When is Thompson going to get the space to announce?

August 27, 2007 – 9:48 am

So I was reading all the news about Alberto Gonzalez’s resignation. Unless the White House never really nominates someone — highly unlikely — the news up until September 11th is going to be focused on the new nominee.

So how is Fred Thompson going to announce and get any attention? Especially if he is not participating in the September 5th debate, which I will be going to.

After September 11th, there is going to be 3 weeks of Iraq. And what’s Fred’s position on Iraq? He’s going to have to say

Can Thompson survive a month of minimal attention? If Iowa is in December, can he really kick off his campaign in October? I hear that he is not hiring much staff in these early states.

This isn’t going to help his expectations problem, which Mike Huckabee was kind enough to point out.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

YouTube debate splits elites and base. That’s good

July 27, 2007 – 9:56 am

Now, I was not a big fan of the CNN/YouTube debate. I largely agree with the criticism that CNN used their editorial ability to pick questions that they couldn’t ask as reporters. That said, I was struck by something this morning. Somehow this seemingly trivial debate managed to get Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to talk about a real difference of policy and philosophy, instead of a stylistic one: whether Presidents should talk to bad countries. This real policy question has been debated for a full week now between Hillary and Obama, making the front page of the Post.

Not only the front page of the Post, but two opinions today. And yesterday two candidates from the other party, John McCain and Mitt Romney, have even gotten in to the discussion.

I think this is a real philosophical debate about foreign policy that cuts to a real fracture in the Democratic Party between (responsible) foreign policy elites and one  part of the liberal faction of the party base. And it took real people to ask this question. Why? Probably because the press is part of the same elite opinion formation apparatus as everyone else. (incidentally, that’s why they didn’t ask questions about Iraq. Very few serious people were asking questions about Iraq, so the press didn’t either)

In hindsight, it appears that the debate teased out a real difference between the elites of the Democratic Party and the base. That’s exactly what this debate should have done. This gimmicky debate has resulted in the first real large-scale policy clash of the 2008 cycle. Something that 8(?) media sponsored debates couldn’t really achieve.

Just imagine what kinds of exciting questions could be asked in the GOP debate.

Is it any surprise that the people who are running essentially against party elites like John McCain and Ron Paul are interested and Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney aren’t? Is it any surprise that the self-identified arbiter of conservative elite opinion, Hugh Hewitt, is opposed?

I think that means I have changed my mind on this. Let the debate go on! I guess that I am with Patrick Ruffini on this.

Tags: , , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (4)

CNN’s John Roberts confirms Romney’s “velvet rope” and renta-faux-cop policy

June 21, 2007 – 10:17 am

This story really seems to have legs. Even makes CNN:

In case you missed, the Romney campaign is denying that this ever happened. John Roberts says that it is the Romney’s campaign’s policy.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (12)

Romney campaign official calls Brownback “bottom feeder”

June 15, 2007 – 5:10 pm

UPDATE: GOPProgress and Jim Geraghty have now written on this.

Earlier in the week, Mitt Romney released his National Faith and Values Steering Committee. In doing so, he entered a brave new world. Four of the people on the list are bloggers:

- David French, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund, Tennessee 
- Nancy French, Author, Red State of Mind, Tennessee 
- Justin Hart, Vice President of Communications, Lighted Candle Society
…
- Jason Bonham, Illinois State Director, Legacy Law Foundation, Illinois 

Nancy and David French write at Evangelicals for Mitt. And Justin and Jason founded and write for My Man Mitt. Now, my question is: will the campaign be held accountable for what these bloggers say? After all, they are now deputized by the campaign itself as spokesmen on "Faith and Values."

Well, Jason Bonham really classed it up today. He called Sam Brownback a "bottom feeding candidate" and posted a picture of a bottom feeding fish. If Jason were a campaign staffer, he would be fired.

So how will the Romney campaign respond? This isn’t quote Amanda Marcotte material. But this is pretty offensive. Presumably, if the Romney campaign has any decency, Jason will be removed and disavowed form the campaign.

Of course, these bloggers have said other deeply offensive things. Let’s see how the Romney experiment goes.

In any case, if this is the kind of "Faith and Values" that the Romney campaign has, I say, "no thanks."

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (14)

Romney pro-standing?

June 6, 2007 – 11:26 am

This is scathing live blogging about Romney from Ana Marie Cox, no serious person. (H/T to GOP Blue at GOP Progress. )

8:23 PM Gilmore ALSO STANDING. Mitt Romney totally flummoxed, can’t remember what polling said about standing versus sitting.

8:31 PM Romney’s decided to stand. He’s not going to apologize about becoming pro-standing. He’s been standing, in his heart, for a long time. Really, he’s a lifelong stander. Small varmint standing, mostly.

Ouch!

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Romney losing public image: Selling snake oil or used cars?

May 17, 2007 – 10:31 am

In The Way to Win (a great book, buy it!), John Harris and Mark Halperin talk about one of the greatest risks of the "Freak Show" is losing control of your public image. I have been struck watching the aftermath of the South Carolina debate that this might have happened to Mitt Romney. Have Mitt Romney’s best attributes, his good looks, communication skills, etc., been turned into a negative?

Check out these recent statements from NRO (weren’t they early cheerleaders?), Chris Cilliza at WaPo, or Dennis Miller on Fox, and decide for yourself.

Some say Romney is selling cars, like Jonah Goldberg:

What Do I Have to Do to Put You in this BMW today?

Or Chris Cilliza:

Romney can appear more like a used car salesman — telling the customer whatever he or she wants to hear to close the deal.

Dennis Miller thinks that it is snake oil:

"Romney has sort of slithered around a little. When you look that good. And you slide it around a little, there’s a snake oil salesman vibe about him that might be a little weird for me."

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (4)

Romney calls press unfair; Tries to emulate father

May 8, 2007 – 11:04 am

Mitt Romney is doing himself no favors these days. Whether it is his lifetime hunter gaffe, his confusing French marriage law for fictionalizations of the Book of Mormon, or calling a ridiculous sci-fi book his favorite novel, he can’t keep his foot — in a silver space boot? — out of his mouth.

So Romney goes on the offensive, not against the foot in his mouth, but against the press:

"What I find interesting is, had I been pro-life and then changed to pro-choice, no one would ask the question," the former Massachusetts governor said on Fox News Channel’s "Hannity and Colmes." ”But if you go the other direction, as I have and as Ronald Reagan did and (former Illinois Rep.) Henry Hyde and (former President) George Herbert Walker Bush, it’s like the media can’t get enough of it: ’Oh, well, why did you change?’"

Did Romney even notice the question that Chris Matthews asked at the debate:

Governor Romney, in recent months, you’ve said you were, quote, "always for life," but we’ve also heard you say you were once, quote, "effectively pro-choice." Which is it?

This isn’t about the press. This is about what comes out of his mouth. And it looks ridiculous when he panders and spins and sticks his foot in his mouth. This could well kill his presidential campaign, like it killed his father’s. Another case of Romney emulating his father:

Romney was asked which president he would emulate should he be elected in 2008.

"Probably my dad. I loved my dad. And he’s my hero," Romney said.

His wife, Ann, who was sitting beside him, interrupted and said, "Isn’t he asking you to pick a president?"

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (3)

Romney goes on Leno

May 2, 2007 – 4:37 pm

I have to admit, it is pretty brave for Mitt Romney to go on Leno. Two days after Romney’s favorite book gaffe, Romney is going on the show of a guy who ripped him for his hunting gaffe. Check out the clips:


Ouch. "Rudy Giuliani’s been married more times than this guy’s been hunting."

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

An Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter

March 5, 2007 – 3:05 pm

[see original here]

 

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter’s fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as “ragheads.” She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a “faggot.” Such offensive language–and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it–is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation’s premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that “words mean things.” Both phrases apply to Coulter’s awful remarks.

Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (5)

Politicizing families is wrong (update)

March 5, 2007 – 9:10 am

Update: Some of my readers have suggested that I am overdoing it on Ann Romney. I don’t think so. Look at this excerpt from a recent Politico story:

When I asked Romney if it was legitimate to ask people to vote for him because of his stable family life, his wife, Ann, who was sitting next to him, interjected: "We’ll take that! I’ll take it!"

And the NYT article, cited below, notes this too:

Mr. Giuliani’s three marriages have already bubbled up as an issue. In February, Ann Romney, the wife of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, noted that her husband “had only one wife” — comparing him to other leading Republican candidates who had gone through divorces.

The New York Times, ABC and Ann Romney should be ashamed of themselves for using families as political issues..

The idea that NYT and ABC are asking Andrew Giuliani about whether he would support his dad is outrageous. When I was 21, I was lost and confused, as 21 year olds usually are.

I expected this of the NYC’s tabloids, but not the New York Times itself, which is supposed to be a serious paper.

On the other hand, I think that this was really invited by Mitt Romney’s campaign with Ann Romney’s statement that Mitt Romney "has only had one wife". Let us hope that this race doesn’t descend into "my family is better than yours".

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (6)