Tancredo to Drop Out if He Does Not Finish in Top Four in Iowa Straw Poll
June 30, 2007 | Permalink | 4 Comments
In an example of setting pointedly lower standards than the Tommy Thompson campaign, an aide to Tom Tancredo said that the candidate will drop out of the race if he does finish at least fourth in the August 11 poll.
Right Wing World wrote on June 28:
Republican presidential contender Tom Tancredo will soon quit the 2008 race if his support in a key test doesn’t measure up to other candidates, a campaign aide said.
The source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Tancredo would concentrate on being re-elected to Congress if he doesn’t finish in the top four at the Iowa Republican Party’s Ames Straw Poll on August 11.
The Times-Republican reported today Tancredo’s reiteration about staying in the straw poll, but he did not mention any conditions that would cause him to run for re-election to the House instead of election for the presidency.
Tancredo’s success or failure at Ames will likely be defined by his ability to galvanize those who agree with him on immigration. His poll numbers in Iowa do make a lower-than-fourth finish a possibility, though. The only two candidates I am sure will finish above Tancredo are Huckabee and Romney; Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, and Duncan Hunter all could as well. And that isn’t even counting the declared candidates McCain and Giuliani and the soon to be candidate Fred Thompson, or the potential candidate who will have a ‘large presence’ at Ames, Newt Gingrich.
When the immigration issue fades behind Iraq, Tancredo will eventually drop out. Whether it happens immediately after Ames or a few months later is not tremendously important.
[Photo Credit: C-Span]
Sphere: Related Content
Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton Tussle Over Cuban Immigrants
June 30, 2007 | Permalink | 4 Comments
Fred Thompson is officially not even in the race for President yet, and he’s already being called out for political statements.
This began when Thompson said the following Wednesday at a South Carolina fundraiser:
When that clip started to circulate, Thompson responded with a lengthy blog entry on his official website:
Anybody who knows my track record or has read some of the things I’ve written about the Cuban-American community knows where I stand. While the communist dictatorship has been a tragedy for Cuba, America has been in some ways, at least, the beneficiary. …
And no one knows better than that community that the Castro regime remains dedicated to infiltrating American institutions to spread his ideology of tyranny. Castro admitted it himself in an interview with CNN in 1998.
This is why the Cuban government rightfully remains on the State Department’s terrorist list for its continued support of terrorism. It’s also why we must oppose the illegal immigration of Castro’s agents into the United States while welcoming the vast majority who immigrate legally and with legal intentions.
It seems to me that few Americans understand the threat that the illegal entry by Cuban spies represents to our country, though Cuban-Americans have never forgotten or stopped pointing it out. Ambassador Otto Reich, the former Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere has called Castro’s efforts to penetrate U.S. intelligence networks “relentless.”
The best-known incident involving Cuban espionage, which many believe may have provided U.S. secrets to hostile Middle Eastern regimes, is probably that of former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Ana Belen Montes — convicted of espionage in 2002. Now, our intelligence picture has been further complicated by the emergence of oil-funded Hugo Chavez and his anti-American, pro-Castro regime. We know that Cuban intelligence officers, for instance, are in South America — presumably training Venezuelans and others in the intelligence arts.
Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline. Cuban-Americans are among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, and especially so when it’s sponsored by the Castro regime. We know we have a porous southern border in which they can currently slip through easily. Our enemies know it too.
All of us should be rightfully concerned about Castro and his ideological pal Chavez sending agents and provocateurs into the United States through Mexico. I’m sure that Cuban-Americans share this concern as well.
Hillary Clinton weighed in on the comment today at the NALEO forum saying:
“I was appalled when one of the people running for or about to run for the Republican nomination talked about Cuban refugees as potential terrorists,” Clinton told Hispanic elected officials. “Apparently he doesn’t have a lot of experience in Florida or anywhere else, and doesn’t know a lot of Cuban-Americans.”
As others have written, in Presidential politics perception is reality; what people perceive and think of a candidate is far more important than what the candidates would think of themselves. And if the perception of Fred Thompson among Cuban-Americans is hurt by something that was meant to be an innocent line, he will have to work hard to repair that; not just in the primaries, with Florida having a very early primary scheduled, but in the event Thompson wins the nomination the Cuban-American vote could be the key in Florida.
In the bigger picture, this is really unlikely to reverberate that much. The bigger takeaway is that of Fred Thompson the candidate. He is clearly someone who shoots from the hip and says what he thinks. The problem with that type of candidate, as we have seen numerous times from Bill Richardson in the debates, is that it can lead to meandering thoughts and accidental responses. When Fred Thompson can write a 5, 6, 7, 8 paragraph blog entry to clear up misconceptions, he will be fine. The problem is avoiding the misconceptions in the first place. When Thompson has to start debating other candidates and the awe and mystery of his campaign goes away, will he rely on blogging himself out of his mistakes or will he be disciplined enough to prevent them?
Of course, this on top of criticism from some that he’s not a candidate with any depth. This particular issue aside, blogging has uses, but also limits, for Presidential campaigns.
Related at 2008 Central:
[Photo Credit: C-span]
Sphere: Related Content
Brownback Votes For the Immigration Bill Before He Votes Against It
June 30, 2007 | Permalink | 6 Comments
This is actually from Thursday, but we missed it. From MSNBC’s First Read:
GOP presidential hopeful Sam Brownback was very nervous for 11 minutes this morning. That’s the time that elapsed between his initial “Aye” vote for cloture on the Senate’s immigration bill today — essentially an expression of support for the Bush-backed overhaul — and a change to “Nay” before the vote was over.
Brownback likely recognized that a vote in favor of the bill, which is deeply unpopular among many Republicans who consider it “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, would not play well in the GOP presidential race or in a potential re-election bid in his native Kansas (he’s up in 2010). He’s supported the bill up until now, and voted to bring the measure to the Senate floor earlier in the week.
As the entry notes, Brownback then issued a press release from his Senate office that did not reference having changed his vote on cloture, nor specifically why this legislation was not the comprehensive reform that he is still calling for:
“We need comprehensive immigration reform, but the country is not accepting of this bill,” Brownback stated. “We need to listen to the American people on both timing and substance. We need to help ‘the widow and orphan and foreigner amongst us,’ but must do so in a way and at a time the American people support. This is not yet the right way. We should let the topic rest for now while we work diligently to secure our borders. Americans support legal immigration, not illegal immigration. We desire to be compassionate but demand adherence to the rule of law.”
Brownback has called for a comprehensive approach that secures the border, provides interior workplace enforcement, and a workable guest worker program.
“I became convinced along with many of my colleagues on the floor that this version of the immigration bill was not, and would not become the vehicle that would fix our broken system as I had hoped.”
Essentially, Brownback only cites a lack of popular support as a reason for the bill being flawed. I am not sure that this is the type of political leadership that will hold up if put to the test. For his own sake, I hope he has a better answer prepared for the campaign trail other than ‘the American poeple do not support the bill.’
[Photo Credit: Flickr user ... Sam Brownback]
Sphere: Related ContentIs Tom Ridge Abandoning McCain?
June 30, 2007 | Permalink | 7 Comments
We have no inside information that it is the case, but some curious events happened this weekend at the summer meeting of the Pennsylvania Republican Party:
Time is running out for success in Iraq, said former Gov. Tom Ridge, adding his voice to the growing number of leading Republicans saying that the current American strategy in Iraq is not working.
“There will be a major readjustment, even from the White House on down” if progress is not achieved within a couple months, predicted Ridge during an interview today.
“There is very little sand left in the hourglass of Iraq,” said the former Homeland Security secretary, who said patience even among Republicans is wearing thin for the unpopular war.
“There’s more sand at the bottom of the hourglass than at the top, and at some point of time…somebody’s going to have to make a decision on when or how we make a withdrawal” he said.
It’s worth remembering at this point that Ridge was the person McCain had in the spin room talking about his candidacy after the first debate. He’s also someone who has been floated as a VP candidate with McCain should McCain take the nomination. For him to back off on Iraq like this is something that should be taken seriously. While Ridge has said previously that he has policy disagreements with McCain, it’s hard to imagine it on an issue as crucial as this.
If McCain’s serious and significant list of political allies cannot help him get any more than this level of support - and possibly even backfire - there can only be two logical implications: either the endorsements do not mean anything or those endorsing him are abandoning him. My gut says that the former is far more likely than the latter now, but it’s probably still far too early to tell for sure.
Related at 2008 Central:
Tommy Thompson: Iowa Straw Poll or Bust
June 30, 2007 | Permalink | Leave a Comment
Republican Presidential Candidate has laid his candidacy on the line in terms of the Iowa Straw Poll.
All Headline News reports:
Tommy Thompson has declared the Republican Ames straw poll in Iowa is “very much a must win” for his presidential campaign.
In an interview expected to be broadcast on C-SPAN this weekend, the Republican former Wisconsin governor and Bush administration secretary of health and human services, said he has campaigned in the Hawkeye State “more often than any other candidate” seeking the presidency in 2008.
“I have not missed being there since the first week in December,” Thompson said, according to USA Today. “I’ve been in 52 counties now out of 99 and will be in all 99 before August 11. And I think that’s what you have to do.”
It’s been a challenging campaign thus far for Thompson, with him working harder than any other candidate in Iowa, but with very few results to show for it. Moreover, this seems to be the rhetoric of someone who needs a miracle to just stay in the race at this point. Given the importance of money and organization in the Iowa Straw Poll, I think it’s fair to say a Thompson win would be a major upset over Romney; I even would be moderately surprised (but not shocked) if Thompson even beat either Huckabee or Brownback.
This might be the first sign that Thompson is on the way out of the campaign; he’s even put off his report to the FEC of his finances until August 13, two days after the straw poll. Should he decide to withdraw from the race immediately after the poll, he presumably would not have to file that report.
He’s not giving up without a fight however: he plans a massive campaign push in late July and easrly AUgust in Iowa, visiting the 45 counties in Iowa he has not yet visited.
[Photo Credit: Flickr user millhollin]
Sphere: Related ContentWeekend Calendar Preview
June 29, 2007 | Permalink | Leave a Comment
Last few days to fundraise before the 2nd quarter deadline. All Democratic candidates except Mike Gravel plus Duncan Hunter are in Florida Saturday for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. Read more about the forum here. We received an email today from the Hunter campaign that he has decided to participate after initially rejecting the offer. We hope to offer more on this later today.
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich
Hillary Clinton
Joe Biden
John Edwards
Duncan Hunter
John McCain
Mike Huckabee
Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Rudy Guiliani
Sam Brownback
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson
Tommy Thompson also appears at the Presidential Forum in Iowa tomorrow.
Sphere: Related ContentLive Blog of the PBS Presidential Primary Forum of 6/29/07
June 28, 2007 | Permalink | 4 Comments
8:35: Unlike cable news with long extended preview shows, the lead in of the debate tonight is the ‘International Dancesport World Championships 2006.’ The Russians just dominated the Rumba and the Samba, for what its worth.
As for the debate tonight, it’s going to supposedly focus more on domestic issues like Katrina response and health care. Those issues will play very well for Hillary Clinton; FEMA worked exceptionally well under James Lee Whit in Pres. Clinton’s administration, and she’s had as much experience with health care as any other candidate.
8:50: Finally getting revenge for the Russians Sherman-esque march to Berlin over 60 years ago, the Germans squeeze by the Russians to take the title. I could write thousands of jokes about this, but they’d probably be more offensive than that one.
8:57: Commercial before the debate: telecasts of the Israeli Baseball League are broadcast on Sunday mornings.
9:00: The National Minority Consortia and the California Endowment are the sponsors.
9:01: Long intro by the President.
9:03: This is the second Democratic debate at a historically black college; Tom Joyner comes out and cracks a joke about being a scorpio. Then talks about the power of black media and the power of black America. I’m curious as to whether this intro is appropriate or not: is this just a forum for ‘black America’?
9:06: Tavis Smiley talks about ‘The Covenant for America.’ And this is just about ‘black America.’
9:09: ‘Children must be cherished.’
9:10: Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts comes out to introduce the candidates. He might be a future presidential or VP candidate if things break the right way for him. He’s pretty impressive here, talking concisely about holding Democrats to offering a positive vision. Clinton, Biden, Richardson, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd are introduced. Someone puts a mic right next to Elizabeth Kucinich’s clapping. The introductions were so rapid fire that it was hard to gauge support; Clinton was first as well, and probably got the loudest, but it’s hard to say.
9:14: Is race still the most intractable problem in America in light of today’s SCOTUS decision? Clinton goes first, and says race and racism are still an issue in the world; she points to the stage and says things are getting better. She gets mild applause and goes to loud voice: citing Katrina and the Covenant, and criticizes the SCOTUS ruling by touting diversity.
9:16: Biden says it is still the defining issue of our times; he says the rationale of the SCOTUS decision would have held down progress this past century. Gets applause for saying that he talked tough to Edwards and Alito and the next candidate has to take a stand.
9:17: Richardson says dealing with racism is about being authentic. Calls for integraion and affirmative action to be renewed and leading a dialogue; says race is not a talking point but facts of life.
9:18: Edwards goes for the cheap pop by thanking the college for hosting. Edwards says slavery and then Jim Crow laws led into discrimination today, manifesting in the two americas. Also calls for voter reform.
9:20: Obama thanks everyone as well, and talks about him following in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall, and that racial equality is good for America, not just black America. Says the progress is not good enough; they show Al Sharpton looking at someone near him, oddly enough; Obama calls for mutual responsibility and political will in the White House.
9:22: Kucinich agrees with Obama. There’s definitely no risers here by the way, as Obama hovers above Kucinich. Kucinich: “they tell people to pull themselves up by the boot straps and then they steal the boots.” Kucinich calls for educational reforms, like universal pre-K and pulling resources from war to affording college.
9:23: Gravel thanks the forum for being the most fair; Gravel criticizes the war on drugs; the audience seems stunned; very mild clapping for Gravel mentioning the percentage of African Americans in jail. Gravel says drugs are a public health issue, not a criminal issue.
9:25: Dodd goes last, saying the shame of segregation has been happening slowly over the past few decades. He says education is the crucial issue to equal access in society.
9:27: Half an hour in … one question. This might not go too long.
9:28: And the mics on the next question are off briefly… Black high school graduates have 33% higher unemployment rate. Biden is asked first why.
9:28: Biden talks about the education gap being wide and getting wider because single mothers are not given enough support. Biden wants to focus on education on pre-K at age 4, and better teachers at school.
9:30: Richardson says improving education should be the foremost priority. Richardson says its crucial to pay teachers more and make college education affordable.
9:31: Edwards says he’s worked on poverty his whole life and it’s a cycle that creates the failure, without a single cause. Edwards adds that incentive pay to get better teachers in rural areas and the inner cities. And also to help the lower class: unions and predatory lending.
9:32: Obama mentions how many good ideas there are and that ‘John is exactly right.’ Talks about teachers and providing resources. Says the most important thing is recognizing the children as ‘our children.’ A political will argument similar to what Clinton has said on health care; Obama is clearly pushing political will tonight.
9:34: Kucinich brings up MLK saying war hurts two countries, and that shifting paradigms from war to education and health care is the key issue.
9:35: Gravel says the people need to solve the issues, not the leaders. Says the people on the stage are all guilty, like everyone else. Gets a loud response.
9:36: Dodd again has to follow Gravel… that’s not an easy thing to do. Dodd talks about dedicating himself to that issue in the Senate. Touts himself being named ‘the Senator of the Decade’ by the Head Start Foundation.
9:37: Clinton goes last, and starts with that ‘it takes a village to raise a child, and the American village has failed.’ Clinton talks about her work on education. Clinton goes back to the original question and says that people with degrees are still turned down, and that it is an issue that is broader than education.
9:39: What’s the plan to stop AIDS?
9:39: Richardson says it is a moral imperative to fight it nationally and internationally. Says education in African American community is important; Says fighting AIDS in Africa is crucial. He even praises the work done by Bush in that regard. Also says its important to get Needle education. Was that a Needle exchange program?
9:40: Edwards says that black women are 25 times more likely than white women to contract AIDS. Good command of the issue. Edwards calls for comprehensive health reform.
9:42: Obama agrees with the health reform but adds that it is important to educate the community. He then talks about the importance of taking a step back and creating development that solves problems broadly.
9:43: Kucinich talks about education to prevent it; and that access to health care is a basic right in a democratic society. Says it is time to end for-profit health care, citing Michael Moore.
9:44: Gravel again calls for the other candidates to end the war on drugs and says all the health care plans except Kucinich’s subsidize the insurance companies.
9:45: Dodd calls for more school clinics that children could use for advice and information. He mentions that many diseases - SIDS and others - are much hgher in the AFrican American community. Dodd comically gets caught off and says he would take global warming for 600; Smiley responds by saying that were he Paris Hilton he would get an hour.
9:47: Clinton says that were the stats negative for white women that there would be outrage. Making her own joke about not being compared to Paris Hilton, Clinton touts her work to improve medical access.
9:49: Biden says these ideas are good but do not prevent AIDS. Biden talks about his rallies in Delaware aimed at getting men to wear condoms and getting women the courage to say no. And cites how he and Obama were tested for AIDS and it is a public issue. Obama jumps in, and says he was tested with Michelle. Funniest moment for me.
9:51: Warren Buffet said the tax rates are too low for the wealthy; Edwards is asked about it.
9:52: Edwards calls for rolling back tax cuts for the rich to pay for universal health care. He also calls for a higher capital gains tax that rewards work and not wealth.
9:53: Obama agrees the tax cuts should lapse (does not specifically mention just for the wealthy). Says it is about fairness, being allocated fairly. Obama said the tragedy in Katrina happened beforehand, with a lack of systematic investments.
9:54: Kucinich says those in the high tax bracket and corporations are avoiding paying a fair amount of taxes; also that war is taking too much of the budget.
9:55: Gravel calls for wiping out the income tax and replacing it with a retail sales tax.
9:56: Dodd calls for a ‘fair, progressive, and pro-growth’ tax rate. Calls for returning to the Clinton era tax rates (Not sure that calling for a return to the Clinto era is a good tactical move).
9:57: Clinton reiterates the success of the Clinton era. She also mentions the payroll tax. She agrees that the tax system needs to be reformed.
9:58: Biden agrees to repeal the tax cuts to the wealthy. Biden says the people who are wage earners are paying more taxes than the investors and that needs to be changed.
9:59: Richardson calls for the tax cuts to the wealthy to be moved to the middle class, with incentives for companies to move to rural and inner-city areas. Calls for Democrats to be pro-growth Democrats and develop the economy.
10:01: Why are blacks imprisoned more when they are arrested less?
10:01: Obama says the justice system is not color blind, and requires political courage to solve these issues.
10:02: Kucinich calls for mandatory minimums to be ended, and reforms on drugs based on rehabilitation, not incarceration.
10:02: Gravel says money buys justice.
10:02: Dodd says mandatory minimums have been a failure and that crack cocaine and powder cocaine need to be legally differentiated.
10:03: Clinton says racial profiling and mandatory minimums need to be got rid of; She calls for more rehab and making the cocaine distinction as well.
10:04: Biden agrees on diversion and cocaine; says it is important to put pressure on the states for better justice.
10:04: Richardson calls for a strategy to deal with poverty, such as raising the minimum wage and increasing access to unions.
10:05: Edwards agrees on everything; minimums, cocaine, etc; he mentions residivism as well. Also calls for counseling.
10:06: Would you support a law guaranteeing a return to New Orleans and gulf areas based on the UN document?
10:06: Kucinich says yes, and that the government failed before and after in Katrina.
10:07: Gravel says yes, and that the war has wasted resources that would have been available in New Orleans.
10:07. Dodd says yes, and that Katrina is a symbol of the Bush administration.
10:08: Clinton says that it is important to get the structure back - hospitals, police, etc - and that is crucial. Criticizes the administration.
10:09: Says it is a national problem that requires a guarantee of action.
10:09: Richardson says he would support it, that FEMA needs to directly report to the president, and that the insurance companies need to be forced to pay to rebuild.
10:10: Edwards mentions that he announced his campaign in the 9th ward and that he would have someone in the White House report to him every day, to let New Orleans rebuild.
10:11: Obama finishes what Edwards was saying, that Halliburton getting contracts is outrageous. Obama says the problem was assuming that everyone could pack up and leave, and that potential Katrinas have been left unattended.
10:12: What is the solution for outsourcing.
10:13: Gravel says that the trade agreement benefits management and other countries. And that financing health care on the backs of companies makes them uncompetitive.
10:13: Dodd says it is a problem, and providing tax incentives could be crucial.
10:14: Clinton talks about her work to fight outsourcing, trade greements with standards, and helping Americans compete. Adds in clean energy would create millions of new jobs.
10:15: Biden says it is necessary to take burdens off corporations for health care (really? his health care is by far the most conservative).
10:15: Richardson calls for upgrading science and math standards and trade agreements with standards, also for investing in companies.
10:16: Edwards talks about the mill where his dad worked shutting down. Agrees with the previous few candidates.
10:17: Obama talks about working with people who were laid off from steel workers, with no effort made to re-train workers. Says that in addition to the other plans, investing in retraining is key.
10:18: Kucinich calls for cancelling NAFTA and the WTO; criticizes the Democratic administration that started NAFTA.
10:19: Question about Darfur and our claim to moral leadership.
10:19: Dodd says Iraq has cost America its moral authority; says it is important to take unilateral action.
10:20: Clinton says the peacekeepers need to get in asap, with airlift and logistical support, preferably from Nato; and lastly a no-fly zone over Sudan.
10:20: Biden says he has been calling for action for three years. Biden says it should have happened two years ago., and American troops should be on the ground.
10:21: Richardson says that genocide is more important than sports, and that pressuring China is important. Agrees on the no-fly zone.
10:22: Edwards agrees tactically, but says it is important to gain moral authority, spending billions on education and clean drinking water.
10:22: Obama says protection and the no-fly zone are important, but looking at trade and foreign policy attention on Africa are crucial to long term security.
10:23: Kucinich has 15 seconds: says it is time for corporations to stop exploiting Africa.
10:24: Gravel says moral judgment … and then briefly thinks he’s not being heard. Concludes by saying most people on the stage have proven they do not have moral authority.
And on that parting shot it is over. Not an especially memorable debate.
12:30: Thoughts after reflecting and reading the comments:
I don’t think there was a crowd favorite - they really seemed to respond to the answers and not just a certain candidate.
My initial impression was that Clinton got more applause, but the frenzied pace in the second half (mostly caused by a slow as molasses pace in the first half hour) seemed to just take the focus off the applause.
I think - for once - all the candidates did well at getting their positions out. Biden, Clinton, and Obama were the most focused; Dodd got a terrible draw by having to follow Gravel - he had to use 15 seconds of every minute just to distinguish himself from what Dodd was saying.
Edwards focused more on his campaign theme of two Americas; it wasn’t focused, but it was still probably a success.
I can’t imagine any of the candidates being upset by their performance.
Although the Biden gaffe implying that he and Obama got tested for AIDS - which Obama clarified hilariously - was probably something he wished he could take back. But it wasn’t something that will hurt him.
I found some of the humor off (the Paris Hilton comments). And I found the moderation somewhat inconsistent (it seemed the time for answers went drastically down as the evening went on). But I would also describe it as fair, and it was refreshing to see other topics discussed, and in a manner in which everyone could weigh in.
Sphere: Related ContentMitt Romney Did What?
June 28, 2007 | Permalink | Leave a Comment
From the Boston Globe story:
The white Chevy station wagon with the wood paneling was overstuffed with suitcases, supplies, and sons when Mitt Romney climbed behind the wheel to begin the annual 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario.
As with most ventures in his life, he had left little to chance, mapping out the route and planning each stop. The destination for this journey in the summer of 1983 was his parents’ cottage on the Canadian shores of Lake Huron. Romney would be returning to the place of his most cherished childhood memories.
….
The ride was largely what you’d expect with five brothers, ages 13 and under, packed into a wagon they called the ”white whale.”
As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ”Dad!” he yelled. ”Gross!” A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.
Ana Marie Cox, now of Time, further clarified that the action might have even violated Massachusetts law:
Massachusetts’s animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal “in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.” An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying “it’s definitely something I’d want to check out.” The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it’s against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and “if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal.” And while it appears that the statute of limitations has probably passed, Stacey Wolf, attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA, said “even if it turns out to not be against the law at the time, in the district, we’d hope that people would use common sense…Any manner of transporting a dog that places the animal in serious danger is something that we’d think is inappropriate…I can’t speak to the accuracy of the case, but it raises concerns about the judgment used in this particular situation.”
This happened a long time ago - 23 years. And if one individual case of bad judgment 20 years ago was enough for someone not to be elected … well, neither Democrats nor Republicans would be left with a very deep field (not to mention that the last two Presidents both had more serious legal issues themselves). But it seems responsible enough for Romney to come forward and admit it was a bad idea and he’s sorry. If people do not think someone with this type of judgment has changed, they will just think Romney is a weird guy who is hiding. There’s a reason Gingrich made the rounds to apologize and talk out his marital problems earlier in the year: apologies for personal misconduct are crucial, regardless of how meaningful or deep they are. Perhaps one day the electorate will look deeper into apologies, but for now, even a minimal effort tends to satisfy voters.
Related at 2008 Central:
Members Of Congress Are Missing A Very Large Amount Of Votes To Run For President
June 27, 2007 | Permalink | 6 Comments
Ten presidential candidates are currently members of Congress. Many of them are missing a substantial amount of votes, ostensibly because of their presidential bids. Below are the amount of votes these candidates have missed so far during this Congressional term (110th) and for comparison the amount of votes they have missed in the two preceding terms…
Sen. Joe Biden
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 62 of 229 (27.1%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 64 of 645 (9.9%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): 52 of 675 (7.7%)
Sen. Sam Brownback
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 81 of 229 (35.4%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 13 of 645 (2%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): 21 of 675 (3.1%)
Sen. Hillary Clinton
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 5 of 229 (2.2%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 16 of 645 (2.5%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): 19 of 675 (2.8%)
Sen. Chris Dodd
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 59 of 229 (25.8%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 29 of 645 (4.5%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): 11 of 676 (1.6%)
Rep. Duncan Hunter
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 184 of 563 (32.7%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 89 of 1213 (7.3%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): 105 of 1221 (8.6%)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 13 of 563 (2.3%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 17 of 1213 (1.4%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): 165 of 1221 (13.5%)
Sen. John McCain
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 118 of 229 (51.5%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 58 of 645 (9%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): 12 of 675 (1.8%)
Sen. Barack Obama
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 23 of 229 (10.5%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 11 of 645 (1.7%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): Not A Member Of 108th Congress
Rep. Ron Paul
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 110 of 563 (19.5%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 84 of 1213 (6.9%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): 129 of 1221 (10.6%)
Rep. Tom Tancredo
- Missed Votes (110th Congress): 90 of 563 (16%)
- Missed Votes (109th Congress): 58 of 1206 (4.8%)
- Missed Votes (108th Congress): 37 of 1221 (3%)
[Source: The Washington Post Congressional Votes Database]
Some takeaways…
- John McCain has missed by far the most votes (51.5%). Yet another sign that his campaign is struggling. If his operation was tighter and if he was in a more comfortable position in the polls, he’d be more active in the Senate. However, I imagine he’s missing votes for two reasons: First, he can’t really afford to take off any time from the campaign; Secondly, any vote that he casts will be met with intense scrutiny and I imagine it’s preferable to avoid that as much as possible.
- Big kudos to Sen. Clinton and Rep. Kucinich for remaining the two most active out of all the candidates from Congress.
- Duncan Hunter, Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback are simply missing an inexcusable amount of votes. Why is it that other presidential candidates with business schedules are able to be substantially more active than these three? I can’t really think of any justifiable reason for their extreme absences from their current job.
Edwards Camp and Coulter Clash Twice More; Coulter Now Backs Hunter
June 26, 2007 | Permalink | 3 Comments
Similarly to the last time, the Edwards camp immediately broadcast the language with campaign emails and attempted to use it for fundraising.
Joe Trippi sent out a campaign email saying:
Yesterday, Jonathan told you that the folks who benefit from the status quo are attacking John personally because they don’t want the country to hear his message.
And you know what happened when we called them out? The attacks started pouring in.
That same day, the Ann Coulter-wannabe Michelle Malkin blasted John on her blog. Fox News has been bashing him around the clock. And Coulter herself said, “if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
We are fighting back, but we need your help. Give what you can today.
www.johnedwards.com/rightwing
They are trying to put John away before he even gets started. Because they know what we know. They know that John has led on Iraq. That he has lead on universal health care. That he has led on global warming, on poverty, and on building One America.
And they are seeing what we’re seeing—poll after poll showing John outperforming all other Democrats against all Republicans. In the latest poll from Rasmussen Reports, John is the only Democrat to beat Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Fred Thompson—and by an average of 13 points!
If you’re a right-wing wing-nut, this is the scariest thing you can imagine—that the Democratic candidate with the boldest vision for America is also the most electable.
So they will stop at nothing to tear John down. We can stop them—but only if you stand up. We have 5 more days to reach our goal of $9 million. Give what you can today, and help us beat back this vicious tide.
There’s not much to add to that. The understated nature of Edwards rebuttals to Coulter and taking her on head to head will probably help her campaign among liberals; some conservatives will undoubtedly latch on to Coulter’s comments to her as well.
I’m still not sure why Edwards seems to be the biggest target of Coulter, or if its just a matter of circumstance and what happens to get caught up in the media maelstrom. I do also wonder about this confrontation happening just a few days before the fundraising deadline; perhaps that is just the cynic in me.
COULTER: What do I think of Governor Romney’s candidacy for presidency? I think he’s probably our best candidate. I mean, I think it is fair to say — and this is coming from someone who supported Pete DuPont, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes. So, you know, it’s not like I won’t go for an underdog. But I think we have to be serious about this, and I think our choice is among Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain and Romney. And Giuliani is very, very liberal. When this country gets to the point — I mean, I have a love letter to him in my current book, Godless. What he did for New York was magnificent. But when this country gets to the point where both presidential candidates support abortion, I think we can hang it up as a country.
Coulter seems now to have jumped to one of the so-called underdogs: Duncan Hunter.
We’ve thought here that Hunter was impressive in the Republican debates, and he is clearly offering an alternative philosophy to the mainstream candidates. Will this endorsement be the tip of the iceberg of supporters jumping from Romney or supporters joining Hunter? Or will Hunter go as the next name after Keyes, Buchanan, and Forbes? That remains to be seen, but it certainly will not hurt Hunter to get some additional coverage.
Related at 2008 Central:
[Photo Credit: Flickr Account of Lindsay Beyerstein]
Sphere: Related ContentPolicy Breakdown: Hunter Argues for Keeping Guantanamo Open
While closing Guantanamo has been a popular topic ever since Colin Powell said it should be closed on Meet the Press, Duncan Hunter (among other Republicans) is arguing to keep it open.
Hunter said regarding Guantanamo:
“Once these detainees are brought onto U.S. soil, the detainees may acquire minimal rights under the Constitution, in particular, the right to habeas corpus. This change in status will inevitably spawn a completely new round of litigation,” Hunter said in a statement.
“While I believe the Combatant Status Review Tribunals that all detainees at Guantanamo receive satisfy those rights, it would take years of further litigation to finally reach that result,” the congressman said. “Thus, the military commission process would be stalled for the foreseeable future, and none of the detainees at Guantanamo would be brought to justice.”
“Some would like this result; they would prefer to see terrorists tried under our federal criminal justice system. This is a false choice,” Hunter said.
“We cannot try terrorists for war crimes if it requires our soldiers to read terrorists Miranda rights or take a battalion of lawyers onto the battlefield,” he said. “Military commissions are crucial because they are crafted for the conduct of war by providing procedures flexible enough to account for the constraints and conditions of the battlefield.”
Thus far, all Democratic candidates and Republican candidates Ron Paul and John McCain have called for Guantanamo to be closed, including Fred Thompson who has yet to officially declare.
[Photo Credit: Flickr user Rob Bluey]
Related at 2008 Central:
Chris Dodd Rejects Calls To Impeach Vice President Dick Cheney
The Washington Post’s series on Vice President Dick Cheny is causing quite a stir. Cheney’s claim that his office is “not an office within the Executive Branch” is only fueling the rage against him. House Majority leader Rahm Emanuel responded by threatening to cut off funding to Cheney:
“Today, we discovered that everything we learned in U.S. government class was wrong. Evidently, the Vice President does not consider himself a part of the executive branch, and therefore believes he can obstruct meaningful oversight and avoid being held accountable. If the Vice President truly believes he is not a part of the executive branch, he should return the salary the American taxpayers have been paying him since January 2001, and move out of the home for which they are footing the bill.”
Indeed, there is substantial demand out there amongst Democrats for some response to Dick Cheney. Naturally, people look to presidential candidates to lead the charge. Speaking to a crowd in Rochester, N.H., Sen. Dodd resisted the urge to pander by calling for Cheney’s impeachment and instead offered a sober and what he believes is a practical and serious response to the Cheney issue:
“There are too many other issues out there the American public were hoping Democrats would decide to address and focus on. That’s the choice you make. Others may make a different focus. My choice would be to focus on other agenda items”
Although, Dodd’s candor was well received when discussing the environment and the need for a carbon tax, but the audience was cool to the idea of ignoring the Cheney issue.
My thoughts…
I can’t understand why Dodd continues to play it safe. Time and time again he resists the urge to step out of the box and shake things up a bit. Given the state of his candidacy, he really doesn’t have anything to lose. I’m not suggesting that he start making crazy assertions in order to get attention, but stepping out of the box now and then may compell the mainstream press and voters to take another look at him. In short, he could have at least supported Rahm Emanual’s idea or come up with something similar.
[Photo Credit: Flickr user millhollin]
Related on 2008Central.net…
Sphere: Related ContentBill Richardson Would Use Abortion As Litmus Test When Appointing Supreme Court Justices
While speaking at Drake University on June 22, 2007, Bill Richardson stated that he would use abortion as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees and would only appoint justices that recognize the Roe v. Wade decision as established law:
“I know that I am going to upset some people. I would say, ‘Do you believe Roe v. Wade is settled law?’ and if they say, ‘Yes,’ they have a good chance of being picked. If they say ‘No,’ I will not pick them.”
One of Richardson’s best qualities as a candidate is his candor. However, being candid does not necessarily mean that you have to say things that are politically dumb or just dumb in general… Read more
Sphere: Related ContentCandidate Statements On Supreme Court Decision In FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
June 25, 2007 | Permalink | Leave a Comment
The actual decision is here. For more on what the decision entailed, read here. The short explanation is that issue ads will be allowed closer to elections, but other parts of McCain-Feingold are upheld for the time being.
John McCain…
“It is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election. … It is important to recognize, however, that the Court’s decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns.”
Mitt Romney…
“Score one for free speech. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment by rejecting a key feature of McCain-Feingold. The law trampled the basic right of the American people to participate in their democracy. It also purported to reduce the influence of money in politics, but we now know that influence is greater than ever. McCain-Feingold was a poorly-crafted bill. Today’s decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression.”
The quickness of the Romney campaign in getting the press release out meant that he was quoted in the AP story. That shows how good of a campaign the Romney camp is running.
John Edwards…
“Like President Bush, Chief Justice Roberts sought high office claiming he would be a consensus-builder. But this term’s rash of far-reaching 5-4 decisions proves that Roberts, like Bush, is exactly the opposite. With its two newest members, today’s Supreme Court is moving the right-wing’s agenda faster than we’ve seen in decades—slamming the courthouse doors in the faces of ordinary people, favoring big businesses over civil rights, and undermining protections for women and the environment. Because the next president will likely nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, which could shape the balance of power on the Court for years to come, the stakes in the 2008 election could not be higher.”
We’ll add more as more candidates issue statements throughout the day.
Sphere: Related ContentGiuliani Called Upon To Fire Friend Who is Linked to Priest Abuse
If there is anything that Rudy Giuliani does not need right now, it is another scandal. And yet it seems he keeps drawing more to him, like blood in the water attracts sharks.
Giuliani is being attacked for his close ties to boyhood friend Alan Placa. From the Salon article last week:
Giuliani employs his childhood friend Monsignor Alan Placa as a consultant at Giuliani Partners despite a 2003 Suffolk County, N.Y., grand jury report that accuses Placa of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Placa, who was part of a three-person team that handled allegations of abuse by clergy for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, is referred to as Priest F in the grand jury report. The report summarizes the testimony of multiple alleged victims of Priest F, and then notes, “Ironically, Priest F would later become instrumental in the development of Diocesan policy in response to allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests.” …
Placa has worked for Giuliani Partners since 2002. As of June 2007, he remains on the payroll. “He is currently employed here,” Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel confirmed to Salon, adding that Giuliani “believes Alan has been unjustly accused.” Mindel declined to discuss what role Placa plays with the consulting firm, or how much he is paid. Says Richard Tollner, who testified before the grand jury that Placa had molested him, “[Giuliani] has to speak up for himself and explain himself. If he doesn’t, people shouldn’t vote for him.” Adds Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks suspected priest abuse, “I think Rudy Giuliani has to account for his friendship with a credibly accused child molester.”
Placa has denied that he ever abused any children, and has worked for 5 years as a consultant to Giuliani Partners. Placa is especially close to Giuliani, having been his friend since attending Bishop Loughlin High School in Brooklyn together; Placa baptized both of Giuliani’s children and received special permission to preside at the funeral of Giuliani’s mother after he was suspended in June 2002 when the allegations came to light.
This is in large part coming to light for Giuliani because of his close ties to Bernard Kerik and Thomas Ravenel. While this incident, like the Ravenel one, has little to do with Giuliani personally - having a trend of being associated with people who have ethics problems, regardless of the type, is a problem the Giuliani campaign will have to deal with.
If Giuliani were not a presidential candidate, it’s doubtful this would be an issue. But the same could be said for John Edwards’ house. And yet both will be mentioned, because they affect the public perception of the candidates. Giuliani has to assure people he does not ignore ethical questions when deciding whom he surrounds himself with - for all the Republican talk about spending and Democratic talk about Iraq, ethics were clearly a major issue in the 2006 mid term elections as well, and these incidents popping up again and again are something that is going to hurt the Giuliani campaign until they find a way to end the discussion about it. Especially with none of his rivals for the nomination dealing with these types of accusations at all. I’ve said that John Edwards should not have to sell his house … but he should explain it if he hopes to win. The same with Giuliani regarding Placa. I don’t think people who have been mentioned in connection with child abuse should have to renounce all their friends … but Giuliani has an obligation at the same time to make clear his personal friendship while still taking this issue seriously.
Sphere: Related Content