it.
Jeb Bush, Jr. Endorses Giuliani
The Giuliani campaign will announce today that Jeb Bush, Jr., the youngest son of the former Florida governor and nephew of the president, will endorse the former New York City mayor and will serve as the chairman of Young Professionals for Rudy in the state.
“As someone who has grown up with and around politics and candidates, I know that Rudy Giuliani has the leadership qualities and the experience to be the next President of the United States. I’m honored to join his campaign and look forward to working with the many young professionals throughout Florida supporting the Mayor,” Bush said in a statement.
A very solid endorsement in a series of solid Florida endorsements for Giuliani, including three sherrifs and the mayor of Doral.
Yesterday, Mitt Romney picked up an historic Florida name: Rep Connie Mack, the son of the former (beloved) Senator. George P. Bush, Jeb Jr's bro, has endorsed Fred Thompson.
The Republicans head to O-town this weekend for Presidency 4 and a Fox News debate.
A Gallup poll shows that Hillary Clinton outpolls Barack Obama among black women.
Clinton won a straw poll of women's business owners in Chicago... but check out the italics (mine).
– The National Association of Women Business Owners Chicago Area Chapter (NAWBO Chicago) Political Action Committee announced today that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won an informal presidential straw poll conducted in conjunction with its 4th annual “Campaign Couture” fashion show and fundraising luncheon. Event attendees were invited to participate in the unscientific straw poll by indicating their preference for president in exchange for a contribution to the NAWBO Chicago PAC. Of the total cast in the poll for Senator Clinton received 59%, 25% for Sen. Barack Obama, and 5% for Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 4% for former Gov. Mitt Romney, 3% for Sen. John McCain and 3% for former Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The remaining candidates received no votes.
Fred Thompson blasts Giuliani at the Club for Growth Convo:
"There has been no greater friend to the American taxpayer than Fred Thompson, and there will be no greater friend than a Fred Thompson Administration. I ran as a consistent, tax-cutting, small government conservative. I supported all three major tax cuts put before me in the Senate. As Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, I sought to save the American taxpayer $20 billion in wasteful spending. The Bush tax cuts must be made permanent, and we must cut government spending. I am the only consistent, pro-growth conservative in the race.
"While I was fighting for tax cuts in Congress, others were opposing tax cuts in New York state. Others were claiming not to be raising taxes but were instead raising every state-mandated fee and imposing 'hidden taxes' on unsuspecting taxpayers. While others were repudiating Reagan-Bush tax policies, I was fighting for them."
Meanwhile, the Club for Growth is happy that Rudy Giuliani is speaking their language.
Today, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani made news at the Club for Growth 2007 Fall Conference when he unambiguously ruled out an increase in Social Security taxes and declared his previous support for McCain-Feingold a “mistake.”
While Giuliani has frequently stated his general opposition to taxes, he has never declared his opposition to raising Social Security taxes as unabashedly as he did today. Nor has Giuliani ever addressed his previous support for McCain-Feingold in such a candid manner. Today, Giuliani said the anti-free speech legislation needed to be reworked and supported removing limits on political contributions while increasing disclosure requirements.
“We were very pleased with Mayor Giuliani’s answers on Social Security and McCain-Feingold and appreciate his candor on these crucial issues,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Giuliani’s opposition to raising Social Security taxes, his support for personal accounts, and his renunciation of McCain-Feingold sends a very encouraging message to all Americans who believe in limited government, free-market principles, and the importance of free speech in the political sphere.”
A Daily Wonderment, 10/17
Wonder if William Gardner has solicited the opinions of any of the major presidential campaigns about his New Hampshire date? After all, they're going to be the ones who decide whether or not to compete there if the primary is in December. Yes -- whether.
have been vocal in decrying Republican attempts to seduce voters by claiming Jesus for their policies. It is no better when a Democrat does it. And that is exactly what is happening here. Is Sen. Obama becoming a mirror image of George W. Bush - a man using his faith to not only sell his politics but to sell himself no matter his politics?
But Mrs. Giuliani seemed to me halting and uncomfortable, speaking from a script as cautiously as possible. Her forced smile reminded me at times of Nancy Pelosi's shakier performances. I genuinely feel badly for political spouses thrust reluctantly into a harsh media spotlight. But I'm not sure she's going to be a PR asset for her husband.
Suppose Iowa did not have crucial presidential nominating caucuses. Or suppose it had them but that its crucial crop were, say, broccoli rather than corn. Would the federal government still be, well, rigging the system to create a phony "market" to satisfy a specious "demand" for mandatory and subsidized ethanol? No, but it probably would be mandating broccoli at every meal.
This was always an uphill battle. MA-5 voted by 17 points for John Kerry in 2004. After 2006, I’m not sure there’s a district anywhere in America that Democratic that’s represented by a Republican.
But there is a clear way forward for the Republican Party out of tonight. It’s one that we didn’t have last night. Or last month. Or a year ago.
It’s simple: the change message works. America is anti-Washington, anti-Congress, and anti-corruption. When that’s where Republicans are, they win. Jim Ogonowski showed us that. Maybe not in an overwhelmingly Democratic district like MA-5. But what about in a +7 Democrat district? Or in purple seats?
Nor do we need the usual suspects to deliver this message. You don’t need to recruit a risk-averse State Senator who talks to his consultants and waits for “his time” to run. All you need is a plain-spoken veteran with an extraordinary life story. We need more citizen-candidates like Jim Ogonowski. We need them to pick off Democrats in blue and purple seats. We need them as primary challengers to corrupt incumbents. In “safe” Democrat-held districts, we need to run people who can get 45% of the vote, and then be in a position to finish the job in 2010. In 2006, the average second-time Democratic challenger who won received 43% of the vote their last time out.
To be more precise: have the Congressional Democratic leaders lost their minds in not finding a way to bottle up this destructive and self-righteously posturing measure?
Maybe they think that the U.S. has so many friends in the Islamic world, especially in countries bordering Iraq, that it should go out of its way to make new enemies?
Or -- and this is truly appalling possibility -- perhaps they think that America’s moral standing is so high at the moment that we will be admired and thanked worldwide for delivering condemnations of sins committed in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire?"
Reagan Biographer Wants To Teach Giuliani About Ronald Reagan
Reagan biographer and conservative strategist Craig Shirley e-mails in response to Rudy Giuliani's invocation of the "11th Commandment" in a CNN television package.
“Rudy Giuliani knows as much about the 11th Commandment as he does about conservatism, which is very little. The 11th Commandment was a term created by the Chairman of the California Republican Party, Gaylord Parkinson in 1966. Reagan adopted it to mean that one Republican did not attack another Republican’s patriotism, fidelity or sobriety. Politicians like Giuliani hide behind it when criticized by another on issues, which Reagan did plenty against Ford in 1976 and George Bush in 1980.”
Shirley is the author of “Reagan’s Revolution” and the forthcoming book “Rendezvous with Destiny." He is also the chairman of the board of the revised Citizens For The Republic, a Reaganite revival political group that's already raised around $20M.
Obama Hearts Women Too!
Barack Obama's women's outreach coordinator has written a memo suggesting that Obama's campaign won't concede the women's vote to Hillary Clinton. This, on the day that Clinton's campaign holds a major fundraiser in Washington. This, on the week the Clinton campaign is dedicating to voting women.
The relevant portions:
While the Clinton Campaign likes to portray the competition for the support of women through the lens of meaningless national poll numbers, the true story is on the ground in the early and February 5 states. The latest Des Moines Register poll showed 2 out of every 3 women are not supporting Senator Clinton. In the state where the public knows the candidates best, Iowa, the gender gap being touted by the Clinton campaign is essentially non-existent.
This past Saturday, over 150 women in Iowa traveled to Des Moines for a 6 hr grassroots organizing training. After the training the women have returned home to their counties, fired up and ready to go. These women will serve as Precinct Captains and Women for Obama leaders in their home county.
As the son of a single mother whose grandmother was the family’s primary breadwinner, Barack lived through the struggles that everyday women face. This experience moved him to develop a lifelong history of standing up for women, from his days as a community organizer and continuing through his career in public office. As a young community organizer in Chicago, Barack worked closely with mothers in public housing to force city government to remove asbestos from their homes. As a member of the Illinois legislature in the 1990s, Barack saw how politicians in Washington put politics over principle, crafting a federal welfare reform law that shortchanged the need for more childcare for working mothers. Barack led a successful fight to ensure that the state’s version of welfare reform included a six-fold increase in childcare funding. He also passed one of the nation’s most comprehensive domestic violence laws. Throughout his career, Barack has been a leader on reproductive justice and women’s health issues – receiving a 100% Planned Parenthood pro-choice voting record and recently winning their straw poll for his appearance at a July Planned Parenthood event. Last year, Barack had the courage to stand up while others ducked a critical battle over a woman’s right to choose. He was the only U.S. Senator to raise funds for a critical initiative to reverse the South Dakota law that effectively banned abortion rights.
Steve Jobs Pronounces
Official platform for third-party apps on the iPhone... coming in February.
"Who The Hell Knows?": Further Thoughts On The Calendar Scramble
I asked a campaign manager for one of the major presidential candidates whether the activities of the past 24 hours benefited his manager's candidate.
The reply: "Who the hell knows?"
Really: the campaigns are trying to figure it out, too.
One scenario a Republican gave me:
"You can't win NH and then not play in IA. But you can not play in IA and then win NH. If Romney screws up in NH, he has a save in IA. But if he wins IA, his momentum is stopped in NH. Right?"
Maybe.
One smart political reporter offers this insight into the thinking of William Gardner, the New Hampshire Secretary of State: an early December primary ensures that candidates spend time there; if the New Hampshire primary is shoehorned into January, then the pre-campaign period would be very short -- three full days between Jan. 3 and Jan. 8.
Welcome to the theater of the absurd. The possibility that both parties will have two separate primary calendars is growing more likely by the day, especially after the Iowa GOP set Jan. 3 as its date and the South Carolina Dems are set for Jan. 26 (when the SC GOP is going on Jan. 19). While it may make sense in the backrooms of a rules and bylaws committee meeting at the RNC or DNC, the average voter is probably going to be confused. What is the unintentional consequence of that? Will independents end up not participating in Iowa? Will only the most partisan activists know when their primary is? The fact that we're potentially inside of 80 days before voting begins and the candidates don't know EXACTLY when the various election days are seems beyond ridiculous. And this is the democracy we're trying to export around the world? Correct us if we're wrong, but this is an election for leader of the free world? Most city council and school board elections are straight forward, why can't our presidential election be that way, too? ? To put it another way, imagine if Major League Baseball -- as of right now -- had not yet decided whether the World Series would be a best-of-seven or a best-of-nine series. It's that bizarre in this thing we call our presidential nominating process.
Romney Brackets The President
The news out of the president's presser today will probably be his invocation of the specter of World War III** to refer to the threat of a nuclear of Iran.
In an e-mailed press release that hit inboxes about three minutes after Bush finished speaking, Mitt Romney's campaign wants YOU to know that the Romney Agenda inclides the fight against "radical jihad" anywhere and everywhere.
STRATEGY FOR A STRONGER AMERICA:
DEFEATING THE JIHADIST THREAT
"There is a war being waged by the terrorists. And as long as we have a Republican president, we're going to have a war on terrorists." – Governor Romney (Jason Spencer, "Yankee Governor With Southern Values' Backs Military And Attacks 'HillaryCare'," The Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 7/20/07)
** Evidently, Bush doesn't fully accept Norman Podhoretz's arguments.
A Southerner Runs
Just in case you couldn't find it elsewhere.
Rick Perry's Audition
Gov. Rick Perry began his vice presidential audition in a tiny conference room on the second floor of a classy hotel in DC this morning with a comparison to the person Perry assumes will be the Democratic nominee.
"Rudy Giuliani is a leader who has a proven record, a leader who gets things done. A results oriented leader. He offers a much better vision than another Clinton presidency," he said.
"Experience matters for the next President of the United States and the mayor of America's largest city is amply prepared to be the next President of the United States," Perry said. Then, perhaps recognizing that he might as well have endorsed David Dinkins, he continued: "I'm not talking about just any mayor. I'm talking about America's mayor."
Perry also took a jab at Mitt Romney, saying that a "President should be able to respond to threats without dialing up their lawyer first." (Giuliani and his entourage laughed heartily).
Asked the inevitable question about Giuliani's moral liberalism, Perry compared Giuliani to an automobile. "When I go to buy a pick-up truck, if it's got one option that I'm not particularly fond of, I don't disregard that pick-up truck."
He said that Giuliani's promise to appoint "strict constructionist" judges in the mold of Scalia, Thompson and Alito was more than sufficient to convince him that Giuliani won't govern as a liberal.
Besides, he said, "Know that, versus the kind of judges that will Hillary Rodham Clinton [will appoint] to the court."
Giuliani offered a preview of sorts of his speech to the Family Research Council Values Voters convo on Saturday. He said he would say: "Let me explain to you that we're in this together and we look at the world in much the same way, probably more than you think... I very much come from the 80/20 school, where my 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy." He recognized that for single issue voters, "I'm not going to get every vote."
Giuliani aides did not say why Perry chose to endorse today. Organizers at the Club for Growth conference, where Giuliani spoke immediately after the endorsement, were chagrined that the mayor had shoehorned a major endorsement before his early morning address, guaranteeing that the media would focus on that, rather than the Club speech.
Not So Fast, Tom Cole...
From the ebullient chair of the NRCC, Tom Cole:
“Tonight, Jim Ogonowski sent a message to the Washington establishment and the Democratic Party that will reverberate throughout next year’s election. Democrats have officially forfeited the mantle of change.
“Jim’s hard-fought, grassroots campaign, exposed a shift in the political tide, and most impressively, he did it in the bluest of blue states. He proved that a Republican challenger, who centers their campaign on the core issues of lower taxes, less government spending, respect for the rule of law, and most importantly, the issue of bringing change to Washington, can effectively garner votes from independents and swing voters.
“Democrats have a reason to worry. In a race that should have been won in a walk, Democrats were forced to funnel a massive amount of resources and dispatch an all-star cast of liberal icons at the 11th hour in order to ensure victory.
“As their approval ratings have shown, people have already grown angry with the Democrat-led Congress. In a little over nine months, they have gone from being perceived as agents of change and the answer to the problem in Washington to becoming the actual problem. Jim Ogonowski, while unsuccessful in his bid to change Washington, just opened the door for future Republican candidates seeking a path to victory in 2008.”
Well -- this isn't an elite liberal district, as anyone who ever worked for Marty Meehan can tell you. It is insular and provincial and distrusts outsiders; Tsongas lived outside the district before she ran. Though it has stayed in Democratic hands since the 70s, Tsongas still outperformed Gov. Deval Patrick here by two or three points; George H, W. Bush won this congressional district in 1992, as did Mitt Romney in 2002.
Still, Tsongas could have lost -- Ogonowski was a great candidate -- a friendly Iraq war vet who ran on a message of reform and had lots of GOP netroots support. She closed the campaign on the S-CHIP debate, and that helped her quite a bit.
Cole's triumphalism is misplaced. At best -- and this is pretty good -- Ogonowski's run is a blueprint for Republican congressional candidates to run in 2008.
Some Early Thoughts On The Primary Calendar, Version 9.4
Globally, the earlier the nomination contests begin, the better for those who hold leads in those states at that time. A Jan. 3. Iowa caucus date allows for virtually no momentum generation for insurgents after the holiday season.
Regardless of whether candidates campaign during the last week of December, voters will probably be as distracted by Christmas, New Years, sales, Apple's latest what-not, the BCS, resolutions, family squabbles, all of that, as usual.
If Bill Gardner decides to schedule the New Hampshire primary for December, he risks not only the wrath of the entire two-party establishment (which isn't that scary), New Hampshire could very well be meaningless for one of the parties. Republicans, in particular, might cede the state to Mitt Romney. Democrats probably won't, but the style and pace of campaigning for the primary will feel more like a caucus: lots of trench warfare, confusing, muddled messages, appeals to secondary candidates, and dirty tricks. New Hampshire independents, in particular, will not have a candidate to revolt against. Rank and file Democrats won't have a candidate's victory to be influenced by.
But wait: maybe the three weeks between New Hampshire and Iowa and the relatively paltry amount of delegates awarded by the state will render the state entirely irrelevant. If you're putting all your resources into Iowa, it's probably a safer bet, at this point, to ignore New Hampshire entirely and hope that the New Hampshire winner's momentum attenuates over the long holiday period.
If the Dems hold their caucuses on Jan. 14, there's plenty of time for an insurgent (or even a national frontrunner) who doesn't hold a lead in Iowa to quickly run the table. Everyone is paying attention after the holidays and free and earned media is almost dispositive. It is during this two-week period that the performance of politics really matters.
If the parties split their dates, then the winner of the Jan. 3. Iowa Republican caucus could very well influence who Democrats vote for if New Hampshire decides to run a Jan. 8 primary. If Rudy Giuliani wins, will Democrats be tender to questions of electability? If Mitt Romney wins, might they feel more confident about selecting the nominee of their heart's desire? The media will almost certainly lay things out in these terms, and they are sure to influence voter preferences.
The Giuliani campaign has been able to subtly dismiss Iowa in part because they contend, quite correctly, that the media cares more about the Democratic contest and will devote a disproportionate amount of energy to covering it from the Democratic perspective. But if Jan. 3 is the first-in-the-nation vote -- if the first Democratic vote is Jan. 8 -- this assumes that Wm. Gardner sets a January date, not a December date -- then, well, there's a problem with this strategy.
South Carolina's position probably changes the least -- it's still the firewall state for Democrats (on the 26th) and Republicans (on the 19th), although perhaps less so for the Republicans if delegates are spread around the field. Can Fred Thompson build a bridge to South Carolina if he starts in Iowa with, say, a third place finish, does poorly in New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada and splits the vote in South Carolina? Does he have enough money to stay on television?
October 16, 2007
Texas Gov. Rick Perry Will Endorse Giuliani
(Updated)
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) plans to endorse Rudy Giuliani at an early morning news conference, Giuliani campaign advisers confirmed.
Perry, who succeeded George W. Bush as governor, would be the first sitting governor to endorse Giuliani. He brings added cachet as a Southerner and a social conservative, although he is not uniformly well-regarded by conservative elites in Washington. He may -- or may not be -- a vice presidential prospect. He is in the party's center on immigration, and has clashed, at times, with various wings of the Texas Republican Party.
Giuliani's finance team is top-heavy with Texas Republicans, and the Perry and Giuliani circles intersect.
A person who answered the phone in Perry's press office two hours ago referred all comment to Perry's press secretary, Robert Black, who did not immediately return a message. Perry was re-elected in 2006 with 39% percent of the vote in a three-way race. He is said to be a candidate for the chairman's spot at the Republican Governors Association.
Iowa Republicans Choose Jan. 3 Officialy; The Dems Will Wait
As we wait to find out who'll endorse Rudy Giuliani tomorrow (hint: think of an obscure 1996 movie starring Stephen Mendillo), the Iowa Republican Party, as expected, formally scheduled its precinct caucuses for Jan. 3, 2008.
"With under 80 days to go, this is a huge help to our counties and county chairs to get the ball rolling and start organizing. They have 1,784 precinct caucus meetings to run, thousands of volunteers to recruit and our presidential candidates deserve a set date," said Executive Director Chuck Laudner. "This is a definitive year for Iowa, and it is crucial that RPI, the State Central Committee and our county organizations run a smooth, successful caucus."
The Iowa Democratic Party's spokesperson released this statement in response:
The Iowa Democratic Party is planning for a January caucus on a date that is ultimately decided by what is best for the people of Iowa and the Democratic Party.
State Chair Brennan, the State Central Committee, Governor Culver and Senator Harkin will continue to work with the pre-window states and the Democratic National Committee to determine a date that maintains Iowa’s important role as the First-in-the-Nation Caucus
The Rest Of The Stories, 10/16
Your headline from the latest CNN/OPC 2008 poll: Al Gore whups Rudy Giuliani; Clinton only edges him. Also: Clinton's above 50 ... that's five national polls now... and Thompson has lost 9 points since September.
Clinton 49% --- Gore: 52%
Giuliani 47% --- Giuliani: 46%
O. Kay Henderson on the private meetings Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney will be holding with Sen. Chuck Grassley. Grassley will probably not endorse anyone.
In New Mexico, Rep. Steve Pearce and Rep. Heather Wilson will both vie for the Republican Senate nod. In SurveyUSA polling ** caveat emptor **, Bill Richardson beats them both, handily, in fact.
John Edwards appears on Bill Maher's television show on Friday. More donors watch that comedy show than any other comedy show... maybe.
Speaking of Edwards: it's not just Obama doin' the inadvertent copying in this race.
Obama: “If We Have Actionable Intelligence About High-Value Terrorist Targets And President Musharraf Won’t Act, We Will.” Obama said, “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.” (8/1/07)
Edwards: “If We Have Actionable Intelligence About Imminent Terrorist Activity And The Pakistan Government Refuses To Act, We Will.” Edwards said in his speech, “But I want to be clear about one thing: If we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will.” (9/07/07)
John McCaininsists he still has the money to run television ads... despite his heavy indebtedness.
Welcome to the big show, The Stump.
Bob Jones III Endorses Romney
What's more interesting: that he endorsed Romney or that he endorsed Romney?
In other words: does his endorsement say more about the blurring of doctrinal fidelity and the reduction of provincialism among conservative Christians? Or about Mitt Romney's political acumen?
Or is Bob Jones III a publicity hound who doesn't represent too many folks?
Rudy Teases Major Endorsement Tomorrow
Tomorrow morning, a person described by the campaign as "major" will endorse Rudy Giuliani in Washington, D.C.
The endorsement is described as more major than the last major endorsement Giuliani recieved -- ex-WI Gov. Tommy Thompson's.
And given the context -- Giuliani will speak shortly thereafter to the Club for Growth's major donors -- one would assume that the donor is a big supply sider.
On Diplomacy, Obama's Spokesman Links Clinton With Giuliani
Bill Burton, Barack Obama's spokesperson, e-mails a response to Rudy Giuliani's assertion that Barack Obama, who regularly cites the willingness of Ronald Reagan to negotiate with the Soviet Union, is, himself, not Ronald Reagan.
E-mails Burton: "While Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton do not think we should engage in the type of strong diplomacy practiced by Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, Obama does. And given the hefty fee that Hugo Chavez's oil company paid Rudy Giuliani's firm, he apparently thinks we shouldn't talk to Chavez, but it's fine to take his money."
To remind you of the quibble: Clinton, as in the Clinton Administration, would negotiate with rogue leaders without preconditions. But she herself would let the diplomatic process trickle up from low-level meetings. Obama would emphasize face-to-face diplomacy among principles from day one -- including his own personage. Reagan and Gorbachev, Nixon and Mao, that type of thing.
What Kennedy actually said -- as a candidate -- was that the U.S. should engage with Russia but not at the highest levels until the process ran its course; he was cautious not to endorse face-to-face bilateral meetings between leaders.
That said, it was Kennedy's refusal to sanction the war that his Joint Chiefs insisted, and also the back-channel negotiations between Robert F. Kennedy and Anatoly Dobrynin (the Turkey-Cuba missile removal) that helped stave off a military confrontation during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. In a sense, through that channel, JFK and Khrushchev communicated directly. (They had met once before, in 1961. It did not go well.)
So both Clinton and Obama can draw lessons from history. And the difference between them is more of style and posture than content -- although, in diplomacy, style and posture can be as important as words on paper.
Back to politics: is linking Hillary Clinton to Rudy Giuliani like linking her to Bush-Cheney? Is that a credible charge to make in a Democratic primary?
Home State Contributions Per Capita: Richardson's Beloved
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has raised $4,932,067 from New Mexicans since December of 2006, which amounts to $2.52 per head.
That's more home-state love than any other presidential candidate.
One other interesting fact: after retired folk, the largest plurality of Richardson's donors work for him -- they are New Mexico state employees. Through the third quarter, he recieved donations from 363 of them for a total of $278,230. (Here's a link to info through the second quarter; the above tally includes the third quarter).
How does Richardson compare to the rest of the field?
Hillary Clinton has raised $16,900,669 from New Yorkers -- that's 88 cents per capita.
Mitt Romney (Massachusetts): 57 cents
($3,651,153 divided by 6,437,193 people)
Obama (Illinois): 52 cents
($6,696,230 divided by 12,831,970 people)
Giuliani (New York): 50 cents
($9,657,139 divided by 19,306,183 people)
Thompson (Tennessee): 42 cents
($2,536,720* divided by 6,038,803 people)
* The Times's figures include northern Mississippi with Tennessee
McCain (Arizona): 37 cents
($2,282,329 divided by 6,166,318 people)
Edwards (North Carolina): 23 cents
($2,061,289 divided by 8,856,505 people)
Rudy Wows The RJC, Criticizes Soros (But Once Held A Different View)
A prominent Jewish Republican political influencer/reader writes about today's Republican Jewish Coalition presidential cattle call:
"If there were as many Jews as Evangelicals in GOP Rudy would win by acclamation. The man knows his audience. By the way McCain was dreadfully abasive- must have read your blog!"
Here's a dispatch from M. Berger of NBC/NJ's cadre of reporters.
Giuliani went after Obama Tuesday, criticizing Obama's plans to meet with the leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. Giuliani, speaking to the Republican Jewish Coalition, took issue with Obama's claims that meeting with leaders like Hugo Chavez is akin to Ronald Reagan's meetings with the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
"I say this most respectfully, you're not Ronald Reagan," Giuliani said, adding the Reagan called the Soviets the "evil empire" and pointed intermediate range missiles at them before calling for negotiations. "He made sure this country was negotiating from strength.”
Giuliani defended his Republican credentials, a day after they were attacked by Thompson. Giuliani noted that many of the Republican Jews in the audience were the first in their families, and have been met with resistance. "When they want to know, 'Are you a real Republican?'" he said. "I gave my blood for the Republican Party in New York."
By the way: A wag working for a rival campaign picked up on Giuliani's criticism of George Soros today: “I think that George Soros and MoveOn.org is kind of a new low in vicious, politics of personal destruction…Every campaign I’ve ever seen from them has been about personally destroying the Republican".... and points out that Giuliani appointed Soros to a coalition opposing "Anti-Immigrant Forces" in DC.
Obama Raises $431,000 In Hours
He asked his supporters to close the gap between himself and Sen. Clinton, and his 365,000-strong movement has responded.
Did Howard Dean ever raise this much, this quickly, in 2003? (Yes).
The RNC's New Ardor
One more note about the RNC:
A few months ago, Republican campaigns and even some White House officials worried that the Republican National Committee was abrogating its responsibility to begin to define Hillary Clinton. It wasn't so much that the RNC doesn't have reams of material -- and they do -- it was that the RNC wasn't selling the material, wasn't getting it into the press, wasn't convincing state parties that the dirty work had to be shared, and simply wasn't being aggressive enough.
Since early September, when a new RNC communications director took over, the intensity of that effort has risen several candelas. The volume of e-mails to national political reporters has doubled. State parties have begun to bracket Clinton when she visits their states. At this stage, the attacks against Clinton are broadsides, not longitudinal. The RNC doesn't seem to have settled on a particular frame for Clinton, although the words "liberal" and "dynasty" will probably have something to do with it.
It was the RNC/Bush Cheney campaign's early definition of John Kerry, as orchestrated by BC04 Research Director Matt Rhoades that helped the Bush campaign immeasurably. The Democratic National Committee recognized this success and adapted it. (No charge is too ridiculous, such as the party's attempt to get Republicans to apologize for something Ann Coulter said.)
Imagery Watch: Rudy Giuliani
"I gave my blood for the Republican Party in New York."
Giuliani, at the Republican Jewish Coalition meeting, Washington, D.C., as reported by National Journal/NBC News reporter Matthew Berger.
Richardson's Home State Stand
A reader writes:
It looks like Bill Richardson has raised about $4.9 million out of New Mexico -- which is extremely impressive considering the amount that, say, Obama has raised out of Illinois ($6.7 million) -- or, put in perspective, Richardson has raised about $2.50 from every person in the entire state. That strikes me as remarkable... is it just a governor thing?
The State Of The Race: The Democrats
As an introduction to our latest race rankings, here's an elaboration.
Here are some bullet points:
** Four consecutive reputable national polls show that Hillary Clinton topping 50% of the vote in a multicandidate primary. These surverys have been conducted as Democrats pay more and more attention to the candidates.
** As First Read points out this morning, it's facile to look back only to 2004 and note that Howard Dean, leading in the polls at this point, fell to John Kerry. (1) Clinton is a much better candidate with much more money; (2) her support is much stickier and more broadly distributed across the party; (3) Dean never approached 50% in these polls; (4) Clinton's campaign won't stall the way the Dean's did; (5) Dean never met the credibility test; Clinton wrote the credibility test; (6) Clinton has a natural, solid in with women, who vote out of demographic proportion in Iowa and New Hampshire.
** In the past, such as in 1984, the calendar worked to the frontrunner's advantage; Mondale was able to outlast Hart. No longer. This year, the calendar plays to the insurgent's advantage in that it is so scrunched up that a single defeat or case of expectations not being met will hurt the frontrunner. It won't kill her, but she'll need to find a firewall state in a hurry.
** In the same vein, Barack Obama is like no other challenger in history. He is not Gary Hart to Clinton's Walter Mondale. (1) He is the best-funded top-tier challenger in the history of American politics; (2) no candidate's biography better intersects with the historical moment; (3) the calendar benefits him.
** This is three-dimensional chess: Obama's frame -- Hillary's Establishment Versus A New Direction -- is and has been the frame of a credible, fairly-well-funded candidate: John Edwards, who currently polls better or equal to Obama in Iowa. And Edwards has the policy proposals to highlight his distinctions.
On The Clintons, The RNC Goes There... By There, As In, You Know... That Stuff
A story placed by the RNC in today's Hill is case in point:
Republicans plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to tarnish Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on the red-hot issue of government surveillance.
In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.
“The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill,” Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. “Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.”
So -- what will the Republicans seize, who's doing the seizing, and why telegtraph your plans in a newspaper article?
1. This is a trial balloon floated by the RNC to see whether anyone bites.
2. The RNC is willing to associate itself with the Clinton sex stuff. Also: the Clinton's tenure in Arkansas is fair game.
3. The RNC wants state parties to start challenging Clinton. As if on cue, this news release came this morning from the Republican Party of Arkansas:
"Today, Republican Party of Arkansas Chairman Dennis Milligan called on State Attorney General Dustin McDaniel to investigate the fact that New York Senator Hillary Clinton may have eavesdropped and recorded political opponents' telephone conversations while her husband was Governor of Arkansas."
4. The RNC doesn't mind the world knowing that they're going to throw everything, including the kitchen plumbing, at Hillary Clinton.
5. From a reader:
"My guess on that RNC thing was that they did it that way because they knew it would get them a story on Drudge -- classic ploy, "we plan to use this in an attack" sources say...whereas if they'd actually used it in an attack, it would have been widely ignored, because it's so thin."
Romney's Latest Ad In New Hampshire
It's on the estate tax (or "death" tax) and brags that Romney was the first candidate to sign Grover Norquist's no-tax pledge.
Again, Obama Borrows Angle From Edwards
It's another step in the slow assumption by Barack Obama of John Edwards's campaign message. But hey -- it night work for Obama where it might not work for Edwards, although the receptiveness of rank-and-file Democrats to a process message is not yet known.
(There's certainly no copyright on these words.)
In June, Edwards said this to the Take Back America conference:
"For me it's simple: No more pontificating. No more vacillating. No more triangulating. No more broken promises. No more pats on the head. No more we'll-get-around-to-it-next-time. No more taking half a loaf."
And yesterday, Barack Obama used the T-word for the first time in memory:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Barack Obama said Monday the nation has had enough of ''triangulation and poll-driven politics,'' a reference to the presidency of Bill Clinton, the husband of his chief Democratic rival. Addressing a convention center rally dominated by students, Obama said that he had spoken out against going to war in Iraq in 2002, even as advisers told him it would be a mistake to challenge a popular president, George W. Bush. Then an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama said he did so because he did not want to ''enter the United States Senate already having compromised on core principles.''
''We've had enough of ... triangulation and poll-driven politics,'' he said. ''That's not what we need right now.''
Also, check out this fundraising appeal from Obama...
Dear XX,
Last night each of the presidential campaigns reported their third-quarter fundraising numbers.
The results are clear. We continue to build the largest grassroots movement in history, but Washington lobbyists and special interests rallied to help Hillary Clinton out-raise us for the first time.
If we want real change in this country, then we need to prove that together we are stronger than the lobbyist-driven money machine that has dominated Washington for too long.
The situation here is simple. We are $2.1 million behind. We must close that gap right now. I need you to make a donation:
https://donate.barackobama.com/gap
Hillary Clinton aggressively seeks money from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. She's even said that these lobbyists represent real Americans.
She's wrong.
I think it's time to turn the page on that kind of politics, and that's why I have not accepted a dime from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs in this race. We rely on a network of more than 350,000 ordinary people to make us competitive -- more supporters than all the other Democratic candidates combined.
Washington lobbyists have chosen their candidate and are determined to provide her with an overwhelming advantage. But you can even up this contest.
In the face of the most entrenched political machine in Democratic politics, I believe a movement of ordinary Americans can change our country. And you can prove that right now.
I need you to make a donation to close the gap:
https://donate.barackobama.com/gap
FEC Report Highlights: John McCain's Campaign Is Virtually Bankrupt
Fumes: His campaign reported $3.4M on hand with a debt of $1.7M. But it also reported raising a total of $1.8M toward the general election.
That means that McCain's campaign has no cash on hand -- in fact, even with the general election money factored in, it owes about $94,000. It is, in other words, bankrupt.
Its $1.7M debt, incidentally, comes from rent that is owed, an American Express bill that is overdue, and finance payments on computers.
Spending limits: The McCain campaign reports that it has spent $288,000 toward Iowa's spending limit, $234,000 to New Hampshire's spending limit and $230,000 toward South Carolina's spending limit.
Fly Commercial: Gone this quarter: expensive charter rentals. In: dozens of flights on commercial airlines, stays in Best Westerns, Days Inn, Embassy Suites and the Oceanview Terrace Motel in Shinnecock Hills, New York.
Different Campaigns, Different Emphasis
The Obama Campaign Headlines Its FEC Report Press Release: "Obama Announces Show of Grassroots Strength through Small Donor Donations and Activism."
The Clinton Campaign Headlines Its FEC Report Press Release: "CLINTON REPORTS $50 MILLION CASH-ON-HAND: $35M PRIMARY, $15M GENERAL."
October 15, 2007
FEC Report Highlights: John Edwards
Burn, baby: The campaign had a fairly prodigious burn rate, exceeding 110% of their receipts.
TrippiWire: The campaign raised more than $2.5M online this quarter.
Celebrity donors include: Jean Smart, James Denton, Madeline Stowe, Ron Rifkin, Robin Wright Penn, Sean Penn, Bonnie Raitt, Susan Sarandon, Lars Ulrich, Russell Simmons
Turns Out: Obama Still Found More Donors
When we got out first look at the third quarter estimates two weeks ago, it seemed that Sen. Hillary Clinton had attracted more new donors to her campaign than he did -- approximately 7,000 more.
But the final numbers give the edge to Obama in this category: he found 108,000 new donors and Clinton attracted 100,000.
That's 365,000 donors in all. 92.5% of all 550,000 donations Obama recieved have been for less than $250.00
That's campaign finance reform right there, isn't it?
Some More Third Quarter FEC Highlights -- Romney
Without the $17M in checks he wrote to himself, ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney would be $9M in debt. But that's a meaningless factoid: Romney has the money, and he can write and spend as much as he wants.
Does a campaign with a 114% burn rate raise questions about its investment strategy? Not really. Could Romney realistically have spent $50M on anything else? There's no way, in a presidential year featuring superstars of Obama-Giuliani-Clinton-Thompson-McCain calibers, that Romney could have spent the money to increase his national profile and therefore his national polling numbers.
Pay Day Hey Hey? To increase the trim of their fundraising pitch, the campaigns often postpone end of quarter paydays, and it seems like Romney's staff only got paid once in September, rather than twice -- on the 15th and the 30th.
For Romney, The Dividends Are Worth The Investment
Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney's third quarter financial audit has yet to be posted at the FEC's website, but while we wait, you can read over this internal memo written by the campaign's legal and strategy teams and distributed to campaign higher ups last week.
My quick summary: We're raising a lot; Mitt is giving a lot; We're spending a lot; We're winning where we need to be winning; Rudy's in trouble because he can't write himself a check and has to spend to keep pace.
In the memo, Romney's advisers predict that Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain will have be forced to opt in to the federal primary financing system in order to compete with Romney. And the memo claims that Giuliani "is in danger" of confronting that choice, given the campaign's rate of spending and slowing rate of receipts. (Giuliani advisers dismiss this out of hand).
"Investment" is used as a euphasmism for "burn rate" here -- the campaign claims that Romney's blistering 85% burn rate since the beginning of the year has paid dividends in the form of solid leads in the early polls, while Giuliani has spent furiously and managed only to maintain his lead in non-early states.
Of Romney's ability to loan himself money, the advisers offer this rationale and hint that the Romney bank account hasn't closed:
[It] continues to be of great benefit to the campaign in this most challenging of fundraising environments for Republicans. His ability to do so should not be understated when the ultimate goal is not "winning" one quarter's fundraising race, but rather beating the Democrats in November 2008. The ads he helped finance have moved Governor Romney – who began this campaign much less well-known than his primary opponents – competitive in every key early state and in an excellent position to capture the nomination.
Here is how John Edwards's careful courtship of the Service Employees has paid off: not only will Edwards get the endorsement of the relatively small, nurse-heavy Iowa SEIU affiliate today, he'll receive the support of nine other state affiliates, Democratic sources say.
Endorsements like this are momentum-drivers; they help caucus turnout on the margins, only, but provide campaigns with a fresh supply of volunteers and endless surrogates.
The two biggest: California, which has 656,000 members and Washington State, which has 103,000 members.
Other states include: Michigan (70,000 members), Idaho (400 members), Montana (500 members), Minnesota (28,000 members), Ohio (22,000 members), West Virginia (4,000 members) and Oregon (46,000 members).
The Edwards campaign interprets the SEIU rules to allow these SEIU affiliates to help them turn out caucus goers in Iowa, although they are limited largely to making telephone calls.
Also today, Barack Obama was endorsed by the Illinois State Council of the SEIU and the Indiana State Council, representing a total of 170,000 members.
And Hillary Clinton... has yet to be endorsed by New York's 1199, the largest local union in the world, which claims more than 300,000 members. That won't happen today.
The FEC Reports: Fred Thompson
Ending cash on hand: $7.1M
Webby: The campaign website and web marketing activities formed the largest single expense: more than $389,000 worth went to the Arizona-based Straightline firm.
Lots of lists: the campaign paid $100K for access to the Florida Republican voter file and more than $200,000 to a New Jersey based firm that specializes in voter list management. It also paid the Republican Party of Iowa $32,000 for its list.
The Exes: former campaign manager-designee Tom Collamore was paid $54,000 for his services to Thompson. Jim Mills was paid $39,000 for about a month's work. Mark Corallo, long a volunteer, received $30,000. Ousted communications director Linda Rozette took home more than $20,000 for her trouble.
Show Me My Money: Thompson reimbursed himself for $11,000 worth of travel and floral expenses.
On That Giuliani Cash On Hand Number
I made the mistake I always caution others against making:
Subtracting the amount of money Giuliani has banked for the general election, his cash on hand total is $11.6 million.
Bad, bad, bad Marc.
Giuliani's Campaign Paid 28 Finance Consultants
** That's a lot. According to the campaign's third quarter filings, the campaign paid $625,000 this quarter to 28 separate consultants. With a staff of about 160, that's one finance consultant for every five members of the staff.
** As this column has reported, Giuliani's burn rate exceeded 110% this quarter.
** The campaign has started to pay Giuliani's security consulting firm for his personal bodyguards -- more than $110,000 worth of protection this quarter.
Walter Shapirois spot on in his "letter" to New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner: there is a tradeoff between the rules and the legitimacy of the primary.
Kathy Sullivan, former New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair, endorses Hillary Clinton. Sullivan is the best surrogate there is in the state and has reams of influence with political elites there.
Fred Thompson's absence in New Hampshire is noted, the AP's Phil Eliott reports. But that's not a surprise: Thompson's bridge to South Carolina begins in Iowa and largely skips New Hampshire.
Giuliani and McCain are both whumping Mitt Romney.
Slate's Lee Bandy sees a McCain renaissance in South Carolina.
Thompson To Confront Giuliani On New York, Conservatism
Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson's campaign released excerpts of a speech he'll deliver night before New York's Conservative Party leaders in Manhattan.
"Some think the way to beat the Democrats in November is to be more like them. I could not disagree more. I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them.
"This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in. I spent eight years in Washington fighting for smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and conservative judges. With me, what you see is what you get. I was a proud conservative yesterday, I remain one today, and I will be one tomorrow. Together we can carry the conservative banner all the way to the White House and I am asking for your help."
He's not naming names -- but it's not hard, given the context of his speech and his audience -- the Conservative Party once opposed Rudy Giuliani's mayoral candidacy (although its leaders later came to be supporters) -- the speech suggests that Thompson will begin to turn his attention to the national frontrunner.
The argument will probably begin with Giuliani's own words -- his appeals to Democrats and liberals, his friendliness with the Clinton administration (except for that line item veto challenge), his praise for Bill Clinton himself, his 1994 endorsement of Mario Cuomo over George Pataki (over tax cuts)... his unwillingness, in the late 1980s, to associate himself with Ronald Reagan, his disdain for Barry Goldwater, his alleged 1972 vote for George McGovern.. ... you get the idea.
The big thump here is loyalty: Thompson will argue that Giuliani hasn't been loyal to Republican causes and has instead been more than willing to throw them under the bus when it suited his political needs. And by extension, Giuliani will jettison his conservative supporters the moment he's elected president. Or the moment it suits him.
The Giuliani counter-argument is out there: when he speaks, Republicans hear a conservative. He reformed welfare, he cut crime, he cut taxes (though not as many as he might want you to believe), he restored a sense of civic pride to the city, etc.
It's not clear when or whether Thompson will begin to talk about Giuliani by name.
The FEC Reports: Rudy Giuliani
Cash on hand: $11,649,825. (not $16M)
Giuliani By Mail:: According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com, the campaign has paid the Texas-based direct mail firm Olsen and Shuvalov more than $3.8 million -- or nearly 15% of the campaign's entire schedule of disbursements.
Packing It In? The campaign hired ex-Treasury Dept. official Sandra Pack to be their Chief Operating Officer, but it has so far paid her $200,000 for compliance consulting work.
Highly Paid: Giuliani's chief of strategy, Brent Seaborn, has earned more than $122,000 this year so far. Campaign chief Mike DuHaime has paid himself $135,000.
Florida, Florida, Florida: On June 1, the Giuliani campaign paid $100,000 to rent the Florida Republican Party's voter database.
Hyatt, How're You Doing? The hotel chain of choice for the Giuliani campaign: the Hyatt corp.
Obama As Liberal Wish Fulfillment, Too
A reader writes:
"Eleanor Roosevelt egh? Let's also remember that Barack Obama is the African American Community's realization of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream Dpeech." So, let them keep touting those polls in SC. I remember when Hynes and Hull were beating him in the AA community right before they went 90% for Barack."
A better case can be made that Obama is the fulfillment of Boomer Liberalism.
Rudy's Deputies Redeputized
As Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson visit the city today, Rudy Giuliani's former deputy mayors will kick off what the campaign calls "Rudy Gets Results," a tour that's designed to highlight Giuliani's record of economic growth, fighting crime and cleaning up the city.
The redeputized mayors are: Rudy washington, Joe Lhota and Randy Mastro. They'll be joined by other members of the Giuliani mayoral administration for a Times Square event. And then they'll begin to travel as surrogates on the mayor's behalf.
There is some chutzpah: the Giuliani campaign is betting that Republican voters elsewhere will be receptive to New Yawkers tawking about New Yawk; some of Giuliani's rivals believe that the very mention of the city reminds voters of Giuliani's cosmopolitanism. The other danger is that Giuliani’s rivals use the “Rudy Gets Results” tour to try and bring up some of the less auspicious aspects of Giuliani’s mayoral tenure, but that will probably be hard: for better or worse, what everyone knows about Giuliani and New York, aside from 9/11, is that he cut crime (even if the decline began under David Dinkins and can be attributed in part to police commissioners and/or social trends) and made the city seem safer.
How many Iowa Republicans and South Carolina Republicans have visited New York? Probably more than we think.
One deputy mayor who won't be participating is former Giuliani adviser Fran Reiter. She's now become a critic.
Women's Week For Clinton
A Hillary Clinton partisan e-mails:
"Lets also remember Obama is trying to run against our Eleanor Roosevelt"
If there was one strategic assumption that seemed to be lost amid the spring hub-bub over Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, it was the idea that women would treat Clinton's candidacy as historic; that the mere fact of a plausible woman presidential candidate would create its own momentum and dislodge some of the skepticism that certain groups of women hold about Clinton.
In a memo, Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn writes:
About 65% of those who come to Hillary's rallies are women. Often they bring their children to see and meet the Senator. Often they bring their moms. Many women have a strong connection to Hillary's campaign, and they are increasing their support in many ways. This connection spans the generations and will be showcased this week by Hillary’s campaign.
Also:
A majority of the small donors to the campaign are women.
and
In our own polling, 94% of young women tell us that they are more likely to turn out and vote if the first woman nominee appears on the ballot.
Penn outlines what the campaign wants Clinton's campaign to mean for women:
In 1996, we learned that the power of the women's vote was being underestimated, something that is happening again in the analysis so far of this election. For women in their 90s, it means having gone full circle from first getting the vote to having a women president. For those who are working, it means breaking the ultimate glass ceiling. And for parents of both genders, it means being able to tell their daughters as well as their sons that they could grow up to be president some day.
October 13, 2007
Iowa SEIU To Endorse Edwards Monday
Iowa's Service Employees International Union members will endorse Ex-Sen. John Edwards on Monday, numerous Democratic sources said.
Edwards recently added a 5:30 pm ET "health care" event to his schedule on Monday in Iowa City, home to the state's largest concentration of SEIU members.
Monday, October 15 is the first day that SEIU state affiliates can endorse individual candidates. When the national union decided not to offer a universal endorsement, it allowed each state aggregation to choose their own candidates.
October 12, 2007
The Obama Campaign's Memo
Sometimes, the campaigns just talk to each other and use insider blogs like mine as the medium.
TO: Interested Parties
FR: The Obama Campaign
RE: Quasi-incumbent finally gets scrutiny and stumbles
DA: 10/12/07
It is clear that just as voters are becoming more engaged in the campaign in the early primary states that Senator Clinton and her campaign have abandoned the politics of “let’s have a conversation,” in favor of purely tactical posturing.
Questioning and challenging what principles, if any, each candidate is standing on when they take a position or change that position is the normal part of the political process. Our campaign regularly fields questions on significant policy issues, even as we did when Hillary Clinton attacked Barack by calling him naïve and irresponsible for a position which she has agreed with him on 2 of the 3 occasions she has addressed it.
Our campaign will continue to speak openly and honestly about the challenges facing Americans and on our nation on issues as vital as Social Security, torture and international diplomacy and Barack Obama will continue tell Americans not just what they want to hear, but he believes they need to hear as well. Granted, we can see why she and her campaign might continue to get irritated by tough questions about her changing positions – they must be very tough to answer.
On Social Security, Clinton had been saying that nothing was on the table in terms of how to repair and strengthen Social Security. But in a conversation with a voter that the AP overheard, it appears to be clear that raising taxes is on the table in a very real way. [AP, 10/11/07]
When it comes to diplomacy, Clinton moved from thinking it “irresponsible and, frankly, naïve” for a president to offer a meeting with someone we don’t agree with to saying: “Here’s what I would do as president: I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions.” In all fairness, that was the position she seemed to have before launching her attack on Obama for his commonsense policy of not fearing meetings with anyone. [MSNBC,”Countdown with Keith Olberman,” 1/23/07; Clinton, YouTube Debate, 7/23/07; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAlyYtJxaio; Clinton Event, Canterbury, NH, 10/11/07; WP 10/10/07]
On her torture position, first she was for some forms of torture then she opposed all forms, then she refused to tell the Washington Post whether the administration’s policy was one she would continue. [Statement, 9/28/06; New York Post, 10/21/06; NY Daily News, 9/27/07; New York Daily News, 9/27/07]
And then, of course, she did hedge her bet on the pledge she made to the early primary states. It hasn’t been exactly popular in the states with early contests for Clinton to break her word to them. [DiStaso column, Union Leader, 10/10/07]
And, in response to some of the rather breathless political assertions in their memo today, we would make the following points
· In the one state where the race is engaged, Iowa, the last four public polls show a race within the margin of error between Obama and Clinton, with Edwards in third. This is not because it’s the one state in the union immune to Senator Clinton’s appeal. It is because the voters are paying close attention, they know the most about Barack Obama and are responding to his message. As other early states get more engaged, we will see a much closer race.
· We just started advertising in New Hampshire two weeks ago. Even before that, Obama has a solid vote foundation of 20%. We will build on that in the coming weeks thru additional advertising and candidate visits, like the trip this week where Barack unveiled his energy plan.
· South Carolina is a very close two way contest between Obama and Clinton already. We have a solid base and will expand on that as the election draws nearer.
· We have the strongest precinct organization in Nevada, which will be paramount. Organization will win the Nevada caucus. There is no existing list of prior caucus goers at the precinct level and turnout estimates vary wildly.
Senator Clinton in all these states is the quasi-incumbent. In Iowa, where the race is most developed, over 70% of the electorate is not choosing her, producing a dangerously low ceiling.
And let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton must win every contest. They forcefulness with which they embrace the aura of inevitability will make it shatter if she does not win in every single state. Inevitability does not come with state exceptions. Early setbacks will fundamentally alter the race, especially given our campaign’s financial and organizational strength that will allow us to capitalize fully on early momentum on February 5, where we already have much more developed campaign organizations than the Clinton campaign.
The Clinton operation is the greatest money machine in the history of American politics. The fact that Barack Obama, who has been on the national scene only briefly and who had no national fundraising network in place, has outraised Clinton by $12 million dollars this year and has a huge lead in the number of donors speaks to the hunger for change and an alternative to the frontrunner.
So, while the Clinton campaign attempts to duck legitimate questions on their way to their believed coronation, we will stay focused on telling the American people not just what they want to hear but what the need to hear, continue to build a grassroots movement for change and stay focused on measuring our progress in the early states, the only barometer that matters right now.
Election Music: "Decision 2008"
Back To The Fun Stuff: A Clinton Campaign Memo
The point of this memo, sent today to the Clinton press list by the campaign, seems to be: You ninnies, it's obvious why Obama is blasting Clinton now... he's losing and needs to step up his game.
From: The Clinton Campaign
RE: Seasons of the Campaign
There have been three major developments in the race this month: Senator Clinton has broken 50 percent in several primary polls, she outraised the other candidates in the third quarter and her opponents have entered a new season of the campaign that they call "clear contrast." Most others call it negative campaigning.
Related? You bet.
Yesterday’s FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll puts Senator Clinton at the 50 percent mark, Senator Barack Obama at 18 and former Senator John Edwards at 11. This poll comes on the heels of last week’s Washington Post/ABC News poll which had Senator Clinton at 53 percent, Senator Obama at 20 percent and former Senator Edwards at 13 percent.
And it’s not just the national polls that show Hillary getting stronger. Recent polls in the early states of New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina show her with consistent, wide leads while the latest data in Iowa shows that her support is growing.
To put these numbers in context, six months ago Hillary held as little as a 5-point lead over Senator Obama – today, as all of the candidates have become better known, her lead has grown to as many as 33 points.
At the same time, Hillary -- for the first time -- outraised Senator Obama in both primary and overall contributions. She attracted 100,000 new donors in the third quarter -- more than Senator Obama -- and raised $8 million online.
These trends reflect the fact that Hillary’s message of experience and change is resonating with voters as the first primary contests grow closer. She spent the last week explaining her programs to rebuild the middle class after 7 years of neglect by President Bush (See: David Brooks ; New York Daily News ), following on her well received healthcare plan. She is outlining her vision for change and talking with the voters about her ideas.
Other campaigns are reacting. Senator Obama said yesterday his campaign will be entering a time of "sharp contrast" in an article headlined " Obama: Bye-Bye Mr. Nice Guy? "
Apparently Senator Obama’s fall in the polls has led him to abandon his pledge to change our politics and bring people together.
This week Senator Obama criticized Senator Clinton’s vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
Senator Obama was silent on the measure when it was considered on the floor. Despite serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he wasn’t involved in Senate negotiations or discussions over the bill’s language. (See: Huffington Post ) He didn’t speak out against it before it was voted on – he didn’t even return from the campaign trail to vote. He didn’t speak out against it at a nationally televised debate that night or defend himself from an attack during the debate on his missed vote. In fact, he waited more than nine hours after the vote was over to issue a statement about it.
If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn’t he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it?
So perhaps something else is at work: politics.
As Senator Obama’s closest ally in the Senate, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, said, "If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no."
As Senator Obama abandons the politics of hope in favor of attack politics, Senator Clinton remains focused on her vision for America – the kind of vision that today is attracting the key endorsement of civil rights hero Congressman John Lewis
The Final World On Lieberman-Kyl
(1) The resolution was non-binding and substantively different from the 2002 use of force resolution. Lieberman-Kyl has zero authority; it expresses senses, not findings.
(2) Obama's main substantive argument is about power and authority: should Congress give President Bush even a hint -- and Obama, looking at the intent of the initial sponsors, sees such a hint -- that the commander in chief has their permission to launch military strikes or continue to justify a large troop presence in Iraq on the basis of Iran's intervention in the war?
(3) Clinton's main argument is that she is a senator, and according to Obama's logic, anything that comes up for a vote could be interpreted or warped so as to give President Bush's actions the imprimateur of legitimacy. Clinton is on the Armed Services Committee; Iran's Revolutionary Guards are attacking U.S. soldiers; the biggest beneficiary of the Iraq war being ran, it's simply reality -- as Obama himself acknowledged -- that Iran's actions will in some way factor into decisions about when and where and how fast to move troops out. Clinton turned a sketchy resolution into a much better one, one that wasn't bellicose and gave no hints or winks to the White House. And, oh -- Obama didn't show up and argue this during the vote itself.
Giuliani On Bernie Kerik
Some apologetic language today from Rudy Giuliani about Bernard Kerik, his former NYPD police chief and Homeland Security secretary candidate. Mr. Kerik is said to be the target of imminent indictments for a variety of alleged ne'er-doings.
Questions about Kerik are questions about Giuliani's judgment, and should he win the nomination, Kerik's downfall will become a key line of attack for Democrats.
These quotes, just moments ago, from National Journal/NBC campaign reporter Matthew Berger, who travels with the Giuliani campaign:
"Without commenting on that case, I've already said I should have checked his background more carefully. I didn't. I've learned a lesson from it. I'm going to check more carefully in the future.
"But I think you have to look at the thousands of choices I've made of people, and you have to look at the results that I got. I must have been making the decisions about people mostly correctly, because I was able to reduce crime by 66 percent.
Thompson Endorses Rudy Giuliani
Not Fred, of course, but Tommy, the former governor of Wisconsin.
He and Giuliani and are kindered spirits in a way: both reformist in orientation both pioneers in welfare reform (Giuliani actually hired one of the advisers who designed Thompson's W2 program to do welfare-to-work in New York City), both obsessed with competence, and both a little quirky. Thompson will be an effective surrogate for Giuliani going forward.
Also: it doesn't hurt to have a pro-lifer on board.
Obama and L-K, Part III
"People think that Lieberman-Kyl did just one thing," an Obama foreign policy adviser told me, "
"and that's to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization."
"But that's just one of the six clauses." Obama, this adviser said, worries about clause b1 -- where the structure -- read size and deployment nature -- of troops in Iraq would be structured with the threat of Iran in mind. "Couple that with the two people who drafted the amendment, both of whom are strongly supportive of the surge, both of whom who have raised significant concerns about Iranian influence in the region."
I asked the adviser how Obama's belief square with his acknowledgment in 2006 that it was in the national interest to keep an "active" through "reduced" force in the "Middle East" in response to the encroaching Iranian threat.
Obama, this adviser said, believes that the intent of clauses b1 and b2 are counterarguments to those who want to scale down forces in Iraq. Leiberman and Kyl oppose a drawdown because of the Iranian threat, this adviser said. "Barack has said from time immemorial that he opposes the Iraq War because he was afraid it was going to strengthen Iran's position in the region."
But here's the tricky part: Obama does not so much object to the language of the resolution, which he acknowledges can be interpreted in different ways, as he does to the context within which it was passed.
"Barack’s point is that this is the kind of justification that that administration could use" to launch an attack against Iran.
In other words: Obama argues that Clinton trusts the Bush Administration to not interpret this as giving them the authority to strike Iran.
A reader writes:
The November 2006 on Iran you use to pin Obama down, is his opinion, his judgment, and suggest how HE might act. The congressional resolution, however, is an apparatus for President Bush to act. It gives him the ball. that's why Obama's main point is that you can't give the administration any leeway, any argument to justify military action against Iran because they have shown such terrible judgment before. On the other hand, one might say you can give Senator Obama leeway because he has shown good judgment and understands we shouldn't rush to war. Indeed, Obama, Bush and Clinton all believed that Saddam had WMDs, but the difference was Obama didn't see this as an imminent threat to us because of the inspectors and because Saddam had no connection to al qaeda. That's a big difference. I suspect that at the time they all would agree with the idea that iraq was a problem but they disagreed on what that meant. See what I mean?
In short, I think it is important to recognize that presidents after meeting with their advisors will get similar advice and often will view a situation under similar concepts. What matters in the end is judgment, who after viewing the evidence and the options will make the right choice and who won't. Notably, this is very similar to Obama's argument that the differences between he, Clinton and Edwards over their policy proposals really doesn't matter, they're largely the same, what matters is who can get the plan implemented, who can get it passed.
And an Obama aide e-mails:
I continue to be amused at the Durbin references to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment - it seems that when it comes to war with Iran, Jim Webb is the one she looks too right? Is it disconcerting that he siad this about the resolution she supported: "Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good."blockquote>
Still -- Obama seems to have a solid argument here. But if the amendment was so dangerous... why is he opposing it in a television commercial and a speech... did not on the floor of the Senate?
No longer can we write that Barack Obama is unwilling to make a frontal, sustained, critical argument against the election of Hillary Clinton, an argument that ties her 2002 Iraq vote to a current issue, unfolding in real time.
"Senator Clinton is the only Democratic candidate for president who supports this amendment,” Obama said in Des Moines today, according to excerpts of his speech provided by his campaign.
“She said, like she did five years ago, that it is a way to support diplomacy. I disagree. We all know that Iran poses a threat. We do need to mount international pressure to stop Iran’s nuclear program. We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime – particularly on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which supports terrorism. But this must be done separately from any saber-rattling about checking Iranian influence with our military presence in Iraq.”
“I don’t want to give this President any excuse, or any opening for war." “Because as we learned with the authorization of the Iraq War – when you give this President a blank check, you can’t be surprised when he cashes it.”
“Senator Clinton makes a different argument,” Obama said. “She says that she wasn’t really voting for war back in 2002, she was voting for more inspections, or she was voting for more diplomacy. But all of us know what was being debated in the Congress in the fall of 2002. We didn’t need to authorize a war in order to have United Nations weapons inspections. No one thought Congress was debating whether or not to conduct diplomacy. The headlines on October 12, 2002 did not read: ‘Congress authorizes diplomacy with Iraq’ – the headlines on October 12, 2002 read ‘Congress backs war.’”
The biggest push-back: Obama is sincere about this, it's clear -- but why didn't he say it when the amendment came up? If the amendment was so dangerous, why wasn't he in the Senate leading the fight against it? Why did he skip the vote?
Part III -- Later today, Obama's objections to Lieberman-Kyl, in depth.
When Does Gore Have To Decide By?
This is the Atlantic and one is not supposed to end sentences with a preposition, but the answer is November 2 (oops, not the ninth), the filing deadline for the New Hampshire primary.
He's already missed a deadline in West Virginia... but it's...West Virginia.
Obama's Still Strong In Georgia
On Rep. John Lewis's endorsement of Sen. Clinton, Obama spokesman William Burton e-mails:
“Barack Obama has great admiration for John Lewis and understands his long relationship with Bill Clinton. He looks forward to his support when Barack Obama is the nominee."
It's that not Obama suffers from a lack of support among civil rights heroes: Rev. Jessie Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery, Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Rev. CT Vivian, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Sanford Bishop, Rep. Al Greene, etc.
And finally, after the jump, read a memo by campaign manager David Plouffe about Obama's Georgia support and organization.
"Al Gore has been warning and educating us about the dangers of climate change for decades. He saw this coming before others in public life and never stopped pushing for action to save our planet, even in the face of public indifference and attacks from those determined to defend the indefensible. His tireless advocacy and his Academy Award-winning film have inspired countless people around the world to join the fight against climate change. I am thrilled by this well-deserved recognition and am grateful to the Nobel Committee for awarding the Peace Prize to him and to those doing ground-breaking work at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Hillary Clinton Is Endorsed By John Lewis, The Hero of Bloody Sunday
Via Hillary Hub, we learn this morning that Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights hero, has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Lewis's endorsement is a sign of vitality within the African American political establishment. It's a boost to Sen. Clinton in an important February 5 state with a disproportionately high number of African American voters, and no doubt will be interpreted by the press as a sleight of Barack Obama, who did indeed court Mr. Lewis for an endorsement. (That's unusual: Obama has made a show of not particularly caring about endorsements, but some he wants, and this one he wanted.)
Obama and Clinton both traveled to Selma, AL to commemorate the civil rights march there 42 years ago, a march in which Mr. Lewis participated and was beaten by police. He was the head of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee at the time.
Earlier this year, Obama's campaign was confident that it would receive Mr. Lewis's endorsement.
“I have looked at all the candidates, and I believe that Hillary Clinton is the best prepared to lead this country at a time when we are in desperate need of strong leadership,” Lewis said in a statement. “She will restore a greater sense of community in America, and reclaim our standing in the world.”
Romney: Iran, Then I Stopped, Then I Thought About It, Then I Acted
It behooves me to read motives into a campaign's behavior, but judging by Mitt Romney's clarifying op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about his lawyer consultations and the blunt language of a new ad the campaign is airing in Iowa today, it seems as the Romney campaign wants to make an extra-special effort to ensure that voters aren't reminded of his answer at Monday's debate.
A Romney aide tells me that the ad was in the can before the debate.
And another e-mails:
A very key part of the ad that the press has not paid too much attention to is the need for terrorist surveillance. In August, Hillary and Obama bragged about opposing the FISA bill (at the Kos convention if I recall correctly). Now the Democrats in the House this weak moved to weaken FISA and the Governor was the first (and perhaps only??) candidate out highlighting the House’s position and he also addressed the issue back in the September debate when a surveillance question was asked. When terrorists call the USA a Romney Administration is going to be listening.
John Edwards, Entrapped
1. Tabloid prints trash story about presidential candidate, deep inside, not even teased off the cover
2. Elite media pretends to ignore trash story but secretly makes inquiries
3. Local TV news station asks candidate about trash story
4. Later, Elite media's editors tell field reporters it's ok to ask candidate about trash story because he's already been asked about it.
5. Elite media asks about trash story
6. Candidate answers
7. Elite media runs the story on the pretext that the denial has made the story legitimate.
8. Elite media looks for different angles to justify running the story.
Who Will Gore Endorse?
Assuming that Al Gore has been honest about having no "intention" to run for president this year, the only real question for this nation's newest Nobel laureate is who he'll endorse.
Two candidates -- John Edwards and Barack Obama -- are working the ref. Gore has met privately with both men, and the two were the first to e-mail congratulatory statements upon the news of Gore's Nobel dropping. (Edwards's campaign hit the trigger at 5:17 a.m.)
When will Gore endorse? His associates say the assume it will be in December.
Unless his "intentions" change.
October 11, 2007
The Politics Of Lieberman-Kyl, Part 1
A reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening
So said Barack Obama in a November, 2006 speech to the Council on World Affairs in Chicago.
Today, Obama's campaign is testing an online advertisement that subtly, without using Hillary Clinton's name, implies that Obama alone is fighting efforts by the Bush Administration to start a war with Iran. And in a New Hampshire Union Leader op-ed, Obama points out that Clinton was the "only Democratic presidential candidate" to support the Lieberman-Kyl amendment to the defense authorization bill, an amendment that, in Obama's words, "directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran."
Sen. Clinton says she was merely voting for more diplomacy, not war with Iran. If this has a familiar ring, it should. Five years after the original vote for war in Iraq, Sen. Clinton has argued that her vote was not for war -- it was for diplomacy, or inspections
There are at least four questions to unpack.
(a) Does Lieberman-Kyl provide a pathway for war with Iran?
(b) Is it, indeed, analogous to the AUMF resolution in 2002?
(c) Has Obama been leading the charge against saber-rattling?
(d) Would Obama actually do anything different than what Clinton would do?
Here's an attempt to answer these questions.
(A) -- arguably, an unamended version of Lieberman-Kyl contained aggressive language. See here.
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
But this language was deleted from the amendment that Clinton voted for.
So here is what Obama objects to:
It's the first paragraph under the "Sense of Senate" heading.
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical, long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf adn the Middle east, in particular with regard to the Government of ... Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy.
It is not immediately apparent how this portion of the amendment conflicts with Obama's 2006 sentiment: he argued that a "reduced but active" presence of U.S. troops would do just what Lieberman-Kyl finds necessary: to "send a clear message to hostile countries..."
To argue this is to interpret history; to Obama, the answer is yes. To some proponents of Lieberman-Kyl who want to strike at Iran, the answer is yes. Of course the Bush Administration believes that the resolution is tantamount to Congressional authorization to strike at the Revolutionary Guards because they're now officially a terrorist group. Why? Because they cannot be trusted, not even one little bit. And Clinton -- remember, this is Obama's argument -- has made exactly the same mistake again.
For Obama, the text of the resolution itself doesn't matter so much as the intentions of the authors and the intentions of the Bush Administration.
To Clinton, and based on a plain reading of the texts of both resolutions, the answer is no. The resolution doesn't give the administration the authority to pick its nose. Obama himself believes that the Revolutionary Guards should be designated a terrorist organization. And he has acknowledged that the presence of troops in the Middle East should at least in part be structured so as to consider our national security interests vis-a-vis Iran.
For example, the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq resolution includes this explicit paragraph:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Among those Dems who voted AGAINST the Iraq War resolution but voted FOR Lieberman-Kyl: Sens. Durbin, Levin, Akaka, Conrad, Mikulski, Murray, Reed and Stabenow. That's Sen. Dick Durbin, a chief Obama adviser and close friend.
Tomorrow: I'll try to answer questions 3 and 4.
The Rest Of The Stories, 10/11
Hillary Clinton breaks 50 in a second national poll, and Hillary Hub exalts: Hillary Jumps To 32-Point Lead As Obama Goes On The Attack.
The RNC is launching the Hillary Clinton Spend-O-Meter to keep track of how much her policy proposals will cost the hard-working taxpayers, or so the RNC says.
Rudy Giuliani may have a problem with facts, Factcheck.org says. Fred Thompson does not.
Per National Journal/NBC News' Mike Memoli, here's what Bill Richardson said about Clinton's decision to stay on the Michigan primary ballot:
"She thinks she's the nominee so she doesn't want to alienate Michigan voters," Richardson told reporters in Manchester today. "You can't have it both ways. She's not the nominee."
John Edwards's campaign says it plans to add two dozen staff members to Nevada ahead of the caucuses, the AP first reported today.
A new Mitt Romney radio in South Carolina features Sen. Jim DeMint and the message: Stop Snitchin'. Uh, Sorry -- Stop Spending. BTW: Are evangelicals moving toward Romney? Maybe, maybe not.
Your 10/21 Florida Republican Debate podium order: Screen Left – Screen Right: Tancredo, Paul, Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Brownback and Hunter.
The creative Clinton fundraising machine rolls on. Next Wednesday, they're hosting all-day national "Women's Finance Council Summit" at a Washington, D.C. hotel.
This column was e-mailed an invitation.
"The National Women’s Finance Council Summit on October 17th is a historic event not to be missed," it says. "This unique fundraiser is the first annual gathering of women for Hillary from all fifty states. Our all-day program includes political and issue break-out sessions, a conversation with Senator Hillary Clinton, and discussions with issue leaders and top national campaign staff."
By all day, they mean 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
An e-mail sent to some participants includes this caveat: "As a reminder, no seats can be reserved until you have contributed either at the $1,000 or the $2300 level. If you have maxed out, you raise a minimum of $4,000 to attend."
$2300 gets you an invite and a personal photograph with Clinton.
Those wanting to stake the event out can try to bypass security at the Capital Hilton.
Iowa's Youngest Dem Legislator (Also An Iraq War Vet) Endorses Biden
Here's an advance look at the big endorsement that Sen. Joe Biden's team is bragging about today.
He's Iowa State Rep. McKinley Bailey, all of 26 years old. Bailey will announce his endorsement of Biden at Iowa's state capitol building alongside Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
"After returning from serving in Iraq, I quickly grew frustrated by my impression that leaders in both political parties did not understand the fundamental challenges to ending the war in Iraq," Bailey says in a statement. "When I first learned of Sen. Biden's plan, I realized that was the ticket - a political solution, not a military one. I am endorsing him because from day one, our next president must make decisions on the direction in Iraq and I am convinced Senator Biden has the knowledge and experience to bring our troops home without leaving a situation that requires another generation of Americans to return in a decade."
Mr. Bailey, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne division and a veteran of more than 100 combat missions, had been courted by all the major presidential candidates. Like ten other state legislators, he chose Biden.
Biden's strategy is predicated in part on high-profile legislative endorsements; he raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Iowa House candidates in 2006.
Iowa Democratic caucus goers skew older...and Mr. Biden's demographic is probably older than older, but young Mr. Bailey might open up a new vista: all those young Democrats that Barack Obama is trying to bring into the system.
Sanford Won't Endorse Giuliani -- Not Today or Tomorrow, Anyway
Breaking news: Mark Sanford... is not going to endorse Rudy Giuliani today or tomorrow, although the state of South Carolina is filled with breathless speculation to that effect.
A Giuliani aide confirms that while Giuliani will indeed recieve an endorsement in the state Friday, it's not going to be Sanford's.
Bill Gardner's Textualism
Any remaining confusion about the 2008 presidential character can be laid at the feet of one man: New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, William Gardner. The moment Gardner sets the date is the moment the confusion vanishes.
When it comes to the, Mr. Gardner is a strict constructionist of the Scalia variety. New Hampshire MUST hold its primary seven days before any other delegate-producing contest. It must preserve its status as the first-in-the-nation primary. Gardner’s worldview is circumscribed by the narrow language of New Hampshire state law. And this year, that might be a problem, because the real reason Gardner is empowered to set the date has little to do with the text of the law and has everything to do with a subject that the law does not address: the influence New Hampshire exerts on the rest of the calendar.
The Catch 22: If Gardner, sitting in his Concord silo, follows the letter of the law, he will probably wind up reducing New Hampshire’s influence. If he broadens the scope of his consideration to include New Hampshire’s influence, then he probably cannot follow the letter of the law and will be forced to make compromises.
Mr. Gardner knows that the Democratic National Committee is ready to permit Nevada to move its caucuses to Jan. 12. Gardner seems to have already rejected the idea that, as a “caucus”, Nevada would be irrelevant to his date-setting decision. So – subtracting seven days from Jan. 12 gives you Jan. 5. But Gardner knows, too, that the Iowa Republican Party (and the Iowa Democratic Party, probably) have arrived at a Jan. 3 date for their caucuses. What about Wyoming? If Gardner wants to schedule his primary for January, he’ll have to ignore that state’s Jan. 5 Republican convention.
If Gardner is a strict constructionist, your New Hampshire will be in December.
Rep. Jim Splaine (D-NH), the inventor of New Hampshire’s primary language and a close friend of Bill Gardner’s, has floated the idea of a Dec. 11 primary, arguing that “A NH Primary on or around December 11th would mean that after our event, the "winners" and those "exceeding expectations" would be exposed to a great deal of nationwide analysis during the Holiday Season as to just why they did so well, or not, and how their showing in New Hampshire will affect the next race in Iowa and other states beginning the first week of January. That contributes to the respected "impact" of the NH lead-off primary, and sets us in good position to remain first and relevant for 2012 and beyond.”
A horrible idea, responded Kathy Sullivan, the former state party chair.
1. It will be the end of the primary going forward into the future. While we'll still schedule one, the candidates won't come. Why? Because we will have proven what we have denied all these years: that we are arrogant people who only care about New Hampshire, and that we want to go first just because we want to go first, not because of grass roots politics, not because of our dedication to democracy. Say goodbye to the primay, and turn the lights off behind you!
2. There are about 48 states very unhappy with Michigan and Florida right now, for ignoring the party rules and moving their primaries up, exacerbating frontloading and putting chaos into the calendar. New Hampshire needs allies to keep our position, If we go before Christmas, we will lose whatevere good will we have left.
3. A December 11 primary will not enhance a candidate's chances nomination chances. It will make the results irrelevant. Why? Because the results will be lost in the shuffle of the Thanksgiving, Christmas and other holidays, college football playoffs, and the three weeks before the Iowa caucus. We will not matter - and frankly, if we move the primary into December, nearly a year before the general election, we don't deserve to matter.
For what it's worth, almost everyone in New Hampshire -- aside from Gardner's own circle of friends -- agrees with Sullivan.
Dissing Michigan: Did The Democrats Screw Up?
Those Democrats who removed their names from the Michigan Primary ballot sure angered a lot of important people, but did they do irreparable harm to the party's interests in the state?
The jury's ... hung.
1. Michigan's economy being what it is, the state is sometimes shielded from national crosswinds. If Granholm's tax hike proves unpopular, Dems could have a tougher-than-expect time in '08 and the GOP base in Michigan (alone) could be energized. But -- the crosswinds kept Granholm in office in 2006, the UAW is still the state's most powerful political force, the state is still probably more blue than red, and only certain Republican candidates have a plausible shot here.
2. Are state Dem activists likely to punish the Democratic nominee if he is among the opter-outers? Unclear. Would their level of activity be diminished? Would the Democratic coordinated campaign here be riven by internal disputes?
3. Is Michigan completely discounted in the primaries? I asked the executive producer of an influential television program last night whether he'd cover the delegate-less Democratic primary like the half-delegate-less Republican primary. No, he said. The GOP primary was real; the Dem primary wasn't. The answer to question three can be found in the degree to which other media gatekeepers believe this particular executive producer.
4. Will Iowans punish Hillary Clinton (and Chris Dodd) for remaining on the ballot? Probably not -- they're mercurial, generally, but tend to care about more important things.
5. Will this redouble the efforts of Debbie Dingell, Carl Levin and others to crush Iowa and New Hampshire once and for all when the DNC begins to think about the 2012 cycle? Yes indeed.
6. Will Hillary Clinton get important national endorsements because of the sleight to Michigan? Maybe the UAW's.
7. Will the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire (and Nevada, assuming that it goes on the 12th of January), exert an influence on how the media covers Michigan? Yes.
October 10, 2007
Obama and Edwards Bludgeon Clinton
There's something in the air, apparently. Or it's the anniversary of the Democrats' Original Sin.
First, from John Edwards, on Iran and Lieberman-Kyl:
Evidently, Senator Clinton and I learned two very different lessons from the Iraq war. I learned that if you give President Bush even an inch of authority, he will use it to sanction a war. As the New Yorker recently reported, the administration is actively preparing plans to attack Iran. Despite this clear evidence, Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a bill Senator Clinton supported and that takes this nation one step closer to war. While Senator Clinton tries to argue both sides of the issue, the truth is her vote opens the door for the president to attack Iran. I believe we must not allow the president to use force against Iran when so many other diplomatic and economic options are still available.”
And then, Obama, in an interview with the Associated Press's Phil Elliott:
"What's clear when you look at her statements and her approach to the problem, she was too willing to give the president a blank check. There's been a little bit of revisionist history since that time, where she indicates she was only authorizing inspectors or additional diplomacy," Obama said. "I think everybody in Washington and people in New Hampshire and round the country understood this was a vote for war. The question is: Does she apply different judgment today?"
Obama criticized Clinton's vote in support of a bill that would designate Iranian special forces as a terrorist organization - "something that I think many of us would agree" - but blasted "language in the bill that would state that the structure of our forces in Iraq should, in some sense, be dependent on our need to check Iran."
Actually, the AP's lede seems to be more juiced up than Obama's phrasing.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's choices in the lead-up to the war in Iraq and unclear statements about torture should give voters pause, Democratic rival Barack Obama said on Wednesday, the fifth anniversary of Congress' vote to authorize military action there.
Contrived Displacement Story Of The Day
Meaning -- political controversies manufactured by the elite that serve only the interests of politicians and interest groups; that displace insecurities of their respective political bases; that fill hours of cable television; that matter, in the end, not a whit. The outrage is generally, though not always, contrived. One sure sign: when the words "refused to condemn" appear in the lead sentence of a press release.
Democrats on Boehner on the war's cost
Democrats on Limbaugh on "phony troops"
Republicans on "MoveOn"'s Petreaus Ad
Republicans on Ahmadinejad
Other submissions and nominations?
"Exigencies" versus "Consult The Lawyers"
The matter of Line Item v. Unconstitutional apparently having been settled in favor of null set, the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney turned today to each others' bouts with curious phraseology last night.
The bottom line, though, is that both Romney and Giuliani have intellectually defensible arguments and simply committed the venial sin of using the wrong words to express them.
So far as sinful language goes, Mitt Romney's was by far the most titillating.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?”
ROMNEY: “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...”
MATTHEWS: “Did he need it?”
ROMNEY: “You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people -- leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.”
Yes, well -- ought not a presidential candidate have an original opinion about the legal necessity of obtaining Congressional permission to launch a war? Or launching pre-emptive strikes against Iran? But -- to borrow a Rudy phrase -- exigencies really do matter here. The context matters, and it's absurd to think that a President Giuliani would refuse to get Congressional permission if his lawyers told him he had to. The Giuliani campaign sent this statement from a surrogate: “Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make. Lawyers should not debate while our national security is on the line. In these momentous decisions, we need leadership, not litigation.” Ok, well -- the question here is not about war, it's about an Osirak -like strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Even Giuliani did not give an unequivocal answer: here's what he said:
"It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is, that it really is an exigent circumstance. It's desirable, it's safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress."
It seems like they're saying the same thing. Romney just said it much more clumsily. The clumsier the phrasing, the more political damage can accrue.
You had to know the Giuliani campaign would go here:
SOUND FAMILIAR? ANOTHER MASSACHUSETTS POLITICIAN ALSO WANTED A NATIONAL SECURITY TEST …
This refers to the last sentence of Romney's remark -- the part where talks about, "certainly," the desire to have "agreement" among allies before undertaking such an action.
It seems to be that both Romney and Giuliani would agree with the following statements:
1. If circumstances -- whatever they might be -- demanded it, if the national security threat was immediate and urgent, the President has the authority to launch pinpoint or strategic military action on his or her own.
2. Both would prefer to get Congress's permission -- and, in fact, anticipate that if the scenario comes to pass, they would, of course, go to Congress.
3. Giuliani and Romney do not agree that the Congress MUST be consulted or given veto power over every military action the president has the means to executive. The contours of this disagreement are probably best worked out by lawyers, like Ted Olson.
4. Romney and Giuliani disagree with Fred Thompson, who believes that legitimacy is crucial to the success of any military endeavor and would always seek authorization from Congress before acting.
5. Romney is sensitive to what many in the world community and even many Republicans believe was a failure of diplomacy before the Iraq war; he reasons that America's national security might be harmed by another wave of blowback unless the American President can convince allied countries and the world of the nature of the threat.
6. Giuliani does not seem to share Romney's sensitivity and instead favors a stick-and-stick approach -- world opinion, in the short term, be damned if there are threats to our security.
7. The general consensus of Republican political strategists is that it is unwise to betray, in the context of national security, any care in the world for what other countries might think. If that consensus correctly interprets the opinion of Republican voters, then Romney's careful, intellectually honest answer might well be used against him later.
Expanding The Field Update
Hillary Clinton will soon open a full-time campaign office in Arkansas.
The Hillary Clinton for President Campaign office in Arkansas is set to open. We continue to put the final touches together so we can get to work everyday to win The Natural State for Hillary! Please make plans to join us Thursday, October 11, 2007 for our official office opening. Former DNC Chairman and Hillary’s Chief Fundraiser Terry McAuliffe will be here, too! Please come to meet Terry and open the office in style.
What: Arkansas Headquarters Opening
When: Thursday October 11, 2007, 4:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Where: 110 State St., Little Rock, AR 72202
Thompson's Strategy For The South
Fred Thompson's road to the nomination, his advisers say, begins with a bridge to South Carolina. Now -- a bridge has two ends, and it looks like the anchorage is Iowa.
But how can Thompson possibly compete with Rudy Giuliani** on Feb. 5? New York? California? New Jersey?
Thanks to a quirk in the Republican delegate allocation schema, conservative, Republican candidates have an edge. The Republican National Committee awards bonus delegates to states based on their performance in general elections. States that always vote Republican get additional delegates; states like New York that vote Democratic do not. Bonus delegates account for about 20 of the total number.
The disparity can be significant. New York has four times as many voters as Georgia does but awards only 30% more delegates -- about 104 to Georgia's 72. So a strong performance by Thompson in Southern states on Feb. 5. could balance out Giuliani wins in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware.
However: the Giuliani campaign persuaded state parties in their prime states to change the rules and award all delegates to a single winner. Georgia, North Carolina, Illinois, Alabama and other states award their delegates proportionally. So if the race is down to two candidates -- Thompson and Giuliani -- Giuliani would come in second in the Southern states and receive enough delegates to maintain his advantage.
The New Republic's John Judis ran the numbers based on current polling and concluded that Giuliani would exit Feb. 5 with a delegate lead of at least 150. Judis foresees state-by-state trench warfare, but the dynamics of momentum will probably winnow the field, especially if the Democrats consolidate their support for a single candidate.
This scenario assumes that only Giuliani and Thompson will be left. But the million dollar man, Ted Di..Mitt Romney, is just as likely, given what we know now, to persevere and maybe even thrive in January of 2008.
Giuliani still might win his winner-take-all Northern states. He may alternate with Romney for second and third in some of the other states. The result is, ironically, that Thompson's and Romney's delegate counts may be diluted. And Giuliani still seems to have an edge.
In Michigan, Dem Decision Upstages Republican Debate
October 9, 2007
The Debate: Thompson Passes A Test; Giuliani and Romney Spar
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani found himself the target of criticism from rival Mitt Romney in a lively and substantive debate that highlighted the diversity of the Republican field and the political cross-pressures they confront.
First time debater Fred Thompson seemed well prepared and did not give in to fruity abstractions when talking about obtuse topics. Some of his rivals may have assumed that he would wither under tough questions from the moderators: he did not. Some journalists may have assumed that he would slouch or tire; he seemed energetic. If this was a test, artificial as it may have been, Thompson passed it. He demonstrated that his campaign has density. He did not fall for any of the traps that the moderators laid for him.
The exchange between Romney and Giuliani on the line item veto will clearly go down as the soundbite moment of the debate. Haymakers flew in both directions. Later, in an e-mailed statement, Giuliani’s campaign enlisted former Solicitor General Ted Olson to lash Romney:
"The Clinton Administration line item veto was unconstitutional. Anyone who does not understand that has not read the Supreme Court's opinion striking it down and does not have a clear understanding of the Constitution."
Later, Romney’s rivals immediately pounced on what they saw as a gaffe: Romney, responding to a question about whether President Bush was obligated to get Congress’s permission before attacking Iraq, said: “"We’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and didn’t need to do." Romney did give a stronger response on military action on the back end.
Surprisingly, it was Fred Thompson who said that whether or not the President had to get Congress’s permission, it ought to – even in close calls. “You should go to Congress, whether it’s legally required or not.”
The candidates dodged a question about ethanol; the candidates said they supported heavy subsidies for that industry, which disproportionately benefit farmers in Iowa. Romney, a free trader, acknowledged he believes in “domestic supports” for the country’s food industry.
Republicans looking for differences among the candidates found a few. Huckabee, Tancredo and
Hunter opposed the current round of trade agreements’ he rest of the candidates supported it.
Huckabee and Hunter explained their support of the “Fair Tax.” The other candidates oppose it. Romney wants a line item veto; Giuliani thinks a constitutional amendment is needed. Romney, McCain and Giuliani seemed to be less gung go about getting Congressional approval for strategic strikes than Thompson.
Props to, in no particular order:
Hillary Clinton: for a guest appearance as the Democratic presidential nominee
McCain: for tailoring his appeal to heartland Republicans; for giving props to Giuliani; for speaking about health care and jobs; for mentioning “legacy costs.:” For repeating his opposition to ethanol subsidies. For admitting that he doesn't know enough about interest rates to say whether the Fed should cut rates.
Giuliani, for repeatedly invoking Hillary Clinton and her allegedly extravagant, nefarious liberal schemes. And for showing off his sunny optimism.
Hunter: for distinguishing himself, finally, in a debate, by defining himself as the race’s protectionist.
Romney: knowing the ins and outs of the Michigan economy; for landing a punch about the line item veto; he got a full minute and a half to explain his health care plan.
Huckabee: for nothing in specific, but everything in general. For admitting that he might not veto SCHIP because of political considerations and substantive considerations.
Brownback: for saying “This place rocks.” And “Don’t pick on my mother.” He got applause for saying he'd support a nominee that is "pro growth" and "pro life."
Thompson: for eclipsing (artificial) low expectations; for holding his own. For giving specifics about how he’d solve the long term solvency problems of Medicare and Social Security. He seemed to give the best answer in re: unions.
Tancredo: for poking fun at his obsession with illegal immigration.
Paul: for making the anti-monetarist argument and getting applause for it.
Chris Matthews and Maria Bartiromo: for letting the candidates talk; for making the debate about the candidates; for asking the question about labor unions.
Romney's Friendly (?) Jab At Thompson
Romney: "These debates are a little like Law and Order. It has a huge cast. The series seems to go on forever. And Fred Thompson shows up at the end."
Thompson: "And to think, I was going to be the best actor on the stage."
Samples Of Some Of The Rapid Response Statements
From Thompson's campaign: ROMNEY ON HILLARYCARE...Romney criticized HillaryCare for bringing government into health care. ....However, some see "striking resemblances" between HillaryCare and RomneyCare."\\
From Giuliani's campaign: "Just the Facts #6: ROMNEY ONCE AGAIN RUNS FROM ROMNEYCARE."
From Giuliani's campaign: " Just the Facts #5: Thompson Opposed Contract for America's Call for Tort Reform"
From Romney's campaign: " BIG CITY, BIG SPENDER: How Mayor Giuliani Went To Court And Killed The Presidential Line-Item Veto"
From the Giuliani campaign: " The Rudy Reality: Mayor Giuliani Turned Deficit Into Surplus By Slashing City Spending"
Paul Gets Applause For Calling His Fellow Republicans Warmongers.
Paul:
This idea and going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. It's in the constitution. [To his This is just war propaganda…preparing the nation to go to the war not only into Iraq but also into Iran."
Did The President Need Congress's Authorization To Go To War In Iraq?
Here's Romney's answer:
"We’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and didn’t need to do."
Thompson's Supply Side Response To AMT Question
He doesn't buy the premise that if the AMT tax is cut, the government will lose revenue. "Generally speaking, lower taxes and lower tax rates improve the economy. I would apply that same principle to the AMT."
He proposes to index it to inflation for a year as a temporary fix.
Thompson's Prep Work
is paying off. He clearly prepared for the debate and has enough facts and statistics to back up his answers.
Giuliani and Romney Spar Over Line Item Veto
Giuliani "I cut, I think as many taxes as you possibly could during that time." He cites George Will's praise.
Romney: "We both believe in cutting back on spending. But if you want to cut taxes, you've got to cut spending. The best tool the president has had is the line item veto... Giuliani took the line item veto ... all the way to the Supreme Court... I think that was a mistake.... He also kept the commuter tax..."
Giuliani: "The difference is that under Gov. Romney, spending went up in Massachusetts per capita by 8%...in my city, it went down. Look, the line item veto was unconstitutional. I fought Bill Clinton, I beat Bill Clinton. It was unconstitutional. What the heck can you do about that if you're a strict constructionists."
Romney laughs in the middle of the answer.
Giuliani: "I led, he lagged."
Romney: "It's a good line, but it's baloney." He cites the Club for Growth's comparison. And he insists that a line item veto could be constitutional.
Giuliani: "You have to be honest... You don't get to believe about it, the Supreme Court has ruled on it. You can bang your head on the stone wall all you want. I'm in favor of a constitutional line item veto." (huh?)
Says Clinton wanted to illegally take $250M from New Yorkers and he beat Clinton, and Republicans should like to beat Clinton.
Tancredo Touches Third Rail
"If you want to control federal spending, you must touch Social Security and Medicare."
Huckabee On The Fair Tax
Huckabee defends the Fair Tax concept by insisting that it untaxes poor people and productivity.
He also says: "For many people on this stage, the economy is going well. For many other folks, the economy is not going so well."
McCain Gets Cheers
McCain gets the first applause of the night for a comprehensive answer on the condition of the economy. And then the second, for saying that Congress should vote up or down on a "fairer, simple tax code."
Ron Paul, The Anti-Monetarist
"You've got...a transfer of wealth between the poor and the middle class to the wealthy. When you inflate or destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out. The money gravitates to the banks and to Wall Street."
He knows his stuff, but in the context of all these board stiffs, he sounds a little off-kilter.
"If you want a healthy country, you have to study monetary theory..." etc.
Romney Sounds Like A Gubernatorial Candidate Here
(That's a compliment).
He let off a great line about the tax-raising Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm.
"I figured she was going to put a tax on the debate before it was finished."
Thompson Answers A Question At The Debate
Thompson asked if we’re headed for a recession. Low expectations shatter. He doesn't doze off.
“There is no reason to believe that we’re headed for a recession. We’re enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth…starting with the tax cuts we put into place…low inflation, low unemployment… I see no reason we’re headed for an economic downturn. … but we are spending money we don’t have.”
Why do analysts fear a recession? He trots out the old "not enough has been done to tell the story" of the economy.
Hari Sevugan, communications director for Sen. Chris Dodd, e-mails:
“We are committed to the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire going first, and we signed the four-state pledge to hopefully prevail upon the DNC and the state parties to add clarity to that situation. However, it does not benefit any of us if we are the nominee to pull our name off the ballot and slight Michigan voters.”
Clinton Won't Pull Out Of Michigan
Sen. Hillary Clinton's name is staying on the Michigan Democratic primary ballot.
A campaign aide said this afternoon that Clinton will not follow four of her rivals by dropping out of the Michigan contest.
"We will honor the pledge and not campaign or spend money in any state that is not in compliance with the DNC calendar, but it is not necessary to take the steps necessary to remove Senator Clinton's name from the ballot," said Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director.
In Michigan, Dems Stiff Dems
Prominent Michigan Democrats are scrambling to try to persuade Democratic presidential candidates to reverse their decision to remove themselves from Michigan's presidential primary ballot.
Earlier today, candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden informed the party that they would not participate in its Jan. 15 primary because it violates the Democratic National Committee's calendar rules.
As it stands, a Jan. 15 Michigan Democratic Primary would be little more than a beauty contest, but with a caveat: The Republicans, on that same day, will hold a real contest with real delegates at stake, and it will be a challenge for the media to completely ignore the Democratic contest.
The Democrats were acting in advance of a 4pm ET ballot deadline today. For weeks, Michigan Democrats have kept their heads down, hoping that a lack of overt pressure on the candidates would cause the deadline to float by without incident.
There's been no comment from Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. She'd be the prohibitive favorite to win the state's primary.
Previewing Today's Debate
DEARBORN, MI --
Bullet points:
** The audience: Remember, these candidates aren't debating economic policy for a general audience or even for the corporate executives who're watching on CNBC. The candidates want to stick to the outlines broad elite conservative economic consensus: no matter what the economic conditions are, no matter how complex the phenomenon, the answers are free markets, lower taxes, less government and less regulation. Except for Defense. With some exceptions, the base expects to hear these answers. The moderators have a different agenda: they want the candidates to talk about the subprime mortgage crisis and the credit crunch, the complexity of incentives in the health care market, corporate welfare, the environment, and more. The candidates want to keep things simple; the moderators will be throwing curve balls.
** Fred Thompson -- the media and the public probably have different expectations. The media expects him to bumble, bramble and freeze up with facial ticks. The television audience -- C-suiters on CNBC -- probably want some demonstration that Thompson knows the fundamentals of the subject. The regular audience -- those potential voters who will see clips of of the debate or will read about it -- will see Thompson at his best or at his worst.
** The optics: Thompson will stand his 6"5 inch frame between the almost-as-tall Mitt Romney and the fair-amount-shorter Rudy Giuliani. Thompson tends to slouch; that lends him an air of weariness and fatigue.
** Chris and Maria -- these are two debate moderators with ... ample self-confidence. Do they let the candidates answer questions fully? Do they interrupt? Do they go off-topic? Since these are economic topics, how much background do they provide?
** How much policy is actually debated? All of the Republicans will mouth their fealty to the free market, to market-oriented health care, to the American entrepreneurial spirit, to the virtues of small government. They seem to agree on the basics; on the specifics they differ widely. Huckabee has raised taxes in his state to pay for roads and education; he now supports the fair tax. Romney and Giuliani don't have perfect records given the desires of this primary; McCain has always received applause when he chastises Congressional Republicans for spending like drunken sailors.
** Does anyone challenge Thompson directly? Probably not Giuliani and Romney. They assume that the moderators will throw some curve balls at him, and at this stage, Romney wants to avoid as much as possible the perception that he occupies the same tier as Thompson.
** Is there any residual anger between John McCain and Thompson? The two were close friends; earlier this year, Thompson was even helping McCain raise money.
A Mini Policy Briefing
We've seen two days worth of major policy initiatives from Democrats timed for the year's first economic themed Republican debate.
Yesterday, Obama explained how he would cut emissions by 80 percent over the next 40 years. There are plenty of retread features -- investment in new technology, at the like, but some fairly interesting innovations.
The highlight, as pointed out by a reader, is Obama's approach to a cap-and-trade regime. Obama would create a carbon auction, where companies that can't meet the mandatory emissions cap would purchase credits from other companies or buy permits from the government. Obama would require the entire lot of tradable permits to be purchased.
So -- by paying for the credits upfront, Obama is, in effect, taxing the polluter. Remember, Sen. Chris Dodd proposed a carbon tax with an emissions cap, hoping to create disincentives for consumption.
Today, as part of her campaign's Middle Class economy month, Hillary Clinton unveils what her campaign is calling her most significant policy proposal after health care. It has a catchy -- or kitchsy -- name -- American retirement accounts. Under Clinton's plan, the government would match contributions to a tax-free retirement fund administered like a 401K. Depending on income level, participants could get between $500 and $1000 added to the account per year from the government. A version of Clinton's plan -- in fact, versions of lots of Clinton plans -- were first floated by Democratic economist Gene Sperling in Democracy.
A side note: per today's Wall Street Journal, the $5000 baby bond idea so gleefully McGovernized by Rudy Giuliani, is dead.
Another Corporate Debate
DEARBORN, MI -- For those concerned about the corporatization of our political debates, thank your lucky stars that you're not in Dearborn today.
Today's debate is being held at the Henry Ford Performance Hall, which is right across the street from the headquarters of Ford Motor Company, which is down the street from the Ford estate (where the Michigan GOP is having a high dollar fundraiser) which is a few blocks away from "The Henry Ford," a complex dedicated to cars, and to the life of Henry Ford.
On the tables in the spin room, seats are demarked by a button advertising the '08 Ford Escape Hybrid. Large "Ford" signs adorn the background. The free lunch provided to reporters is, alas, not sponsored by the auto industry. The American Arab Chamber of Commerce, based in Dearborn, is doing the honors.
RNC Chairman's Race... In The Event Of A Loss
One sign of the malaise within the Republican Party: insiders are already positioning themselves to run for chairman of the party when the current Mike Duncan era ends in 2009.
So far, only one would-be chair has expressed interest publicly: South Carolina's charismatic state party chairman, Katon Dawson. But Dawson's rivals contend that his decision to muse about his intentions was a mistake; the chair is not a position one actively runs for.
But party activists are talking about two other names as well. One is Florida's chairman, James Greer, a former Oviedo, FL city council member.
The other is current party general counsel Blake Hall, an RNC naitonal committeeman from Idaho who has held almost every major party office.
And what of Saul Anuzis, the outspoken, high-profile chairman of the Michigan Republican Party?
"I'm going to support our nominee's choice for chairman," he said.
A Silver Lining For Edwards In The SEIU's Non-Endorsement?
Make no mistake: John Edwards campaigned hard for the Service Employees International Union endorsement. He succeeded in winning over key members of the union's executive board. His public alliance with labor after the 2004 elections set a level of expectations that Edwards has not met.
Barack Obama was the skunk at the party, even more so than Hillary Clinton. There was enough enthusiasm for Obama among the SEIU's rank-and-file that an endorsement of Edwards would have created internal dissension.
But notice: instead of letting each individual local endorse -- a move that would have diluted the SEIU's political power entirely, the board settled for a middle ground. The SEIU will require that locals join together and decide on a single endorsement per state. That means that Edwards could very well get the key endorsements of SEIU locals in Iowa (its nurses and state employees are powerful) and New Hampshire (ok, not so powerful.)
"States that vote for Edwards can work together," an Edwards adviser said last night. "No SEIU affiliate can engage or work inside a state that does not share their endorsement. For example if Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada go for Edwards, only states that support Edwards will be able to work with those early states. Illinois will endorse Obama but will not be able to send people or resources into Iowa."
That's true -- but it's not at all clear that the Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada SEIUs are ready to endorse Edwards.
Consider Nevada: The small local there was tasked by the international union with holding a straw poll last weekend. As proxies, Clinton sent Rory Reid, son of Harry Reid, and Chris Giunchigliani, a powerful Clark County commissioner. Obama sent Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Steven Horseford, an African American state senator and head of the Culinary Union's training academy. Edwards sent a state assemblywoman.
The nation's largest union won't make a unified endorsement and will instead let its local unions choose their own adventures. Credit (or blame) rank-and-file enthusiasm for Barack Obama and the growing (fair or unfair) perception that Hillary Clinton is walking away with the nomination. The SEIU endorsement was coveted by ex-Sen. John Edwards; it will not be his.
CHICAGO – Citing the strength of the presidential field on the key issues for working families, and the importance of the 2008 election on the future of America, SEIU local unions will decide on presidential primary endorsements on a state-by-state basis.
“The outcome of this election will decide whether we finally achieve comprehensive, affordable healthcare for everyone, whether we bring economic security and fairness to working people, whether we bring our sons and daughters home from a civil war in Iraq, and whether working people in America finally have the freedom to form unions without intimidation,” said SEIU President Andy Stern. “Given the importance of this election, we are encouraging members and leaders to act on their passion for the candidates and get involved on a statewide basis.”
SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger said: “Any one of these candidates would help create a new American dream for workers and their families. Once we have a nominee, SEIU members and leaders will launch the largest and most comprehensive campaign in our history to help elect a president who truly cares about working families.”
Local unions in each state will decide in a democratic process whether and/or whom to endorse. Endorsement decisions will not be announced before October 15. States that endorse will engage in positive campaign activities on behalf of their endorsed candidate in their state.
SEIU members will continue their commitment to changing America by working together on key issues, such as overriding President Bush’s veto of children’s healthcare, and mobilizing for SEIU’s largest grassroots effort in history to elect a pro-worker president.
Already the top presidential candidates have been more involved with SEIU members than ever before, including being interviewed by members and walking a day in a member’s shoes at work and home.
Giuliani Will Attend Family Research Council's Washington Briefing After All
The Family Research Council announced that ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani has agreed to attend its Washington Briefing event later this month.
Giuliani will speak for 20 minutes on October 20.
The FRC's president is Tony Perkins, who does not want Giuliani to win the Republican nomination and has said so, many times, in public.
The FRC event will also honor James Dobson's contributions to the social conservative movement.
Giuliani was the last major Republican candidate to send in his RSVP.
Don't You Think Rudy Giuliani's Ad Team Has Banked This Headline?
A Weekend Of Iran And Iraq Questions For Hillary Clinton, Courtesy of John Edwards
Twice this weekend, Sen. Hillary Clinton found herself on the recieving end of tough questions about the Middle East, courtesy of the indirect influence of -- not Barack Obama -- but John Edwards.
First, Randall Rolph, the Iowa Democrat who raised Howard Dean's temperature with intemperate questions in January of 2004, asked Clinton about her vote in favor of Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which decreed that Iran's Revolutionary Guards were a terrorist organization. Rolph told Clinton that, in his opinion, her vote was a step towards giving George W. Bush the authority to use military force against Iran.
On Sunday, per NBC's Athena Jones, Clinton was asked to explain Edwards's accusation that she did not "have any plan to bring the combat troops home."
"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began.
She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."
"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."
"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.
Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.
"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said.
Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law. Rolph once again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush a free hand..
"I'm sorry, sir, it does not," she said, her voice showing her exasperation. "No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically changed ... I would never have voted for the first version. The second version ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language."
And here's Jones on the second:
“Edwards said you do not have any plan to bring the combat troops home,” the man said. “What is your specific plan to bring combat troops home from Iraq if you're elected president?"
Clinton defended herself then sought to show there was common ground on the issue with her opponents.
“My plan is to bring them home and I have said that repeatedly,” Clinton said. “Now the plan has to be one that I put into action once I’m president. We do not know what we're going to inherit. That's the sad fact. We have no idea what's going to be happening in January 2009.”
Clinton said her position was pretty much the position of everybody running for the Democratic nomination.
“Nearly all of us running have said we'll protect our embassy and civilian employees. We'll protect as best we can against Al Qaeda in Iraq,” Clinton said. “You have to have some troops that would engage with Al Qaeda. I believe it will primarily be special operations forces they may actually engage in combat against Al Qaeda, but I've never heard any of my opponents say that they didn't think we had to continue to keep Al Qaeda on the run, so I don't really see that there's any difference.”
Romney's First Direct Mail Piece Drops In New Hampshire
It's on fiscal issues.
What Changed Richard Viguerie's Mind About Giuliani?
On Friday, Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct pioneer, circulated a petition on his website urging Republicans to committ to opposing a pro-choice nominee, a la Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City.
We will present the petition to the members of the Republican National Committee, the President and Republican members of Congress, media and blogs, and many other Republican leaders.
It will be a powerful warning to those in a position of influence that, if the GOP turns against unborn children, a significant portion of its base will not vote for Republican candidates.
But in 2000, Viguerie had no compunction about taking money from Giuliani.
According to FEC records and news accounts, Giuliani's abortive (heh) 2000 Senate campaign contracted with American Target Advertising, Viguerie's firm, to the tune of $820,000.
George Allen Endorses Fred Thompson
Former Sen. George Allen has endorsed Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson's presidential campaign and will serve as a member of Thompson's national leadership team.
Also, Thompson will announce today that former TN Sen. Howard Baker will serve as his national campaign chair.
Other members of the leadership team include former State Dept. official Liz Cheney and former Sen. Spence Abraham.
Several of Allen's former advisers are raising money for Thompson or have agreed to serve as advisers to his campaign.
"There Are Some"
Sen. Barack Obama's global energy initiative drops today, and there are plenty of interesting components, including a nationwide emissions cap and trade regime.
By way of soundbites, Obama intends to say this:
“There are some in this race who actually make the argument that the more time you spend immersed in the broken politics of Washington, the more likely you are to change it. I always find this a little amusing. I know that change makes for good campaign rhetoric, but when these same people had the chance to actually make it happen, they didn’t lead. When they had the chance to stand up and require automakers to raise their fuel standards, they refused. When they had multiple chances to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable fuels that we can literally grow right here in America, they said no.”
Another "there are some" comparison. Now, the cognoscienti understands this to be a reference to Mrs. Hillary, but even those Democratic Primary voters who get that he is making a point have no context to understand what the point is.
New Years In Des Moines: We'll Know By October 15
On Friday night, the Republican Party of Iowa's state central committee voted unanimously to recommend Thursday, January 3 as the date of their caucuses.
The committee authorized the party's executive director, Chuck Laudner, to lobby Democrats and urge them to accept the same date. If Laudner succeeds is getting the Democrats to agree, the two parties will announce the date together.
If, by Monday, October 15, Laudner fails, then he's authorized to announce the Jan. 3 date himself.
The beneficiary of the earliest possible caucus date is ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney, whose aides believe that the (shortened) holiday season will freeze the field and prevent any other candidate from surging at the last minute. Romney's allies on the state central committee have been pushing for an early date for months, as soon as it became clear that New Hampshire might set its primary for Jan. 8 or thereabouts.
Republicans predict that the Democrats and the media will both fight for a two-date caucus, where the Dems vote on the 5th.
The likeliest, although by no means assured scenario at this point: the Democrats, after some internal wrangling, yield and agree to a January 3 caucus.
Either way, the Republican Party has decided: the third it is, meaning New Years in Des Moines for all the presidential candidates and their entourages.
Activism And Voyeurism
Beginning today, Republicans will have a neat new way to help their favorite candidate online -- a website that mixes activism and voyeurism.
Slatecard.com fills a real need: an online donation and information aggregation site for Republicans, modeled off ACT Blue, a net-based bundling PAC founded in 2004 for Democrats.
Its co-founders are David All, the Republican net and technology consultant, and Sendhil Panchadsaram, a prodigy web developer. All said the idea came from the large response to a short blog post he added to his website in April. “Let’s get our ACT together,” All urged at the time – Republicans had to create infrastructure to in order to catch up with the Democratic Netroots. (ACT Blue has raised nearly $30M for Democratic candidates since its inception).
In the professional vernacular, All calls Slatecard.com “a utility to support enhanced Republican activism.” In plain language, it’s a way for Republicans to learn about candidates, contribute to candidates, tell candidates which issues they should support, and monitor what their friends and neighbors are thinking and doing.
New users, after browsing a candidate directory, are prompted to create a slate card of candidates the support. All Republican running for House, Senate or president are listed. Then comes the donation. Users enter in their credit card numbers, their basic identification info, click submit, and they’re done. Actually, they’re not. Here comes twist: after having donated, users are taken to a page where they’ll find “Issue Badges” – there are 25 of them – that they can affix to the candidate. They can also enter a short message. Along the right side of the page is a ticker showing who donated, what issue badge they chose, and what message they sent.
“It lets people tap into the voyeuristic element,” All says. The tickers “are the most innovative approach that the site takes.”
This benefits candidates in several ways, All reasons. By checking their page regularly, they can read messages from their supporters. By tallying the number of “Issue Badges” they’ve been given, they can see what their donor activists are concerned about.
The slogan of Slatecard.com: “It’s Fun To Give.” Like ACT Blue, Slatecard.com is organized as a political action committee under federal election law.
October 5, 2007
In New Orleans For A Stop-Over
One cannot help but take pictures.
Every other television ad is campaign-related, here. The names of the candidates fly by, but the phrases do not: "murder capital of the world." "....FEMA...." "flood damage..." "...crumbling schools...." "....poor...." "....criminals....." ".....unconscionable..." ".....badly needed...."
A New Ad In Iowa For Obama
"Judgment is what we need...." Barack Obama's latest Iowa ad features retired Air Force Gen. Tony McPeak, a gravelly-voiced combat pilot, who testifies to Obama's superior wisdom in opposing the current Iraq war from the start.
Obama "is our best hope to restore our security and standing in today's world. The old Washington establishment has let us down..,"
Young Evangelicals Are Less Republican, Still Quite Conservative
Pew's latest microsurvey picks up some interesting juts.
-- Pres. Bush's popularity has fallen precipitously among evangelicals who are 18-29.
-- In 2001, 55% of white young evangelicals said they were Republican. In 2007, 40% do -- although most of the movers haven't become Democrats. Pew says the shift among older evangelicals "has been less dramatic."
-- The aggregate ideological leanings of this group hasn't changed since 2001. A plurality -- 44% -- are conservative. But a majority consider themselves either moderate or liberal.
-- They're more pro-life than their parents.
Iowa Republicans Anxious To Set Caucus Date
The state central committee of the Iowa Republican Party will hold a conference call tonight to discuss feasible dates for the 2008 precinct caucuses. There are as many influential Republicans who want to schedule the caucus for Thursday, Jan 3 as there are who're looking at a slightly later date -- Jan. 5.
We may know shortly what the IA GOP prefers.
The Iowa Democrats, meanwhile, are reserving comment for later, as is the Iowa Secretary of State and his boss, the Governor.
Thompson Loses Key Conservative Adviser Over FMA Stance
Ex-Sen. Fred "Thompson also doesn't support the FMA, which this week prompted one of his key campaign consultants, Bill Wichterman, to walk out. Wichterman, who previously served as conservative outreach director for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., had been considered an important 'get' for Thompson."
For The Third Time In A Week, The RNC Tries To Fundraise Off Hillary Clinton
Reagan’s Disciples Plan Relaunch Of Conservative Movement
Fed up with neocons, theocons and convict cons, a group of former aides to Ronald Reagan want to reanimate the Republican Party by reviving the organization that brought Reagan to power.
The revitalized Citizens For The Republic -- or CFTR -- has already secured $17 million in solid financial commitments, according to an official involved in raising money for the organization.
Craig Shirley, a Republican strategist and historian, has agreed to serve as chairman of the board. Others who will participate or who have agreed to raise money are Paul Laxalt, the former Nevada Senator and close Reagan friend; former Reagan attorney general Richard Allen; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and conservative activists Brent Bozell and Gary Bauer.
The original CFTR was funded with seed money from Reagan's failed 1976 presidential bid and supported his political travels over the next several years. Its PAC doled out tens of thousands of dollars to conservative Republicans across the country.
The new CFTR is predicated on the belief that "the conditions of the party today are almost identical to what they were in 1977," the official said. "By 1977, the party had been betrayed by corruption and betrayal of conservative principles."
CFTR won't have any official sanction from Nancy Reagan or the Reagan Library, but the official involved with CFTR hinted that they would not have proceeded if those entities objected to the idea.
CFTR plans to launch before the presidential primaries. The official would not provide any details as to how it would spend its money or whether it planned to try and influence the presidential nomination contest.
October 4, 2007
From The Trail: Romney v. Rudy
Occasionally, I'm going to run raw dispatches from our NBC/NJ campaign reporters on the campaign trail to illustrate the ebb and flow of daily politics.
Today, Erin McPike on what Mitt Romney said about Rudy Giuliani, and Matthew Berger, on how a Giuliani surrogate responded.
Mitt Romney was asked at a forum at Saint Anselm College's Institute of Politics this morning to contrast his stance on taxes with Rudy Giuliani, and he offered two distinctions: His support for the line-item veto and his pledge for no new taxes.
On the line-item veto, which he launched into first, he blasted Giuliani for arguing against its constitutionality at the Supreme Court during the Clinton administration.
On taxes, he broadened his argument to say that he was the first of all the presidential contenders on both sides of the aisle to sign a pledge against new taxes.
Romney was pressed by reporters after the event to challenge Giuliani's electability argument, which was given a boost today with the release of NBC/WSJ's poll. While he said he didn't want to play pundit, he was forced to explain how he, too, might be able to beat Hillary Clinton. He once again pointed to Michigan as an opportunity for Republicans to gain ground and largely dismissed the idea that New York could be a battleground state.
Gaining his stride against Giuliani, he reiterated that he is the stronger of the two on tax issues and went further in depth on Giuliani's battle with former New York Gov. George Pataki to keep the commuter tax in New York City. Romney recently has been focusing his attacks on Clinton, and today's growing storm against Giuliani marked a shift.
Former Massachusetts Gov. and Giuliani supporter Paul Cellucci responded to Romney's criticism in a conference call Thursday.
"It's a pretty weak argument from a governor who in four years really had no tax cuts for the people of Massachusetts," said Cellucci, calling Romney's attacks a sign of "desperation" as polls tighten in New Hampshire.
Cellucci said Giuliani supported the line-item veto, but believed it needed to be achieved through a constitutional amendment. And he accused Romney of raising taxes for non-Massachusetts residents who worked in the state.
"The record is clear," he said. "Rudy Giuliani cut taxes, brought broad base tax relief for the people of New York."
If Politics Is The Manipulation Of Symbols..
...Then how does this play?
Barack Obama:
"Someone noticed I wasn't warring a flag lapel pin but I am less concerned with what you are wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart... We have to lead on our values and our ideals."
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said Wednesday. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.”
Rudy's Burning
Rudy Giuliani may be concerned about how much money the Democrats are raising, but he sure is spending up a storm.
His burn rate this quarter exceeded 100%. Giuliani reported having $18.3m on hand at end of the second quarter. If the math is right, he wound up spending $12m this quarter.
So both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani spent about 120% of what they took in.
And without his own money, Romney would have about $500,000 in the bank.
Thompson's Final Numbers
Here are Fred Thompson's final numbers:
12.7m raised since June
9.3m for the quarter
7m on hand
80,000 donors
200,000 per day on average since he announced.
Edwards, Out Of The Early States, In His Element
COLUMBUS, KENTUCKY -- The last time Columbus, Kentucky was even mentioned in connection with a president was probably more than 200 years ago, when Thomas Jefferson tinkered with the idea of asking Congress to make this river city the capital of the country.
To see presidential candidate John Edwards, schools let out early. Four of them made it a field trip for civic students. It seemed like the entire town of about 300 people showed up, and then some, because police officers thought the crowd exceeded 1,500. The campaign brought the bar-b-que.
Edwards spoke on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River. A restored Civil War cannon was anchored to the ground about ten feet away. He promised to speak for only a few minutes and answer questions, but then he took some luxury in knowing that these folks had probably never
heard his stump speech before.
“Rural America is who I am, part of who I am,” he said, twice. “I know who you are. I care about what you care about.” When [if] they see Edwards walk across the White House lawn, “I want you to say, that’s my president. He believes in what I believe in.” 25 minutes later, he was done.
Most of the crowd stayed to hear the question-and-answer session. Edwards was asked about health care, education, the Iraq war, nuclear power (a big local issue here), rural policies, the Arab Israeli conflict. At one point, Edwards tried a metaphor: “You don’t make a hog better by weighing,” he said, referring to No Child Left Behind testing metrics. The crowd laughed. That surprised Edwards – that line doesn’t generally compute in New Hampshire and even parts of Iowa. “Kentucky’s a place I can use that line.”
Edwards was sweating heavily by the end of the speech. He spent the next twenty minutes shaking hands. He ducked into his campaign car, toweled off, grabbed a drink of cold war, and then bounded out to a small press conference with reporters.
The Log Cabin Republicans Shoot Back At Mitt Romney
The ad will run on Fox News Channel nationally and other markets in Iowa.
Giuliani Has 16m In The Bank
Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign has banked 16m for the final three pre-primary months.
Due to a spurt of fundraising in the last week of the third quarter, Giuliani managed to raise more than 10.5m. His campaign had privately predicted a small number.
Romney Writes Himself An 8.5 Million Dollar Check
Mitt Romney's nightmare continues. He's writing himself another large check to keep his campaign on budget. He also managed to raise an impressive 10 million dollars from others.
Romney's spending is lavish. He has 9m in the bank now. (In comparison, John Edwards has 12m without his federal cash infusion).
Romney has raised 45m from 100,000 donors and. written himself 17m. So his burn rate -- less his own money -- exceeds about 119 percent.
Hillary's New Ad On Health Care With 9/11 Imagery
She's the first presidential candidate to employ ground zero imagery in her ad.
That's all I'll say about it. Watch as it voters in New Hampshire and Iowa will watch it.
Why John Edwards Is In Columbus, Kentucky
The Edwards roadshow is in Paducah, Kentucky right now preparing the hour-long trip to the tiny river town of Columbus.
Kentucky isn't one of them early primary states, so it's not easy to figure out what "Bank It On Iowa" Edwards is doing here. In fact, the joke in these circles today is that it's some dirty trick pulled by Hillary Clinton's campaign to keep Edwards down for a day.
Not really. Actually, thank Shawn Dixon of Columbia. When the Edwards campaign used the event organizing site "Eventful.com" to run a contest -- Edwards would go where the people wanted him to go -- Dixon led the charge to bring Edwards to Columbus. In doing so, his efforts beat out Los Angeles and Seattle, among other cities.
So here we are.
Other than thanking the good people of Columbus, Edwards wants the news coverage to emphasize his popularity in this rural hamlet in a Southern state won twice by Bill Clinton. The implied message: "Could Hillary Clinton campaign here?"
Giuliani And The "Washington Briefing"
So I had a post up here for a few moments about Rudy Giuliani and the Family Research Council.
I may have posted it prematurely... or maybe not... I'm still noodling around and will report back when I have a better sense of what's going on.
Giuliani Fields An All-Star Team
Rudy Giuliani's political team is keeping its smart heads down, giving no hints about their targeting strategy or their get-out-the-vote plans. But a look at the team itself is telling. The campaign has hired some of the most highly regarded Bush-Cheney turnout operatives. The campaign's boss, Michael DuHaime, worked with all of them in his capacity as RNC political director and Bush-Cheney '04 regional political director.
There's KC Jones, a former deputy exec. dir of the Minnesota GOP, Bill Stepien, the RNC's 72-hour director in 2005 and 2006, Kevin Shuvalov, the RNC politico who oversaw the field operation in Iowa in 2004; he was also a Bush regional political director in the 2000 cycle. Cary Evans, who oversaw the turnout operations that helped Brian Bilbray win his special election in California, Heath Thompson, who ran the South Carolina primary for Bush in '00 and was the regional political director overseeing Florida and Missouri in 2004; Lori Raad, DuHaime's deputy at the RNC, and Brent Seaborn, the Giuliani campaign's director of strategy.
Seaborn worked with Alex Gage, currently the chief strategist for Mitt Romney. Gage and Seaborn are considered to the best microtargeters in the business. Seaborn designed the 2004 turnout universe model for the Bush-Cheney campaign and was dispatched to critical 2006 races ... he was the guy who helped get independents to turn out for Linc Chafee in his primary.
Florida Democrats Sue The DNC
Moments from now, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) will announce the filing of a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee challenging as "unconstitutional" the DNC's decision to "ignore" the primary process that Florida Democrats have chosen.
The lawsuit is not likely to succeed; the aggreived parties don't have much precedent to draw on. But the reason for the suit is also political: Florida Democrats want to make sure Democratic voters know that the state party is fighting for their interests.
Karen Finney, the DNC's communications director, said this about the suit: "It's disappointing that after months of trying to resolve the situation and bring Florida into compliance these two have chosen this path. This doesn't come as a surprise, Sen Nelson has been telling people that he was going to file a lawsuit for some time. As a general matter we don't comment on litigation, especially in this case where we have not even been given the courtesy of seeing the claims being made in the suit."
Michigan Tax Hike Could Sting Romney In Michigan?
Among the very few Republicans who voted for the largest tax increases in Michigan's history this week: two endorsers of ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney.
They are: State Sen. Valde Garcia, a member of Romney's mid-Michigan leadership team, and State Sen. Ron Jelinek, a member of Romney's West Michigan leadership team.
Presumably, these two state senators would have been called to campaign for Gov. Romney in Michigan... but if the tax hikes prove unpopular with conservatives -- and, here's a guess -- they will -- you may not see Jelinek or Garcia on the trail with Romney.
Note, too, that the next Republican debate will be held in Dearborn and will focus on economic issues. Michigan's 11.5 percent income tax hike and its sales tax extention will almost certainly be the subject of a question or two.
At least one of the Republicans on the dias -- ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee, agreed to tax increases in order to fund education and road programs in his state. And Romney raised "fees" to help close a budget deficit. As Grover Norquist would tell you, Republican governors face enormous political pressure to avoid cutting spending without increasing revenue somehow. Governors who do -- think of Bill Owens of Colorado -- tend to become personas non gratas with their state parties, which is controlled at the grassroots level by moral conservatives and rapid anti-taxers and is funded by corporate interests who seek tax breaks for their profits.
Nagourney Pronounces On Fred
No other reporter has the power to craft throat-clearing articles like the Times' chief political correspondent, Adam Nagourney. Why? It's a mix of the man's talents and his paper's cachet. Even in this media multiverse, every Nagourney article is read and digested by political elites.
Here's Nagourney's take on Fred Thompson:
"[A]s Mr. Thompson campaigned across Iowa this week, he was something other than the dynamic presence that some in his party have been yearning for. Iowans saw a candidate who is subdued and sonorous, a laconic presence who spoke in soft monotone, threw few elbows and displayed little drive to distinguish himself from his opponents."
"... on this trip Mr. Thompson showed some signs of developing as a candidate. For the last several days, he has been vigorously attacking Democrats for trying to increase government spending and defending President Bush’s veto of a proposed expansion of a child health insurance program."
"Voters who came out to see him as he traveled through Iowa — even while expressing admiration for his views and intense interest in his candidacy — said they were struck by how little energy or passion he appeared to bring into a room."
"Mr. Thompson does not appear to share the taste of his some of his rivals for lingering at the rope line shaking hands; he tends not to ask many questions of the people he meets and tends not to make prolonged eye contact with them."
October 3, 2007
Just Asking
Republicans, elect Rudy. He's the only one who can beat Hillary Clinton. 48 states in play. National hero. Hillary is George McGovern. Heck, a Giuliani v. Clinton head to head matchup wouldn't even be close
I'm not trying to be a smart alec, but for Rudy's argument from electability to be valid, shouldn't he, you know, beat her?
It's not as if Americans don't know who Rudy is .... (One of the five most famous, actually!).
Outrageous
While Republicans are busy being OUTRAGED at attacks on poor, defenseless, voiceless Rush Limbaugh and still simmering in OUTRAGE over a silly ad in a newspaper, this column humbly suggests thet direct their outrage to something _genuinely_ outrageous:
The 2008 RNC Convention symbol is a blue elephant. With stars for eyes.
White House 2008: The Democrats
This is the scrutiny quarter as far as the primary is concerned, and no one will face harsher glares than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(By the way, we're not going to rank Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel anymore.)
These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Democratic Party primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling. Click here for Republican rankings
1. Hillary Clinton -- Is this her false peak? Or maybe this is the real peak, and the rest of the campaign will be about protecting her lead -- playing "four corners" offense, if you will. Her presidential evasiveness may be a sign of overconfidence; it's inconceivable that she won't one day be pinned down on entitlement reform. Her laugh tick is getting noticed, but it's endearing in a way.
2. Barack Obama -- Two days after a sickly performance in an important debate, he was greeted by 24,000 people in New York City. His candidacy is being sustained by a fat bankroll and intense curiosity, but his advisers need to admit that a movement is not yet... moving. He jabbed at Clinton's 1993 health reform secrecy, but he inexplicably refused to make a point of it, refused to make a contrast cleanly, and doesn't seem to feel the need to raise his volume above "subtle."
3. John Edwards -- Whoever is delivering these Fortress Investment Group oppo dumps (see South Carolina a few weeks back and the Des Moines Register the day after the debate), is landing real stomach punches against Edwards and setting up future attack ads via TV or mail. We think his campaign may have overreacted to the prospect of a poor fundraising quarter by pulling the trigger on public financing the day after a breakthrough debate performance. Everyone interprets the move as a sign of weakness, not strength.
Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?
Oh me of little faith. Ron Paul cannot be dismissed as a gadfly; the chance for him to outperform expectations rises exponentially with additional million dollars he raises. 5.08m is real money. There must be, within the Republican Party, a vein of anti-war libertarian sentiment. It is longer and deeper than many of us had suspected. The Paul movement is probably one part Buchanan bridage and one part fiscal hawk. It is clearly active in ways that most of us haven't adequately understood? Paul may be in a position to be a giant killer now. Imagine if he finishes second or third in New Hampshire ....
And Mike Huckabee raised a million. Realistically, with so little cash, he can either run a single flight of ads for two weeks or fund his field operations. His volunteer base has to expand at a rapid pace if he wants to remain viable. The political elites will be very hard on Huckabee tomorrow.
As Edwards Focus On Education, An Education Union Endorses Hillary Clinton
HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE -- Ex-Sen. John Edwards was late for Winnacunnet elementary school this morning and he didn't even get a hall pass. Cosmic justice: on the day that Edwards was set to speak to the National Education Associations"School to White House" team here, the American Federation of Teachers voted to endorse Sen. HIllary Clinton, a fact that will almost certainly appear in every newspaper account of the first half of the day.
(A union source says the vote for Hillary was "overwhelming" -- even though Illinois and New Mexico are well represented on the AFT's board. Now -- since the largest AFT affiliate is New York City's United Federation of Teachers, the fact of the endorsement is not too surprising.)
Edwards right now is talking to a high school civics class. They don't seem terribly interested; they seem to recognize that they're being used by a prop. As a crush of students passed by the classroom on their way to lunch, they paused and peered through the window. "He's in third place, right?" "Hillary is the forerunner," another said, referring, presumably, to her frontrunner-status and not to an animated vehicular doppleganger.
Earlier, Edwards faced the students, and they asked him some tough questions: why did it seem like Edwards had flip-flopped on withdrawing troops? (He didn't, and he used the students question to later say of Hillary Clinton, "My plan would end the war, Hillary Clinton would extend the war." Another student asked him a delicious question about how he would pay for all the federal education programs he had just proposed -- would he raise taxes? This is New Hampshire, after all. Edwards's answer was satisfactory to the student: he'd raise the capital gains tax, yes, but squeeze out other savings by removing the middlemen brokers who make money of student loans.
I suspect the campaign will soon a find a way to show that they're not snubbing this constituency... just you wait.
Obama's Pivot Points
Having had time to read Barack Obama's foreign policy speech and talk with some of his advisers and some of his rivals advisers, I'm drawn to the conclusion that yesterday was meant to be a launch pad of sorts for the final stage of Obama's campaign argument.
Obama, an aide said, wrote the speech himself. It is much less cerebral and much more direct than his usual forays into policy. Actually, it wasn't a foray so much as a surgical strike. Half the speech was a sustained, detailed criticism of the foreign policy establishment. The rest was a precis of the ways in which president Obama would challenge conventional wisdom.
One reason Obama has had to up the volume of his Iraq critique is that it simply has not worked the way it was supposed to. Voters forgive Hillary Clinton -- enough of them do -- the cognitive dissonance factor plays in her favor. The challenge of basing any argument on the Iraq question comes in the form of a "so what" question. How is past judgment relevant to future judgment? One cannot simply assume that voters will make that link, particularly if there are external forces to blame for the past judgment -- i.e, George W. Bush.
Rudy Mints Economic Credentials
Ahead of the first major Republican debate of the fall -- a CNBC forum in Detroit with the economy on the agenda - Rudy Giuliani's campaign plans a seven-day blitz to focus attention Giuliani's credentials as an economic conservative.
It starts today with a press release touting the 23 taxes that Giuliani had a hand in cutting, the $9b in taxpayer funds he claims to have had a hand in rebating, and the 17 percent reduction in tax burdens that New Yorkers experienced during his tenure. .
The rest of the week features a mix of press statements on Giuliani's policy proposals, surrogate appearances and "grassroots" announcements along with plenty of contrast-drawing between Giuliani and his opponents. (One bet: the campaign will find a way to mention George Will's praise for Giuliani at least twice.)
On Thursday, the campaign will unveil its "Taxpayers for Giuliani" teams in the January and Feb. 5 primary and caucus states. They'll serve as surrogates and validators for Giuliani at events from now through the beginning of 2008.
The campaign is calling the theme week "Rudy Makes Cents."
By the by: the October 9 debate is Fred Thompson's first, so the Giuliani campaign will pay particular attention to Thompson's resume and record.
Oh Baby When She Moves, She Moves
It was bount to happen -- Hillary Clinton breaks 50 in a reputable national poll.
In October, numbers don't interest me so much as trendlines and crosstabs, and there's very little in the Post-ABC poll that will hearten her opponents.
Obama's campaign will probably poo-pooh this poll because they have to -- it doesn't pick up -our- voters, they'll say. Individually, poll-by-poll, sure, it's absurd to conclude much of anything. But they're not dolts: they're not oblivious to the trendlines.
Note also the 17pt lead for Giuliani.
October 2, 2007
Crowds
Barack Obama attracted 24,000 New Yorkers to Washington Square Park last Wednesday night.
Hillary Clinton drew in 14,000 Bay Area Democrats to Oakland.
What's the biggest crowd that any Republican has managed to build this year? 2,000?
Is that because Republican voters aren't concentrated in cities? Or a symptom of the malaise in the party?
Doddnovations
Sen. Chris Dodd, who raised slightly less than $1.5 million last quarter, is trading at one cent on the National Journal Political Stock Exchange. In comparison, Sen. Hillary Clinton regularly trades at $60.00.
Dodd has plenty of intangibles, but they're not the intangibles this election cycle is rewarding so far. That said, his campaign itself is near flawless; his argument is pitch-perfect and attuned to his audience. He regularly creates landfill between himself and his opponents; he's the first out of the box with attractive policy ideas, like a carbon tax. And, especially for a campaign run largely by veterans of Washington, he's used emerging technologies more fruitfully than just about everyone else.
The campaign posted casual, behind-the-scenes videos of its headquarters, interviews with key staff members, blogged live from the spin room, created graphics with speaking times for candidates during debates, using Youtube videos to whip bills in the Senate. (The Dodd campaign is a veritable advertisement for Ustream TV).
And they were the first presidential campaign to employ plain-text, conversational e-mail styles -- an appeal for money was signed by "Chris" -- as in "Sen. Chris Dodd."
Last weekend, "Barack" as in Barack Obama sent his e-mail list what Techpresident called a "stripped-down, informal-seeming e-mail" seeking last minute donations. The next day, "Michelle" as in "Michelle Obama" did the same. So did Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin and Rahm Emanuel and dozens of other candidates nationwide.
Dodd's lack of progress in the polls might be frustrating, but he can take heart in knowing that his innovations and policy boldness may outlive his candidacy.
Strategy Memo: The Giuliani Campaign Starts The 4th Quarter
Brent Seaborn, the Giuliani campaign's strategy director, kicks off the fourth quarter of fundraising and campaigning with a buck-up-the-troops memorandum. The main point: Romney has spent his way to leads in the early states and Giuliani remains strong with self-identified conservatives.
I've teased out a few interesting paragraphs from the campaign spin:
Voters responded to Fred Thompson's September entry into the GOP Primary race with a smaller-than-expected announcement bounce. Typically an announcement will generate about a 10 point bounce. Senator Thompson's bounce ranged from zero points to 8 points, but averaged less than 4 points -- certainly not what was expected for a campaign that spent so much time preparing to get in the race.
Primary elections usually set up contrasts. An interesting component of the race is that no candidate has clearly positioned themselves as the social conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. Fred Thompson entered the race expecting to take the position as the primary social conservative alternative to Romney, but Mike Huckabee has also impressed many primary voters and there is no clear social conservative favorite.
Most notably, Mayor Giuliani continues to hold strong with socially conservative voters. Socially conservative voters are becoming more comfortable with Mayor Giuliani as they hear him speak clearly about his agenda. Two of the Mayor's 12 Commitments that are most important are "to increase the number of adoptions, reduce the number of abortions and protect the quality of life for our children." And no candidate has better credentials on judges and the Mayor has committed to "reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges."
No foreign policy or national security speech better reflects Obama's political and personal orientation than the remarks he's delivering today in Iowa. It represents his consensus instincts and the worldview of chief policy advisers like Tony Lake and Samantha Power.
As I'm watching the speech right now, Obama is stressing judgment, urgency and Iraq.
"It's not about debating the past. It's about who got the single most important foreign policy decision [in the past fifty years] right?"
"I am not running for president to conform to Washington's conventional thinking. I'm running to challenge it."
The "nuclear free world" concept is not new; it has gained currency in the very foreign policy establishment that Obama has generally set his candidacy against.Obama believes, as Hillary Clinton does, that a nuclear deterrence is still relevant; he will not unilaterally disarm. The difference, in Obama's mind, is that he has the will and vision to take steps that Hillary Clinton would not. Nuclear diplomacy, in this conception, requires conversations and negotiations with tyrants as well as allies. (Like Reagan did).
"As president, I will say that America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons."
Here are the campaign's bullet points. Obama would "challenge Washington's conventional thinking" by...
-- Ending the war in Iraq
-- Ensuring there is no safe haven for Al Qaeda
-- Securing loose nuclear material and renewing our efforts towards eliminating nuclear weapons and stopping the threat of nuclear terrorism
-- Talking directly to friend and foe
-- Strengthening the State Department to make diplomacy a priority
-- Reversing Washington’s reliance on secrecy by establishing a National Declassification Center
-- Getting politics out of intelligence by giving the Director of National Intelligence a fixed term
-- Uniting America behind a non-partisan foreign policy
Two Obama Staffers Depart
Two mid-level staffers have left Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in recent weeks, but campaign aides said the two departures were not related and did not reflect internal dissension.
One is Erica Brooks, initially the campaign’s southern regional political director and most recently its state director in the Feb. 5 primary state of Georgia. Brooks was a manager at the DNC and was a long-time aide to former Sen. Max Cleland. The reasons for her departure were unclear.
Josh Orton, the campaign’s deputy director for new media, resigned last week, sources said.
Mr. Orton decided to leave because he disagreed with the campaign’s blogger outreach strategy, sources and friends of Orton said.
Orton’s immediate superior, new media director Joe Rospars, prioritized online organizing over surgical interventions in the blogosphere and the two staffers personalities did not mesh.
Orton was the online and Nevada spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid and worked as a producer for Air America.
"We have hundreds of employees and are bound to have a few instances where, for whatever reason, things don't work out," said Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman.
Earlier this week, ex-Sen. John Edwards's lead media consultant left the campaign, and last month, a top operative in Sen. Hillary Clinton's Iowa state team stepped down.
One Number Clinton Deserves To Highlight
The Clinton campaign managed to attract 100,000 new donors this quarter, about 7,000 more than Obama lured to his campaign.
If an Obama movement grew this quarter, than so did a Clinton movement.
I asked one of Clinton's largest fundraisers to account for her strength. "We're winning. People get it," was the response.
And Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign's chairman, was his usual ebulliant self, via e-mail:
"It's simple. The more voters meet her, watch her during debates, and hear her ideas for changing this country, the more they're supporting her. Her fundraising strength to-date mirrors her successes in this race and she'll continue to work hard to earn even more support."
Clinton's Campaign Manager On The $22M
From Hillary Hub:
OUR FUNDRAISING IS THROUGH THE ROOF!
Hillary wanted you to know that this was our best quarter yet. More than 100,000 new donors. A total of $27 million raised -- and $22 million for the primary -- substantially more than any other candidate in the race.
This is all thanks to you and your hard work. You -- and over a million supporters like you -- are working together with Hillary to create real momentum that will take us to victory.
This is the moment when you showed that America is ready for change and that you are ready to make history. This is the moment when your dedication defied the skeptics.
The early primaries and caucuses are coming up fast. We're going to need your help a lot in the next few months. Later this week, Hillary will write to tell you about how you can get involved in our new field program and talk to voters directly on behalf of the campaign.
But for now, I want to thank you again for all your incredible hard work and dedication.
Patti Solis Doyle
Campaign Manager
Rejoice: Ron Paul Will Run Television Ads
Lots of them, in fact.
NBC's Carrie Dann reports:
Darkhorse Republican candidate Ron Paul will report third quarter fundraising totals that exceed his $2.4 million take in Q2. According to communications director Jesse Benton, Paul raised $1.2 million alone in the last week during a down-to-the-wire online fundraising drive. The announcement comes after last week's New Hampshire trip for Rep. Paul, which included a rally attended by about 800 people and a major canvassing drive in the Granite State.
Clinton To Drudge Connection Lives
Impressive -- not the money, so much as the ability to convince Matt Drudge to spin it.
Once again, the bottom line:
## In practical terms, there's little difference between $19M and $22M. Both Clinton and Obama will have enough money to run exactly the type of campaigns they want to. In fact, in total, Obama has raised more money for the primary than Clinton has... about $2.9M. Subtract the $10M Clinton transferred in, and Obama has raised -- active-verb-raised -- $12M more than Clinton has for the primaries.
## Institutional donors are starting to fall in with the herd, and the herd is running towards Clinton at this point. All the talk of her "frontrunner" status is manna to the ears of Terry McAullife and Jonathan Mantz; no one wants to be left out.
## The political elite expected Clinton to have a good quarter; she did; in equity terms, today's numbers are already priced into the market. Except for the fact that politics is not like the stock market, and artificial indices can often drive rallies.
Rudy's Pro-Life?
David Brody has a mighty provocative headline: Brody File: Pro-Life Rudy?
How cute: Pete Sessions calling Rudy "pro-life" because Giuliani has no objections to a partial birth abortion ban, the Hyde amendment, and mouthes the words "strict constructionist" on occasion. Sessions is probably joking. If Giuliani is willing to let surrogates describe himself as pro-life, then the words have no meaning, and Giuliani is pandering. (By the way: as Giuliani as has said, his "strict constructionists" might well preserve Roe v. Wade, which means that Giuliani employs the phrase to describe judicial orientation, rather than outcomes, which is how the phrase plays in politics.)
We political types tend to see "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as binary adjectives. Pro-choicers are all reading from Planned Parenthood scripts and pro-lifers worship at the altar of James Bopp, Jr.
To the consternation of political elites on both sides, Americans are firmly in neither camp. The numbers change a little but not all that much. They support Roe v. Wade. They tolerate some restrictions on abortion and support others; they oppose efforts to ban all abortion. They support partial birth abortion bans, except in certain polls, when asked the question in certain ways, they don't. (Pro-lifers would insist that Americans are moderately pro-life; pro-choicers call this position moderately pro-choice). Americans are deeply ambivalent about abortion. For most of them -- most of us -- it's a moral question to which the answers do not easily come.
Giuliani's position, rhetorically evolved from his mayoral days, seems to represent this Great American Middle.
What Giuliani's advisers believe -- or intuit -- is that the war against Islam (or radical Islam) is the animating impulse of evangelical politics now. Abortion isn't.
"However, Dobson spoke out against the idea of a third party even if "both Democratic and Republican nominees are known to be entirely unsupportive of the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage and other aspects of the pro-moral agenda," according to Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family Action."
Putting The GOP Fundraising Numbers In Context
First, Mitt Romney is likely to wind up having raised the most money this quarter... somewhere north of $10M...maybe around $12M. Rudy Giuliani raised less than that. Fred Thompson raised more than $8. John McCain, north of $5.
Give Romney credit: he has an extremely distributed, many-branched fundraising network and a terrific team. He's had a good few months and his nomination strategy is proceeding on course. Rudy Giuliani had no real fundraising network to speak of; that he can still raise more nearly $10M in the third quarter of the year is testament to his status as the national frontrunner. Similarly, $8M for Thompson isn't that bad. Comparing his first quarter take to the millions more raised by Romney, McCain and Giuliani is not really fair: the conditions of the race have evolved in six months and the fundraising field is much less fertile. That $8M is $8M that no other candidate managed to accumulate.
Giuliani and Romney will have enough money to compete through Feb. 5. Thompson has enough to run fully-fledged campaigns in the early states. Romney can write himself a check whenever he wants. The rest of the field is on fumes, money-wise.
And Republicans are raising much less than the Democrats.
For Now, A Third Party's An Empty Threat
Like a cranky older child demanding the attention of his parents doting over their newer infant, the threat of some conservative leaders to seceed from the Republican Party is, at this point, more bombast than susbtance.
Sources close to the evangelical leaders on the call are plain: the talk "was an attempt to signal that Giuliani is unacceptable," one of them says.
The thinking inside social conservative circles this morning is that their leaders' desire to defer to James Dobson -- still the movement's cappo di tutti cappi -- led them to make a tactical blunder. Threatening Giuliani is not the way to preserve influence if he's the nominee.
The breakout group of CNPers first broached -- or floated -- the idea of a third party candidate at a CNP meeting in Miami in 2005, sources say. At that point, though, members decided to wait and see whether George Allen would survive his Senate race. Allen did not. Fast forward to mid 2007. The CNP's executive director, Steve Baldwin, was singing the praises of Fred Thompson to some CNP fundraisers and members. The members did not fall in love Thompson, either. And here we are.
Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and many other leading lights of the social conservative political apparatus, are perceived by their members to have seats at the table in the Bush Administration. Whether they exert real influence is unclear -- probably less than they'd admit, but more than skeptical reporters (myself included) think.
Aside from principles -- no one questions Tony Perkins's committment to the pro-life cause -- the biggest threat Giuliani poses is institutional: his presidency would break the link between the evangelical movement and the Republican Party that Karl Rove first connected in 1998. It would consign the Family Research Council to the status of just another Washington interest group. Perkins would not be able to brag that he knew in advance who the president would nominate to the Supreme Court. And Beltway Republicans -- those who run the campaigns, raise the money, craft the strategy -- would rely less and less on Perkins's advice about how to attract social conservatives.
But think about it: in some ways, though, the link is strengthened with Giuliani at the top of the ticket. In the latest Gallup survey, Giuliani leads among conservatives, weekly chuch goers, protestant Christians and Catholics. To be reductive, if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, he can thank evangelicals for whom the war against radical (or just regular) Islam is paramount.
It's worth noting: the CNP has seeded insurgent challengers before. In 1990, after George H.W. Bush capitulated and endorsed an income tax hike, frustrated CNPers began to plot the presidential candidacy of one Pat Buchanan....
Edwards Raises $7M
Sen. John Edwards raised $7M this quarter and has $12M in the bank, his campaign said this afternoon.
The campaign expects to recieve about $10M in federal matching funds and considers itself to have prospectively banked a total of $22M.
More...
A Response To The Florida Republican Party
Mark Bubriski, the Florida Democratic Party's communications director, responds to his Republican counterpart's attempt to throw more flash-grenades into the DNC/FDP battle.
I guess if you botch a war, run up trillions in debt, pick a fight on children's healthcare and have corruption coming out your ears, you're going to have to resort to gimmicks.
That's what they call in the trade: "answering the subject."
McCain's $2M Debt
Jonathan Martin has John McCain's numbers: he raised $5M -- not as bad as it could have been -- but still has $2M in debt.
Obama Raises $19M For The Primary
From the Obama campaign:
CHICAGO, IL -- Obama for America today announced another quarter of record-breaking grassroots support. In the third quarter, more than 93,000 donors gave the campaign at least $19 million in primary dollars alone, for a total of at least $20 million including general election funds.
"With over 350,000 donors and more than a half a million donations, Americans hungry for change know that Barack Obama is the candidate with the right experience to make that change happen," said Penny Pritzker, Obama for America National Finance Chair. "Thanks to this unprecedented grassroots support, the Obama campaign will have the resources we need to win the nomination and the White House.”
“Many in Washington have spent the last weeks declaring that outcome of this race to be pre-ordained, and the primary process a mere formality,” said Obama for America Campaign Manager David Plouffe. “Yet, in this quarter alone, 93,000 more Americans joined our campaign, because they desire real change and believe Barack Obama is the one candidate who can deliver it. This grassroots movement for change will not be deterred by Washington conventional wisdom because in many ways it is built to challenge it.”
Third quarter totals:
• Primary dollars raised: at least $19 million
• Overall dollars raised (with general election): at least $20 million
• Number of new donors: over 93,000
Total 2007
• Primary dollars raised: at least $74.9 million
• Total number of donors: 352,000
The Fundraising Bottom Line
Sen. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have raised somewhere between $19M and $23M for their primary campaigns this quarter.
The numbers are less important than the bottom line, which is that Obama and Clinton alone have the resources right now to run competitive campaigns through Feb. 5. John Edwards has the ability to run a competitive campaign until right before Feb. 5, as does, potentially, Bill Richardson.
The line just above the bottom line: The Democrats continue to outraise the Republicans.
Republicans Rubbing It In: Launch "Fundraiser Tracker" In Florida
Sensing opportunity in the dispute between Florida Democrats and their national party, the Florida Republican Party sent voter registration forms to thousands of Democrats.
And today, they're launched a "fundraiser tracker" on their website, hoping that reporters pick up on the idea that Democratic presidential candidates are eager to exploit Florida's rich source of campaign donations but, in honoring a pledge to the sanctioned early state candidates, are ignoring the Democratic voters at the same time.
The party estimates that Democrats have already raised $7.2M from donors in the state.
This is ticky-tack politics, but it works: the Florida Democratic Party really has no way of responding because they agree with the premise: abiding by the pledge does indeed make it appear as if the Dem presidential candidates are exploiting Florida for its money.
A side note:
Did Obama break the pledge? He held a "news conference" with reporters in Florida.
After the fundraiser at Scarritt’s Hyde Park home, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.
The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as “campaigning,” and those rules include “holding news conferences.”
Obama seemed unaware of that. Asked whether he was violating the pledge, he said, “I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that’s the case, then we won’t do it again.”
That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.
The leading Democrats have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary, except for fundraising, at the demand of the four “early primary states—Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
The Club For Growth's Itch Has Been Scratched
Though Steve Forbes's letter to the Club for Growth last week was not from the mouth of the horse, the Club's president, Pat Toomey, seems to be satisfied with Rudy Giuliani's committment to oppose tax increases.
Recall that the Club was moved to write about an Associated Press article characterized Rudy Giuliani as "not ruling out" tax increases to restore solvency to the Social Security trust fund. The Giuliani campaign enlisted their chief economics surrogate, Forbes EIC Steve Forbes, to calm the Club down.
For Rudy Giuliani, so far as the Feb. 5 primary goes, New Jersey is a shiny Yale lock. He is a favorite son, his campaign manager is the most powerful (not-for-sale) Republican in the state right now, the state party changed its rules to give the winner of the primary all of the delegates, and he's extracted more than $2M for his race.
Suffice it to say, the reason why Rudy Giuliani has traveled to New Jersey six times for campaign events only is that he is beginning to concern himself with the state's 15 electoral votes. (He's in Ocean View and Cape May today).
Democrats will not concede the state to Giuliani -- right now, Hillary and Rudy run neck-and-neck, but they do acknowledge that, at the very least, the Democratic presidential candidate will be forced to spend in excess of $5M -- maybe even$10M -- in the extremely expensive New York / Philadelphia media markets in order to remain competitive.
New Jersey's independents usually swing to the Democrat at the end, but they invariably give Republicans reasons for hope... generally in September. (See here). The last Republican to win the state's electoral votes was George H. W. Bush.
Giuliani's campaign also believes only Giuliani can put Connecticut and Pennsylvania in play, and have used the argument to bolster their contention that he's the most electable of all Republicans.
(Democrats Clinton, Edwards and Obama can plausibly argue that they can expand the map: Iowa, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida, maybe even Kentucky, probably not North Carolina, maybe Arizona).
Thompson Raised $8M (Plus) In Third Quarter
Here we go..
Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson raised more than $8M since July, a campaign adviser said this morning.
Thompson has recieved donations from more than 70,000 individual contributors since June, when his testing-the-waters account opened. (The campaign has yet to release the amount of money he raised that month).
The large number of donors suggests that Thompson's financial base is fairly broad; in the first quarter of the year, Sen. John McCain obtained contributions from 51,000 different donors, a record at the time.
More..
Marc Ambinder, an Atlantic associate editor, blogs about politics and Washington. He might also write the occasional post about aviation, national security, and cognitive neuroscience. Mostly politics, though.
| 
