January 13, 2008
Jan 13 02:06 The Year Of Fluidity Jan 13 14:36 What Will They Do? Jan 13 17:18 Someone's Noticing Jan 13 18:32 Hillary Disses Military, Takes Credit For Surge Success Jan 13 19:57 Fred's Crowds Are Growing Jan 13 22:55 Pea Shooters vs. Bazookas
The Year Of Fluidity
Salena Zito, one of my favorite columnists, has written a magnificent column titled " The certainty of political uncertainty ." It's possibly the best writing I've seen from Ms. Zito, which is saying alot. Here's the first key portion of Salena's column:
Not much is certain in politics. Not exit polls, forecasts or punditry. Yet one thing that is for certain, coming out of New Hampshire, is that the 2008 presidential race remains very much up in the air.Finally, a columnist that admits this race likely will have several more twists and turns and that "just about anything can and will happen." I wrote here that Dick Morris' analysis wasn't wise analysis because he's saying that McCain is the favorite to win the nomination.
"Look at what has happened so far," says George F. Will, the conservative columnist. "The very idea that money is all-powerful was struck down with Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire; the idea that organization is all-powerful was struck down by Huckabee. "And with the Democrats we learned that the Clintons can top momentum in just about eight hours," he added. "So, in other words, just about anything can and will happen."
As near as I can tell, that prediction isn't based on the map of winner-take-all states. Many of those states are states that Rudy has a big advantage in: California, New York, New Jersey, the New England states (now that New Hampshire is out of the way).
If Fred Thompson wins South Carolina, that will be another major twist on the way to the nominating convention here in Minnesota. Fred's the truest conservative in the race, followed by Rudy. He's got tons of gravitas, appeals to each of the major wings of the party (fiscal, judicial and social conservatism) and he has impeccable national security credentials besides.
Here's another astute observation Salena makes:
Will's comments speak to not just the results in New Hampshire, where the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton race came to a stunning (mostly to pundits) conclusion, but, in a larger sense, to the entire field of presidential candidates. No clear winners have attached themselves to either party's base.Nobody in either party has their base falling for them. Hillary's had her problems because of her vote to authorize the war. McCain's dance with death on McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold and the Gang of 14 are the reasons why I can't see him getting the nomination. Rudy's pro-choice stance won't help him with some social conservatives, although I suspect not as much as the pundits would have you believe. Mitt Romney's being labeled a flip-flopper was deserved, which is why there isn't any passionate support for Mitt.
Had Thursday's Fred shown up in Iowa in September, this might be another story. With Fred's gravitas, personality and national security credentials, he would've given social conservatives reason to ignore Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney and national security hawks reason to choose him over McCain and Rudy.
Here's the final observation Salena makes that's worth keeping in mind the rest of the way, at least through Super Tuesday:
Being undecided walking into the voting booth was the norm in New Hampshire, not the exception. If that trend persists nationally, then there may not be any clear winner for either party at the end of primary season.Keep one last thing in mind: anyone that says they know how this turns out is kidding you. They don't because this is the year of fluidity.
Techorati: Election 2008 , George Will , John McCain , Fred Thompson , National Security , Gravitas , Rudy Giuliani , Mitt Romney , Mike Huckabee , Hillary
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Sunday, January 13, 2008 2:07 AM
No comments.
What Will They Do?
My hometowm newspaper, the St. Cloud Times, has an article about a transportation townhall meeting held yesterday. Tarryl Clark hosted the event. Here's a glimpse at the article's content:
Transportation funding problems got several state legislators and local transportation leaders buzzing about everything from planes to trains Saturday at a town-hall meeting organized by Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud. The attendance list included Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids; Rep. Larry Haws, DFL-St. Cloud; Rep. Larry Hosch, DFL-St. Joseph, and Mayor Dave Kleis.How I wish they'd work together this time. My adopted state legislator Steve Gottwalt often says that the legislature has too often taken a 'my-way-or-the-highway' approach, which has resulted, more often than not, in little getting done.
Their main message: Transportation is a critical issue everyone needs to unite on this year. "We certainly aren't missing projects, we're missing funding," Clark said. "This is something we can work on together."
First things first. If Tarryl Clark & Larry Pogemiller are interested in working together with the GOP so that their transportation bill doesn't get vetoed, they'l put a leash on Steve Murphy. After the I-35 bridge collapse, Murphy said that he wasn't interested in Gov. Pawlenty's nickel a gallon state gas tax increase proposal, saying that he wasn't willing to "tinker around the edges."
Simply put, Murphy plans to reintroduce his disastrous Transportation Bill this session. When Tarryl votes to pass the bill, like she did last session , Gov. Pawlenty will veto the bill and the House GOP will sustain Gov. Pawlenty's veto.
PS- Larry Haws & Larry Hosch voted for the Transportation Bill's tax increases, too.
Politicians are crossing the aisle to work on transportation issues in hopes that legislators will provide more money for transportation projects when the 2008 legislative session starts next month.We don't know that yet. That's the hope but that isn't a guarantee, especially with partisans like Larry Pogemiller & Steve Murphy are involved. They don't have a clue on what it means to work across the aisle. That's a totally foreign concept to both gentlemen. This section should scare people:
Legislators at Saturday's meeting vowed their support for funding. "Transportation fuels our economy," Hosch said. "It is time to come to a solution, and this is the year to do it."Funding is code for tax increases. It's citizens' responsibility to hold these politicians accountable for their votes. The question before us is simple: Would you rather see a multi-billion dollar tax increase to pay for these roads or would you rather we bond for the building of critical infrastructure as much as possible? Keep in mind that construction costs are rising at a 17% annual clip whereas the interest rate we pay on bonds is dirt cheap because we've maintained a great bond rating.
Clark agreed. "It's time to stop talking and start acting," she said. "It really is important to our future."
Posted Sunday, January 13, 2008 2:37 PM
No comments.
Someone's Noticing
The Bloggers News Network must be reading this blog because they've written a post saying that Fred's gaining campaign cash, major endorsements & bigger crowds. That sounds alot like these posts I wrote on those subjects. Here's some highlights from Fred's recent surge:
- The Thompson campaign another endorsement by a Pro-Life Group. This time it was the Rhode Island Right to Life lining up behind the former Senator from Tennessee.
- Fund-raising was encouraging and over $300,000 was reported raised in the 24 hours following the Debates in South Carolina.
- Fifty-six percent of all online donors since Thursday night are first-time contributors.
- We have had 14,296 contributions since the Iowa Caucus with an average contribution of $98.
- To date the campaign has more than 166,000 total donors and 283,000 people have signed up online as "Friends of Fred."
- More than 200 volunteers from all over the country have descended on South Carolina to help get out the vote.
- On the heels of Thursday's debate, Fred was endorsed by Human Events, the influential conservative publication. In addition, his debate performance has been praised by Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett and virtually every conservative blog and pundit.
Quietly, deep within an e-mail to supporters from Fred Thompson's campaign manager touting the former senator's South Carolina game plan, William Lacy describes the long days the candidate is putting in on the Palmetto State's campaign trail. He said they needed more advertising to give Thompson the best chance to do well in the upcoming Republican primary there.To say that the LA Times is parsing words as though they were translating a Hillary speech is understatement. Fred says what he means and he means what he says. That's why parsing isn't necessary.
Then there's one line we almost overlooked where Lacy makes a possibly revealing admission about the Tennessean's campaign financial condition with ramifications for his political finish.
"Right now," he says, "my budget is a little short of where it needs to be to get that done."
He adds, "Even a donation of $10, $20 or $25 would help Fred get where he needs to be." Thompson is not alone in being cash-strapped. As we wrote Friday, Rudy Giuliani's campaign is not paying top staffers this month, among other cutbacks to maximize funds for their firewall efforts in Florida.
Candidates do not need to report their 2007 fourth-quarter fundraising figures to the Federal Election Commission until the end of this month. But this short Lacy message looking for what is, in effect, small change would not seem to portend well for the Fred Thompson camp's literal fortunes.
I just found another good read on Fred, this time more from a policy standpoint. JB Williams' observations are spot on:
He is the one Republican candidate not talking about Ronald Reagan, but rather his own beliefs, policy positions and core values. He is the one candidate who was drafted by American conservatives, to represent the principles that have not been represented in Washington since Reagan.I've told people that Fred's collected more endorsements from pro life groups than all the other GOP candidates combined. Fred's also got a great record on Second Amendment rights. I wish I could say that about the First Amendment but I can't say that with a straight face because he voted for BCRA. To be fair, though, Fred's support for BCRA was because he wanted to deal with the plague of soft money, which didn't require accountability. He's since renounced his vote for BCRA.
He is the one candidate who did not blow his campaign war chest trying to win in Iowa, New Hampshire or Michigan, where only candidates willing to pander to leftist voters can win primaries or caucuses. He is the one candidate who understood from the beginning that NO conservative president has ever been chosen by Iowa, New Hampshire or Michigan, but instead, by South Carolina and beyond.
Fred Thompson has received the endorsements of the National Right to Life groups across the country because he has a perfect 100% pro-life record as a former Senator and as a man. He has spent a lifetime as a supporter of both First and Second Amendment rights. He has spent a lifetime investigating and prosecuting government corruption and working to reduce the size and scope of the federal government as a true federalist in the tradition of our founding fathers, not just Reagan.
What this all means in terms of votes is yet to be determined but I'm confident that Fred will do well in South Carolina, forcing the elitist media to pay attention to him. With that recognition will come better fundraising efforts, meaning he'll be more competitive on Super Tuesday.
That isn't a guarantee of Fred winning the nomination but at least someone's noticing.
Posted Sunday, January 13, 2008 5:19 PM
No comments.
Hillary Disses Military, Takes Credit For Surge Success
When it comes to chutzpah and spin, the Clintons are in a league of their own. That's painfully obvious in this exchange between Tim Russert and Hillary :
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. You brought it up. President Bush had talked to General Petraeus the other day. General Petraeus is to report back to Congress in March. If General Petraeus says the surge is working, that reconciliation started in a big way yesterday when the Iraqi parliament said that former members of the Saddam government can participate in new government, don't pull 35,000 troops out now, keep them there for at least the remainder of the year, would you be open to that?It's time people collectively took Hillary to the woodshed for this rambling pile of BS. hillary just took credit for the hard work that the soldiers did. These are the same soldiers that she voted to cut off funding for. She doesn't bother talking about the great work they did in Iraq. Instead, Hillary said that the progress in Iraq happened because of what politicians did in Washington. Talk about pathetic.
SEN. CLINTON: No, and here's why, Tim. The surge was certainly explained and rationalized as giving the Iraqi government space and time to make the hard decisions that they needed to make. 2007 was the deadliest year for American troops, and, you know, from my perspective, part of the reason that the Iraqis are doing anything is because they see this election happening and they know they don't have much time, that the blank check that George Bush gave them is about to be torn up. I have said that as soon as I become president, I will ask the Joint Chiefs, secretary of defense, my security advisers to give me a plan to begin withdrawing our troops within 60 days.
The reason I have to do that is because last spring, I asked for a briefing on what the planning was. Secretary of defense and the Department of Defense basically said "We're not going to tell you." And I said, "Well, yes you are." We had such a briefing. It was classified. I can't talk about it, but the bottom line is it was cursory. I don't think that the Bush White House wants there to be much planning. So starting on day one of my presidency, we will begin that planning. We will begin to withdraw our troops within 60 days. I think we can take out one to two brigades a month. At the same time, I will put increasing pressure on the Iraqi government. I will engage in a full diplomatic effort to work with the countries in the region and others who have an interest in the stability of Iraq.
But Tim, I think that the large part of the reason that we're seeing the Iraqi government do anything is because time is running out. And yes, I believe President Bush will give them the rest of this year no matter what we try to do, and we don't have the votes to reverse course. But as of January 20, 2009, we will begin to bring our troops out of Iraq. Therefore, I certainly believe it's in the interests of the Iraqi government and the people of Iraq that a lot of this reconciliation that I've been calling for going back four or five years start and actually get implemented now.
As pathetic as that tap-dancing was, it quickly gets worse:
MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"--let me finish--"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."Sen. Clinton is so full of BS, it's pathetic. Is Hillary now saying that her telling Gen. Petraeus that to believe his testimony required the " willing suspension of disbelief " was all show? Now she's saying that "if we put in 30,000 of our finest young men and women, who are going to go after the bad guys and quell violence in certain parts of Iraq, there's no doubt that can be done." Which is it, Sen. Clinton? Does the surge's success require the "willing suspension of disbelief" or was there "no doubt that can be done"? Just for clarity sake, here's what Hillary said to Gen. Petraeus:
SEN. CLINTON: Tim, I'm going to go back to what the whole point of the surge was, and the testimony that we heard last fall. The point of the surge was to push the Iraqi government to make these tough choices. Now, if we put in 30,000 of our finest young men and women, who are going to go after the bad guys and quell violence in certain parts of Iraq, there's no doubt that can be done. The partnerships that have been created by the tribal sheiks in Anbar province and elsewhere gave us an extra advantage. But that doesn't in any way undermine the basic reality. The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.
"I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."Was Hillary just playing to the Nutroots when she said this or was she saying what she really believed? For that matter, why should we believe Hillary when she says that there wasn't any doubt that American troops could achieve their mission? Let's frame that last question a bit differently:
If there wasn't any doubt that the soldiers could prevail, why didn't she criticize Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for saying that the surge had failed? If there wasn't any doubt that the soldiers could prevail, why didn't she vote each time to fund the troops? If there wasn't any doubt that the soldiers could prevail, why didn't she join with the only courageous Democrat, Joe Lieberman, in voting for funding each time?
Why shouldn't we view Hillary as a profile in political cowardice?
A true leader wouldn't have played the puppet to insane activist groups like MoveOn.org. Joe Lieberman stood up because he was only interested in doing what's right.
Finally, shouldn't our next commander-in-chief be able to stare down MoveOn.org?
Posted Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:35 PM
No comments.
Fred's Crowds Are Growing
Based on the reporting in this article , it sounds like the crowds that Fred's attracting are growing. Here's what I'm basing this on:
It took Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson almost 15 minutes to drop the words "Law and Order" during his talk Saturday at Barbara Jean's Restaurant, drawing a round of applause from the crowd of about 200. But the Lady's Island gathering saved its loudest ovations for the former actor's conservative messages during a brief Beaufort stop on an overcast afternoon. Coming off a sixth-place finish in New Hampshire's Republican primary, the one-time Tennessee senator found a warm reception in "my neck of the woods."Fred's message, combined with his imported GOTV operation, are leading to the increaseing crowd sizes. I'd bet that it's intimidating to other campaigns that Fred's got people flying or driving in to do doorknocking and phonebanking from all across the nation. That's the type of ground game that'll give a candidate a substantial advantage. Anyone that's got that many passionate supporters is a force to be reckoned with.
"You could see in there the level of enthusiasm people have," Thompson said on his bus after the town hall-style meeting. "We're going to be competitive on the airwaves in terms of radio and television...and I think we'll do real well here."
Now check out what Fred's saying:
In a campaign season marked by themes of change, Thompson started by citing something that doesn't change, what he called the United States of America's founding fathers' understanding of "the wisdom of ages", that too much governmental power corrupts. "That's why they established the Constitution the way they did. The notion that a government big enough and powerful enough to give you anything was big enough and powerful enough to take anything away from you," Thompson said.Fred's a true federalist. What makes it even better is that he isn't bashful about being a federalist. It's a safe bet that that's a winning message in the South Carolina GOP primary. Fred's saying that the Founding Fathers were wise is something else South Carolinians are sure to appreciate.
Check out this shot at McCain and Huckabee:
Thompson highlighted his opposition to closing the prison camp for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to using taxpayers' money to fund programs for illegal immigrants.Finally, a politician that understands that money is the wage earner's first, who then lends it to the government. That's a We The People perspective that's easy to get excited about. Far too frequently, GOP politicians like John McCain and Mike Huckabee think of taxes as the government's money. In We The People country, we view things quite differently.
"As a politician, taking money from a hard-working taxpayer who's abiding by the law and giving it to someone who is illegal doesn't make me a better person," he said. "It's not my money to begin with."
That type of common sense is sadly missing in Washington. It wouldn't improve with a President McCain or President Huckabee either. It'd continue on the same disgusting glidepath that it's currently on.
If Fred keeps preaching that federalist, limited government gospel, his crowds will continue to swell. We've held 2 caucuses and 1 primary. Super Tuesday is still looming. If Fred wins South Carolina, which I think is a definite possibility, the landscape changes entirely.
That doesn't mean Rudy won't win some big states like California and New York. It does mean, though, that Fred will be, at minimum, competitive in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri.
The Fred Express keeps rolling with Fred providing the inspiration.
Posted Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:03 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 14-Jan-08 01:30 PM
No offense, but I thought Rommey went and created the best ground organization in Iowa and New Hamsphire and he was beat out by two different candidates with less money. Any idea why this will be different if Thompson has the best ground organization as you say?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Jan-08 02:31 PM
No offense, but I thought Rommey went and created the best ground organization in Iowa and New Hamsphire and he was beat out by two different candidates with less money. Any idea why this will be different if Thompson has the best ground organization as you say?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Fair question. Here's the answer. People didn't trust Romney. They'd concluded that he was a flip-flopper that was attempting to buy the nomination.
Voters know Fred won't change. They know that he's consistent because the same principles undergird his policy positions.
Talking with people on the ground in Iowa, I learned that Romney's GOTV people were viewed much like Dean's GOTV people were viewed.
Fred's people are coming from all over the country because they believe passionately in Fred.
Another difference worth noting is that Fred's closing the deal with South Carolinians. Mitt hasn't been able to do that anywhere, probably because he's viewed as an empty suit filled with policy papers & PowerPoint presentations.
That's a huge difference.
Pea Shooters vs. Bazookas
Fred Thompson has been beating Mike Huckabee like a drum so now Huckabee has started to hit back. The bad news for Huckabee is that he's bringing a pea shooter to a bazooka fight. This article lays it out for everyone to see:
"Fred Thompson talks about putting America first, and yet he's the one who is a registered foreign agent, lobbied for foreign countries, was in a law firm that did lobbying work for Libya," Huckabee charged Sunday morning on CNN.That's the type of tactic that the DNC uses. Frankly, it's a lightweight response. The first thing worth noting is that Huckabee accusing Sen. Thompson of lobbying for Libya. Here's how Fred responded to that:
Thompson Sunday acknowledged he was "in a law firm that did some lobbying work for Libya," but his involvement was minimal. He said he'd registered with the government because of "five minutes' worth of contribution" to discussions about another client, Haiti.Now let's look at things from a campaign against Team Clinton. If that's the hardest that Mike Huckabee can hit, then the Clinton Machine will steamroller him. He'd be lucky to win 10 states nationwide. If the choice is between Liberal Lite and Liberal, they'll take the liberal all the time.
What's needed in fighting the Clinton Machine is someone who can hit them hard time after time after time. What's needed is someone with gravitas. What's needed is someone who draws a distinction between Hillary's irresponsible policies and their own policies.
The man best equipped for that type of combat is Fred Thompson.
Mike Huckabee is finding out the hard way that Fred doesn't horse around when it comes to hitting his opponents. Here's another exchange that Fred wins:
Huckabee has "raised enough money now to get some hit pieces and dredge up personal stuff and personal accusations against me," Thompson told CNN. "And now you're seeing the real Mike Huckabee come out. So, I think we've done a favor to the American people. Because these are serious times, and they require somebody that knows what they're doing and doesn't walk into a situation with foreign representatives and heads of foreign nations with training wheels on."What's interesting is that Fred didn't say that Huckabee's accusations were a personal attack. Huckabee insinuates that that's what Fred did. What's also interesting is that Huckabee isn't arguing that what Fred's said isn't true. He's simply deflecting as much of the flak as possible.
Told what Thompson said on CNN, Huckabee told reporters at the Greenville/Spartanburg Airport in Greer, S.C., Sunday afternoon, "Well, it seems like its perfectly okay for he or others to fire away these lengthy salvos at me, but if I respond then it's a personal attack. If you're gonna play big league ball, you have to stand at the plate as well as throw a few, and that's just the way it works. If you really can't handle that, you probably shouldn't run for something as serious as president."
It's also laughable that Huckabee is acting like Mr. Tough Guy. Huckabee is attempting to make himself sound like Mr. Macho. That isn't his persona. It isn't working. People are noticing who's the whiny candidate and which is the gravitas candidate.
Here's another stinging attack on Huckabee:
On Saturday, Thompson called the criticism of his previous support of Ford and Baker as "kind of silly. Howard Baker was my mentor and personal friend in Tennessee for years and years. If you check the record, Gov. Huckabee supported Democrats on a fairly consistent basis in his days in Arkansas politics . I don't think he wants to get into that discussion. We'll see."I'll grant Gov. Huckabee the fact that southern Democrats are oftentimes more conservative that northeastern RINOs but that supporting Democrats isn't the way to win the GOP presidential nomination. This isn't a fight that Huckabee should pick.
Finally, there's this exchange:
Huckabee, Thompson charged, "talked around the subject and smiled and giggled and told a couple of jokes. When I came back, I said, 'You know, this is about the heart and mind of the Republican Party, because I don't believe it [the Reagan coalition] is [dead].'"Huckabee hinting that Fred's getting desperate because he launched a substantive attack of Huckabee's policies is just another instance of Huckabee bringing a peashooter to a bazooka fight. It's also laughable because Fred landed several substantive haymakers. In contrast, the best that Huckabee could do is throw in a couple substance-free one-liners. (Have you noticed that Gov. Huckabee didn't respond substantively to any of Fred's allegations?)
Said Huckabee, "The Writers Guild strike needs to end soon. Fred's got to get some better lines. Calling me a liberal would be laughable in Arkansas, where people recognized; if anything, they called me this ultra-conservative guy...It's always interesting to me, when people get desperate, they start grabbing for anything."
Thompson responded that he had been asking questions about Huckabee's support for closing down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, his support for public programs for the children of illegal immigrants, and the fact that he was endorsed by a teachers' union. "These are substantive issues," Thompson said. "These are not personal attacks."
Huckabee's lack of substance is showing. His standard response to a substantive attack is a cute one-liner. That doesn't work. That might work with RINOs or squishy independents but it won't when you're playing in the big leagues.
Wouldn't you rather have Fred fighting for, and defending, the conservative principles that made this country great against Hillary than seeing Huckabee reply with oh so cute one-liners?
Anytime it's a fight between a pea-shooter and a bazooka, I'd want the bazooka on my side.
Posted Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:57 PM
No comments.
