Hillary Talks Terror; Democrats Respond

In a statement that seemed directed at independent voters and other Democratic candidates more than anyone, Hillary Clinton directly staked a claim to the issue of terrorism on the Democratic side:

“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,” Clinton told supporters in Concord.

“So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that,” she added.

This quote says a few things: first and foremost, that independent voters who would in the aftermath of a terror attack vote for Republicans would consider her uniquely among the candidates. Secondly, she implicitly criticizes those same independent voters for that choice with the “no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world” part of the quote. The third thing the quote does is that Clinton again touts her ability to fight back against Republican attacks, which she has really gone out of her way to hammer home throughout the campaign.

Democrats almost immediately responded to the quote:
Bill Richardson:

“We shouldn’t be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists,” said Governor Richardson. “Senator Clinton seems to think that President Bush has made this country safer. I disagree with her. Our failed policy in Iraq is making us less safe. Our ports are less safe. Our cities are less safe. Our transportation systems are less safe. George Bush is cutting funding to first responders. America’s alliances are in disarray because of this President. We need someone with an international record of accomplishments to rebuild strong American international leadership to keep Americans safe. I am prepared to stand up to the GOP on national security because I’ve been there and done it. I’ve been in the negotiating rooms. I’ve faced the dictators. I’ve brought hostages and service men home. I’ve broken an impasse on North Korean nuclear facilities. I was instrumental in bringing the North Koreans to the table and getting this deal to shut down the nuclear reactor in place. I’ve got more international experience than the all GOP candidates combined.”

Chris Dodd:

Senator and Presidential Candidate Chris Dodd issued the following statement in response to Senator Clinton’s remarks on the political implications for her campaign of a potential terrorist attack on the United States:

“Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States.”

The general reaction online wasn’t much more friendly. Take this response from NBC News’ Mark Murray:

At last weekend’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton once again made this argument in criticizing Barack Obama for saying that nuclear weapons should be off the table when dealing with Al Qaeda in Pakistan: You need to be careful what you say. “We shouldn’t use hypotheticals. You know, words do matter. And this campaign just like every other thing that happens in the United States, is looked at and followed with very great interest.”

So given those remarks, it’s striking that she made this hypothetical yesterday: “It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself ‘What if? What if?,’” she said. “But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world. So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well.” Clinton’s comment came as she was touting her experience and how that would benefit her in a general election.

John Edwards:

Earlier today in New Hampshire, Senator John Edwards made the following comments when asked about Senator Hillary Clinton’s comments yesterday that Republicans would have an advantage if there is another terrorist attack and that she is the best Democrat to deal with that.

“If we’re talking about America being attacked the last thing we should do is be engaged in political calculation. What I would do is focus on uniting America and doing the things I need to do as president of the United States to keep this country safe.”

In response to another question, Edwards said:

“Well first of all, I strongly disagree with what [Senator Clinton] said. [Senator Clinton] has said she believes that we are safer under George Bush, I strongly disagree with that. What I believe is that it is the responsibility of a presidential candidate, a serious presidential candidate, and the president of the United States when you’re talking about something as serious as the potential for America to be attacked, to focus on what’s good for America, not politics, and what needs to be done to keep this country safe, which is what I would do as president.”

The Obama campaign, interestingly, declined to comment. This may have been designed to avoid being listed in articles on the subject as just another candidate. He may wait to respond for a day or two, and then respond in a manner to take the news cycle for himself. Or he may just allow the criticism to be made by others to keep his campaign more clear. The refusal to comment was almost certainly a political and strategic decision.

It should be interesting to see if this will undermine Clinton’s support on the left, or if she will still maintain her numbers, which have shown no signs of coming down yet.

[Photo Credit: flickr user ickl]

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwards: ‘Rivals Are Full Of Themselves, I Wasn’t Calling Them Corporate Democrats’

Yesterday, we discussed John Edwards’ New Hampshire speech where he seemed to have attacked his Democratic rivals:

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

After some heavy questioning from reporters and a strong response from the Clinton campaign, John Edwards insists
that the comments were not about his Democratic rivals:

“Nothing I said yesterday has to do with other presidential candidates. They need to move on from thinking about themselves and think about what’s important to the country.”

Often times the media can gin up a controversy by reading far too deeply into remarks from a campaign, like what they did with Michelle Obama recently. However, this instance is simply not one of those situations. Consider the speech in the larger context of Edwards’ political strategy.

If the remarks had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton, then perhaps Edwards would kindly explain who he he was referring to when he said:

“The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.”

Edwards has been attacking Clinton for weeks over lobbyist money and the juxtaposition of this topic with the quip about the Lincoln bedroom seems to be a strong reference to Hillary Clinton.

My frustration is less with the fact that he called his rivals “corporate Democrats” and more with the fact that he’s backing away from the statement today in order to prevent a backlash and maintain the “nice guy” image. As noted yesterday, the speech was primed to maximize media coverage. The simple reality is that scuffles get more coverage than even the very best substance. Now that the Edwards campaign has the attention they want, they’ll back away from the remarks. In my opinion, Edwards should just own up to the fact that he thinks his rivals are corporate Democrats. He said it. The charge really isn’t worse than anything else he’s said about his rivals, so he may as well make his case with maximum media exposure. Now, he’s precluded himself from making the charge in the future and as usual stuck himself in a “Kucinich lite” position.

[Photo Credit: Flickr user John Edwards 2008]

Related At 2008Central.net:

• John Edwards: I’m a Populist and Clinton is a Corporate Democrat (8/23/07)
• Editorial: Gore’s Shadow Organization Or Edwards’ Secret Attack On Hillary?
• A Historical Perspective On The Continuing Edwards/Coulter Clash
• Elizabeth Edwards Questions Hillary Clinton’s Strength On Women’s Issues
• Edwards Continues Attacks on Clintons in Trade Speech

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton Talks About Improving the Quality of Care

Hillary Clinton is rolling out her health care plan very, very slowly:

While Sen. Hillary Clinton today only unveiled her plans to improve the quality of health care, aides said next month she’ll actually introduce her proposals to expand health insurance to all Americans. Some of her 2008 Democratic rivals have quietly sniped she’s been one of the last candidates to release her ideas to cover the uninsured, and one Republican, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, will beat Clinton to the punch with a speech tomorrow.

In a speech in Lebanon, New Hampshire, Clinton defended her gradual approach to laying out her vision on health care. She’s made the process a three-part series: a speech in May on reducing costs, her address today on quality of care, and then finishing up next month with a plan for the 45 million Americans who currently don’t have health insurance. “My order here is deliberate,” she said. “In order to forge a consensus on universal health care, we need to assure people that they will get the quality they expect at a cost they can afford.”

I’m still not sure how waiting four months on a plan changes anything, really, when all the other candidates are introducing their plans already.

Her ideas on health care quality are many Democratic ones, some new ones, and even one borrowed from -gasp- Bush:

To improve health care quality, Clinton embraced some concepts other Democrats have, such as finding ways to more accurately measure hospital and doctor performance. She put forward some new ideas as well, including increasing funding to help the retention of nurses, many of whom leave their jobs within the first few years. Clinton also advocated a policy the Bush administration adopted this month: the federal government will no longer pay the Medicare bill to a hospital for preventable injuries that occur after a person is first admitted.

The full text of her plan is after the jump. This is the part of the health care plan that most people don’t really care about (evidenced by Clinton agreeing with the Bush administration)- the more contentious issue is how to pay for health care down the line in this country. This seems more aimed at whetting the appetite for a plan, and preventing anyone from saying Clinton is ignoring the issue.

Other reactions: The diary at myDD shows few people even reading what Clinton said; more are interested in the Edwards-Clinton dynamic.

First Read similarly covered it, without any analysis.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Candidate Reactions to Declassified National Intelligence Estimate On Iraq

Yesterday, the National Intelligence Council released previously classified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate On Iraq.

• NIE - Prospects For Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead [January 2007]
• NIE - Prospects For Iraq’s Stability: Some Security Progress but Political Reconciliation Elusive [August 2007]

Below are the candidate reactions to this newly declassified information… Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Weekend Calendar Preview (August 24-26, 2007)

It’s a slow weekend at the end of August, and the calendar is a bit slow.

Barack Obama…

• Obama campaigns in Tallahassee, FL today and Miami, FL tomorrow. Sunday he spends the morning in New Orleans before heading off to Lexington, KY for a kick off rally that evening.

Bill Richardson…

• Richardson campaigns all weekend in New ampshire, breaking only tomorrow morning to head down to New York to fundraise.

Dennis Kucinich…

• Kucinich spends tomorrow and Sunday in Maine, leading a protest tomorrow in Kennebunkport, and having a breakfast with LGBT members of the community on Sunday

Hillary Clinton…

• Clinton has several fundraisers scheduled this weekend in Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. Bill Clinton will be making appearances in at least some of the fundraisers.

Joe Biden…

• Biden campaigns through Tuesday morning in Iowa.

John Edwards…

• Edwards and his wife wrap up their bus tour in New Hampshire Sunday. He does break this evening for a fundraiser in Massachusetts.

Fred Thompson…

• Fred Thompson addresses the Midwest Leadership Conference tomorrow.

Mike Huckabee…

• Huckabee fundraises in Indianapolis today before addressing the Midwest Leadership Conference this evening and the Southern Governor’s Association tomorrow. Sunday he has a fundraiser scheduled just outside of DC.

Mitt Romney…

• Romney addresses the Florida Medical Association this morning, and is the keynote speaker to the Midwest Leadership Conference this evening.

Ron Paul…

• Paul has an event scheduled in his district on Sunday to celebrate his birthday.

Rudy Giuliani…

• Giuliani is holding a forum on taxes tomorrow in New Hampshire in which his supporters former Mass. Gov. Paul Cellucci and Steve Forbes will take part.

Visit our up-to-date campaign calendar section for complete schedules.

Sphere: Related Content

Time Article Evaluates Giuliani’s Credentials on Fighting Terrorism

Time has an essay evaluating Giuliani’s credentials on fighting terrorism, and it essentially is only complimentary if you have a photo of George Bush on the wall in your living room:

But before 9/11, Giuliani spent eight years presiding over a city that was a known terrorist target. A TIME investigation into what he did — and didn’t do — to prepare for a major catastrophe is revealing. In addition to extraordinary grace under fire, Giuliani developed an intimate knowledge of emergency management and an affinity for quantifiable results. On 9/11, he earned the trust of most Americans; one year later, 78% of those surveyed by the Marist Institute had a favorable impression of Giuliani. This magazine also named Giuliani its Person of the Year in 2001. Assuming he can keep it, trust is a priceless resource in psychological warfare.

The evidence also shows great, gaping weaknesses. Giuliani’s penchant for secrecy, his tendency to value loyalty over merit and his hyperbolic rhetoric are exactly the kinds of instincts that counterterrorism experts say the U.S. can least afford right now.

Giuliani’s limitations are in fact remarkably similar to those of another man who has led the nation into a war without end. Some of the Bush Administration’s policies, like improved intelligence sharing between countries and our own agencies, have made the U.S. better at fighting terrorism. But others, from the war in Iraq to the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, have actually made the task much more difficult. The challenge for the next President will be focusing on and adapting the good tools and jettisoning the bad. Whether you conclude Giuliani can win this war depends ultimately on whether you think we are winning now.

The article continues, saying the Giuliani is exaggerating his credentials of knowledge of terrorists:

Giuliani and his aides have said he has been “studying Islamic terrorism” for 30 years. This is an exaggeration. As a prosecutor and Justice Department official in the 1970s and ’80s, Giuliani had many successes — against white collar criminals and the Mafia. He did not direct major terrorism prosecutions that led to convictions. As Mayor, he worked relatively closely with the FBI, according to James Kallstrom, former FBI assistant director in charge of the New York office. “The four years that I was there, we had a fabulous relationship,” says Kallstrom. “He was able to do many things in this city that I never expected him to be able to do.”
But until 9/11, the security obsession of Giuliani and the FBI was crime, not terrorism. He came into office 11 months after the first attack by Muslim extremists on the World Trade Center. Yet an analysis of 80 of Giuliani’s major speeches from 1993 to 2001 shows that he mentioned the danger of terrorism only once, in a brief reference to emergency preparedness. He talked more about the “terror” of domestic violence.

Giuliani claims to have the most foreign policy experience, but the essay questions what that experience is, exactly, especially when candidates from both parties seem to have had far more experience. Giuliani never visited Iraq; the chance he had to gain nowledge on Iraq was by joining the Baker-Hamilton Commission. We’ve covered how he decided to not participate here.

The essay essentially shames Giuliani for his lack of knowledge on foreign policy:

On the campaign trail, Giuliani’s foreign policy comments have sometimes come off more confident than competent. In New Hampshire this spring, according to the New York Times, Giuliani said it was unclear whether Iran or North Korea was further along on building a nuclear bomb. (North Korea tested a nuclear device in October 2006. Iran has not done so.) Then, in his speech at the Maryland synagogue in July, Giuliani mocked Democratic candidate Barack Obama for claiming that North Korea was the nation’s No. 1 enemy. “North Korea is an enemy. North Korea is dangerous. I mean, I grant that. And boy, we have to be really careful about North Korea,” Giuliani said, his voice iced with sarcasm. “But I don’t remember North Koreans coming to America and killing us.”

North Korea is known to sell advanced weaponry to other states that sponsor terrorists. The State Department has listed North Korea as a sponsor of terrorism. The reason North Korea keeps U.S. terrorism experts up at night is not that North Korean operatives will come here and attack us; it’s that they might sell a nuclear bomb to people who will.

After this, the essay goes on to quote Joe Biden, who even calls Giuliani a “semi-demagogue” on foreign policy.

The essay does give somewhat of a defense of Giuliani on foreign policy:

Giuliani can, of course, make up for his experience deficit with his advisers. So far, he has chosen hawkish foreign policy gurus, including Norman Podhoretz, a founding member of the neocon movement who recently called for an immediate attack on Iran, and Kim Holmes, an expert at the Heritage Foundation who advised former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. His chief foreign policy adviser is Charles Hill, a lecturer in international studies at Yale, who says Giuliani doesn’t actually require much staffing. “If you run New York City, you know foreign affairs,” he says. “In dealing with the U.N. and a host of foreign leaders, that’s a host of experiences.”

The article also gives narrow praise for Giuliani’s demeanor on 9/11:

Giuliani’s resolve is not just emotionally reassuring. On 9/11, he single-handedly limited the emotional and economic impact of the loss by his measured, confident response. “The fundamental prerequisite is to respond coolly and soberly and not irrationally and emotionally,” says Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University professor and one of the country’s most respected terrorism experts. “I think you could give him credit. Terrorists are trying to provoke us to respond emotionally. He kept his head about him.” But that’s about the extent of Hoffman’s praise. “In Mayor Giuliani’s case, it’s a very narrow subset of skills where his credentials are unvarnished.”

The article concludes by examining the battles of emergency preparedness, and whether Giuliani is too aggressive in how he talks about terrorism, and whether he inadvertantly helps the terrorists by being so fiery. The article even offers this juxtaposition:

Giuliani used to speak more carefully about terrorism. “No mayor, no Governor, no President can offer anyone perfect security. You’ve got to be able to deal with a certain level of risk in anything that you do,” he said in 1999. On the eve of the millennium New Year’s Eve celebration in Times Square, he appeared on CNN to warn against melodrama: “When people overdo it about terrorism, terrorists actually win. You’re sort of like becoming agents and instruments of the terrorists.”

But now Giuliani is running for President, and he has apparently made a tactical decision to thunder loudly about terrorism, perhaps to deflect from his personal life and his liberal record on social issues — which an internal campaign memo termed potentially “insurmountable” last year. (The memo was leaked to the New York Daily News.) The more he can remind people of his performance on 9/11, the better off he is, says G.O.P. pollster Luntz. “You cannot underestimate the impact of having seen him on television hour after hour dealing with the tragedy,” he says. “That gives him a level of credibility that nobody else has.”

It’s well worth reading, mostly because it takes many different threads on Giuliani and ties them all together, looking at themes. If Giuliani is someone you’re considering supporting, or worried about your candidate facing, it’s a must read. I imagine that the Giuliani campaign isn’t too thrilled with it, though. But the content is at least mostly fair.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Newsday: ‘Rudy Giuliani Left Iraq Study Group In Order Continue Lucrative Speaking Engagements’
• Giuliani Spent a Total of 29 Hours at Ground Zero
• Dodge, Dive, Dip, Duck and Dodge: Rudy Giuliani Deals With Issues Of Faith And Family
• What Kind of Horror Movie Does Rudy Giuliani Watch?
• Giuliani Again Facing Criticism From Fighters, Video To Be Released
• More Problems For Rudy …
• Rudy Giuliani May Be Called To Tesify Before Congress Regarding His Handling Of Ground Zero Workers’ Health
• Criticism Over Giuliani’s Handling Of 9/11 Continues To Heat Up While McCain Capitalizes On Rudy’s Weakness
• Rudy Giuliani: Terrorists Will Take Advantage Of Democrats

[Photo Credits: flickr user triborough and flickr user giuliani time]

Sphere: Related Content

Daily Links (August 23, 2007)

Today’s worthy reads….

• The long shots like Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul (et. al) have something to add to the race, and someone should let George Stephanopoulos know.
• Chris Dodd is getting kudos for his meeting with Bernanke and Paulson.
• Mitt Romney has a 16 point lead in Iowa, while there is a virtual three way tie among the top three Democrats. A separate Zogby poll gives Romney a 19 point lead in Iowa. according to the latest polling.
• Romney is launching an initiative on health care this weekend, but TPM Election Cafe flashes back to his comments on Ted Kennedy when he signed the bill: “Senator Kennedy: Together, we pitched the secretaries on our vision to insure all our citizens, and on the need for federal support to make the vision real. His work in Washington and behind the scenes on Beacon Hill was absolutely essential.”
• Boxers or briefs for the new generation.
• A complimentary look at how the Democrats discussed religion in the last debate.
• Rudy Giuliani says he can win California outright; Illinois too.
• Giuliani is also escalating his activities in New Hampshire, where many voters are flocking to him instead of McCain or Romney.
• The mortgage crisis and pension worries will likely make finances a critical issue in the coming election. Finally, something goes Dodd’s way.
• Duncan Hunter made some headlines for the first time in a while by holding a pres conference to decry the slow progress being made on the border fence.
• Abortion is a niche issue now, but for those for whom it is an issue, it is often the only issue.
• Mike Huckabee knows how to talk to people on the trail. Look at the analogy he uses when talking about health care.



• VP Alert: Jim Webb gave a speech in New Hampshire.
• Michigan this early could dramatically affect the election in ways no one really knows yet.
• A belated review of Fred Thompson’s “At That Point in Time,” which details his work on the Watergate Committee.
• There is some speculation that the primary schedule could be dramatically different in 2012. The moves of Florida and Michigan are likely forcing the hand in that direction.
• Is Joe Biden getting the attention he deserves to be getting? If his Iraq plan continues to drive the Iraq conversation, he probably is. If not, then probably not.
• Mitt Romney is changing some minds (in a good way) with the way he talks about contraception, which is the lynchpin issue regarding abortion in many ways. Fred Thompson is criticiized for his lobbying for a contraceptive company, while other conservatives talk as much about contraception as they do abortion. The article is an op-ed by a pro-choice writer, but still has some valuable insights into the pro-life vote.
• And finally, perhaps we now have hard proof that Obama is black enough. (And please don’t take that too seriously )

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwards: I’m a Populist and Clinton is a Corporate Democrat

John Edwards is giving what he calls a major speech today in New Hampshire. It’s not a major speech because he’s unveiling a policy or declaring his entry into the race, or unveiling some previously unknown fact about himself… it’s a major speech solely because he’s starting to include new attacks on Democrats into his stump speech.

Here’s an excerpt from his speech:

Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington — trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It’s a game that never ends, but every American knows — it’s time to end the game.

And it’s time for the Democratic Party — the party of the people — to end it.

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

It’s time to end the game. It’s time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It’s time to challenge politicians to put the American people’s interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.

I was going to quote more, but that is sufficient to get my point across, that Edwards is certainly painting Clinton as a ‘corporate Democrat’ without actually saying so.

In an interview with the AP, Edwards seemed to go after Obama as well as Clinton with this comment:

“I don’t think just the word ‘change’ means much to people. I think what they want to see is … the substance of what you want to do. I mean, what is the policy of the word?” Edwards said. “In my case, it’s been a very aggressive set of very substantive ideas … because otherwise the change rhetoric all sounds the same.”

As Jon Stewart noted yesterday in his discussion with Barack Obama, the current narrative on the campaign is Barack Obama’s inexperience versus Hillary Clinton’s experience. The person most hurt by this is probably Edwards, who has desparately tried to stay in the top tier.

This has involved repeatedly attacking the Obama and Clinton campaigns. (I’ve mentioned that here, here, and here).

Even yesterday, Elizabeth Edwards said the attacks were a way of getting in “the mix” (my emphasis):

Asked about her comment that, “We can’t make John (Edwards) black and we can’t make him a woman,” Elizabeth Edwards responded: “I do hate to use that. It’s taken out of context. I was talking about the Internet and trying to break through on mainstream media, and how, when the mainstream media are enamored, and frankly, if I were a journalist, I might be, too, with this extremely interesting fight between an African-American and a woman. It’s a little hard to get into the mix of that, even if you have great policies and a lot of support around the country, (it’s) still hard to get into that mix. So we have turned — because we can’t do anything about that dynamic, we’ve turned to try to communicate directly with people through the Internet and — no offense — not allowed the mainstream media to be a sieve that blocks John’s message.”

She’s framing the issue as just her sighing and saying something in a matter of fact fashion, but for every harmless comment about not making Edwards black or a woman, there have been dozens of attacks, which have generally escalated to the point where Edwards is taking Republican talking points.

It’s not a matter of Edwards being right or wrong. It’s a matter of him being so aggressive in his attacks that to anyone not out for Clinton’s blood, Clinton looks like the victim (and it has little if anything to do with Clinton being a woman: it’s more Edwards lifting GOP attacks on both of the Clintons and using them verbatim). Edwards says he is optimistic but his tone would best be described as combative. Obama is the optimistic one who talks of bringing the country together.

For all the big talk I’m going to refer to below about this being some watershed speech, does Edwards really say anything that Dennis Kucinich would not? Edwards is running into the same problem that he’s run into the rest of the campaign - that he’s Kucinich-lite. He’s counting on restricting his appeal but raising turnout.

Clinton could best be described as the establishment candidate. Obama is the candidate who wants to bring America together. Edwards is trying to frame himself as the populist speaking truth to power but I fail to see how this will do anything but rile up Edwards supporters online. He’s giving the speech in New Hampshire, and there’s really no history of that state supporting such strong populism. This really seems a culmination of a candidacy trending the wrong direction in the polls, where Edwards had a meeting where everyone decided to go for broke. That I applaud - it’s the right decision. But going beyond the issues to make such strong attacks politically is really a poor long term strategy. The policy differences he talks about are going to be drowned out by the politics of a personal attack.

It’s not surprising though, given that there’s a significant gap until the next Democratic debate that Edwards chose now to launch the attack, even if its in August. He likely wants the attacks to linger before a direct confrontation, and also saw in the last debate hard proof that the indirect method was going nowhere. Of course, he never mentions Clinton by name in this speech, so in many ways its still an indirect attack.

Of course, it has to be noted that this speech comes in the wake of everyone realizing the Edwards campaign is going in the wrong direction (but never acknowledging it). This Washington Post article is about youth abandoning Edwards for Clinton and Obama. The biggest hit is an article today in the Raleigh News and Observer about his campaign being unable to gain traction:

Edwards’ troubles have prompted him to move more of his chips in the Iowa caucus basket — which is increasingly shaping up as the decisive test of whether he will be a serious contender this time.

The Edwards camp says that the problems of summer will be forgotten by the time voters go the polls in January and that the former North Carolina senator will be in the hunt for the nomination.

“John has always had his own plan,” said Ed Turlington, a Raleigh attorney and Edwards adviser. “As I look at it, as we approach Labor Day — he has adequate money, substantive policy, and good [poll] tracking. I think he is on track.

“The goal is to get in the last two minutes with a chance to win. He is one of only a handful of candidates who will have a chance to win.”

It’s clear that just about his entire campaign is dependent on Iowa:

Most observers agree that if Edwards does not win Iowa, he is politically dead — a point that Edwards has come close to acknowledging himself.

Edwards, who is beginning a four-day bus tour of New Hampshire today, is counting on some labor endorsements in September to provide some much-needed momentum.

He also has other selling points for Democratic primary voters. He has released some of the most detailed plans on such issues as health insurance. Edwards has consistently done better than Clinton in head-to-head polling matchups with prospective Republican candidates, allowing him to make the electability argument to Democrats desperate to win back the White House.

“I would love to see people, especially the press and the TV, to focus on electability and how important that is,” said Byrd, the Edwards fundraiser. “We Democrats have figured out how to mess this up enough.”

The Edwards argument is that things are better than they look. Even skeptics agree that Edwards is in a better position than more seasoned Democrats such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

Edwards seems to be making the point in his speech that its a historic opportunity to enact populist reforms. But do a majority of Democrats agree? Clinton talks about knowing how to win, and having lost the White House for 8 years, many Democrats simply want to win. Additionally, Obama also talks about electability. The problem for Edwards was and is his image and his fundraising. This may get more money out of the internet left, but does this speech change anything else? I’m betting on no.

I also should note that Edwards apparent distrust of Clinton did not prevent him from asking her to help him make the debates more exclusive, before he backed off that.

Here are some other takes on the speech:

TPM Election Cafe says:

Edwards’ indictment of the corporate Dem establishment — and his warning against “nostalgia” — is meant to be taken as an attack on the Clintons, though it’s certainly not limited to them and is intended as condemnation of a whole class of Beltway insiders. …..

The quick and not terribly profound thing I want to point out about this is that it’s interesting to note that both Barack Obama and Edwards are using Hillary as a foil in similar but also different ways. Obama is pointing to her as a pillar of the failed Beltway foreign policy establishment that has brought us a failed foreign policy status quo. Meanwhile, Edwards is hitting her as representative of what he’s labeling the corporate Dem establishment.

Marc Ambinder simply asks:

When was the last time a major presidential candidate delivered such a singularly populist speech?

Ambinder also points out regarding the Lincoln Bedroom line:

Note: Rick Lazio used a version of this critique — it didn’t work. Democrats do not believe that Hillary Clinton is corrupt.

Matthew Yglesias states:

There’s much more to the speech, read the whole thing. The word “populism” gets tossed around a lot in politics, especially over the past five or six years, but in this speech Edwards is really living up to the term in a way most things that get labeled that way don’t by explicitly connecting his critique of the economic status quo to a vision of a democratic economy: “Will corporate greed be all we value as we move further into the global economy, or will we put workers and families first, so that all jobs pay fair wages, every American has health care and corporate profits work for democracy and not the other way around?”

I think it’s a very strong speech. A lot of primary voters seem to me to want a more strictly partisan message than this, but I prefer the more properly ideological note that Edwards is striking here, trying to convince us that the crisis of Bushism is also an opportunity for sweeping change that we need to seize.

Amanda Dobbins criticized Edwards for referring to the Lincoln Bedroom:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards gave a speech in New Hampshire today, targeting “establishment elites” and repeating his call to remove lobbyists’ money from the political process. The speech lambasted “the way we’ve always done it” and attempted to position Edwards as the candidate of change.

Unfortunately for Edwards, his language isn’t as updated as his campaign platform. Edwards told the audience that “the American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent.” He’s not the only politician who’s promised to close that particular room in the White House. The Lincoln bedroom is a recurring political reference:

She would go on to reference Dole, McCain, Quayle, and even George W. Bush who made attacks on the Clintons almost verbatim the same.

Taylor Marsh uses many of the same references, saying:

They [NBC News talking about Edwards -ed] just left out the Clinton money quote Edwards used today, which is straight out of the right-wing playbook. There are plenty of ways to come at Clinton on the issues, especially Iraq. But if this is the Edwards re-launch, I hope it makes a turn into better territory. Because between Obama’s “Bush-Cheney lite” and Edwards talking about “The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent,” I’ve got to say that these guys sound positively desperate.

Michael Froomkin likes the speech, but still sees problems in the Edwards campaign left unaddressed:

Unfortunately, I am not as impressed by the John Edwards campaign organization as I would need to be to feel optimistic about his chances of winning the nomination given that he’s running third in fund-raising. Clinton has a machine. Obama has a press and (slightly diminished?) public vibe. Edwards has passion. And a platform. But passion (not to mention a platform) won’t make up for money unless you have a really good organization. And while they’re a lot better than they were six months ago, and have some great instincts (e.g. their web presence, and unleashing Elizabeth Edwards), it’s going to take both luck and still-better command of the fundamentals of campaigning to make it happen.

The discussion at MyDD and Daily Kos seems split along the lines of what candidate someone is supporting, although in both cases generally supportive of the gist of the speech.

[Photo Credit: Variety]

Related at 2008 Central:

• Editorial: Gore’s Shadow Organization Or Edwards’ Secret Attack On Hillary?
• A Historical Perspective On The Continuing Edwards/Coulter Clash
• Elizabeth Edwards Questions Hillary Clinton’s Strength On Women’s Issues
• Edwards Continues Attacks on Clintons in Trade Speech

Full text of the speech after the jump…
Read more

Sphere: Related Content

American Indian Presidential Forum Attracts Only 3 Candidates

Today’s “Prez On The Rez” forum may be an historic event for the American Indian Community, but try telling that to presidential candidates. The forum will bring together Democratic candidates and hundreds of tribal leaders from across the country. However, the candidate turnout is sure to be a disappointment for the American Indian community; only three candidates will appear at today’s forum: Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

The lackluster showing is causing some concern within the community:

“If they won’t come talk to us now, they certainly won’t be responsive to us if they get in the White House,” said Kalyn Free, a Choctaw from Oklahoma who is organizing the Democratic forum, called “Prez on the Rez.”

Adding to their frustrations, I’m sure, is the fact that later this week Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (along with Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich) will be participating in Lance Armstrong’s presidential cancer forum. It’s fair to criticize the major candidates for not participating in Prez On The Rez forum, however, it’s also important to keep in mind that the Prez On The Rez forum is being held in southern California. From a political perspective, it’s just bad planning to hold an event in an area where candidates a) don’t need to visit at this time and b) is so far away from the places that they need to visit. Armstrong’s event on the other hand is in Iowa, making it easier for candidates to fit an appearance into their schedule.

As far as I’m concerned, the other Democratic candidates should have attended the event regardless of where it is (especially those candidates that focus on poverty), but their lack of attendance is somewhat understandable given the poor political planning of the event.

I’ll follow up with coverage of the event later today.

Sphere: Related Content

A Defense of Mitt Romney On Abortion, and Why It is Besides The Point

Marc Ambinder on Romney and abortion:

Mitt Romney is simply struggling to explain the Republican Party’s conventional pro-life position. Which is: overturn Roe v. Wade. And then, slowly build up public support for a constitutional amendment banning abortions. ETA: 30 years or more.

This is not a flip-flop.

The reason why Romney is struggling to explain the complicated two-step is that he is relatively new to the dance. Pro-life activists who have been in the trenches for years are very comfortable with the nuance and subtlely of their beliefs and know how to translate them into morsels for the media’s consumption. This measured, incremental approach — relatively new to the movement — has been successful in many ways.

He’s right - that’s not a flip-flop, and if that’s what Romney is advocating (and Ambinder is very well sourced), Romney has a fighting chance to explain himself out of it. The problem for Romney is that he’s apparently very bad at explaining himself. You can look at the discussion in the comment section in the post I made yesterday. It’s clear to people who know Romney what his position is, but the problem is that it’s not clear at all to anyone else. And if Romney can not help himself out, he’s not going to get too much help from the press.

I would think that with all the prep work that Romney has gone through in advance of all the debates that he would be more comfortable explaining his position on abortion (it’s not -that- confusing. really, it isn’t. For all the talk about nuance and subtlety, Americans deal with far more complicated issues on an everyday basis).

The challenge for Romney will be finding the discipline to clearly explain himself. Republicans claim to be pining for someone in the vein of the ‘Great Communicator’ and Democrats are tired of the Bush Administration’s dodging of what they feel are clear issues. This year is not the year to run if you can not explain your positions, no matter how nuanced they are. That’s the real lesson here.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• It’s Not a Flip-Flop If You Believe Both Positions
• Club For Growth Releases Paper on Romney: Another Mixed Record
• Mitt Romney: Everyone Flip-Flops, It’s No Big Deal; Also, Catching UBL Isn’t A Priority

Sphere: Related Content

What Does Richardson’s Rise Say About Voters? And Can He Keep It Up?

I linked this the other day, but I wanted to talk more about it. Jim Geraghty discussed the rise of Bill Richardson in the polls despite awful debate performances and numerous gaffes. He concluded:

Right now it’s campaign correspondents and tuned-in Democratic activists who are chuckling over Richardson’s gaffes. But if he were to actually gain enough support to really threaten one of the big three, we would see his unflattering moments spotlighted in attack ads. The slips of the tongue might not seem so harmless. Those rumored skeletons in the closet might get a bit more attention. Less-attentive voters in those early states might see the side of Richardson that the rest of us have noticed, the genial, bumbling, hopelessly unkempt Saturday Night Live skit waiting to happen.

Maybe it’s moot, maybe Richardson has peaked. Or maybe he’s demonstrating that slow and steady wins at least part of the race, and he’s about to jump into first tier. Or maybe, as Goldman said, nobody knows anything.

The probable answer is his resume, as evidenced by his tremendous ads (mostly because they are funny and easy to connect with while also conveying his lengthy resume). The secondary answer is that the voters are not bothered by poor debate performances or so-called ‘gaffes’ at this early stage of the election. The difference is probably related to what type of election it is. Many voters in the general election pay only light attention, so a gaffe here or there can make the difference. The self-selecting voter group in the primary seems to use more discretion on the whole. The catch, though, is that there’s a clear point when people start to pay attention to the primary election. This chart also previously linked says the same.

This, in turn, is a reason why many national polls are fairly useless. People in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and possible Nevada may have started to pay attention to the race, but in any other race, its a crapshoot on whether they’ve started to tune in, and that even goes for likely primary voters. That’s also a reason why negative poll numbers are more important than who is up and who is down. People tend to change their mind.

But back to Richardson. He’s practically a gaffe machine and moving up in the polls. This seems to indicate that primary voters this year are willing to look to see what a candidate really stands for and judge him on that - once they’re convinced of course that someone is presidential timber. That’s the first hurdle, one that Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, and Biden on the democratic side really haven’t cleared, and one that will probably stick with Obama for a while given his lack of national political experience.

Looking at comments by voters where Richardson is appearing, he’s just getting noticed now in many places. Take a stop in Wyoming for fundraising over the past few days (my emphasis):

Richardson might be the most qualified and seasoned of the eight Democrats eyeing the White House—in terms of federal policy-making, international relations and executive experience running a state—who still struggles with the top-tier name-recognition separating him from Obama, Clinton and Edwards. More than one donor at Tuesday’s fund-raiser said they only realized Richardson’s long and impressive resume within the last two weeks.

“I’ve been converted,” the college-age daughter of a donor said after meeting and listening to Richardson speak on energy and Iraq for about an hour before the governor left the fund-raiser, jetting out of the state Tuesday night for a Wednesday radio interview. “He really knows so much about everything.”

He’s also using a political liability nationally in the primary as a strength when campaigning in the west:

Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson pitched Nevada union members today on western issues and guns.

The New Mexico governor urged delegates to the Nevada AFL-CIO convention in Reno to back him as a fellow Westerner based on his knowledge of regional issues.

As he put it, “We’ve got to get somebody who is electable. Not somebody who can just win on the East Coast and far West Coast, but somebody who is strong and has the values of working men and women.”

And he told the Nevada union gathering he’s somebody who has been endorsed by the N-R-A.

He added, “I’m telling you because when I say it everywhere else, I get booed.”

Richardson thus far is doing a very good job emphasizing his positives: his resume is longer than anyone else’s, and it’s at the center of his ads. He’s positioning himself well to gain support on issues like Iraq. And his differences on issues like guns he uses to gain support, while downplaying it in circles where it would cost him support.

In the end, though, his history has to catch up with him. For someone to be so inept When pressed about being a Red Sox or Yankee fan that he ends up claiming both is symbolic of the Richardson campaign thus far:

MR. RUSSERT: You spent a lot of time in, in Massachusetts. Are you a Red Sox fan?

GOV. RICHARDSON: I’m a Red Sox fan, but I got into trouble in New Hampshire. You know why? Because I said…

MR. RUSSERT: Luis Tiant, the fund-raiser. But, now, governor, this is very serious. In your book on page 18 it says…

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, about Mickey Mantle?

MR. RUSSERT: You said you’re a Yankee fan!

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, no, no. I said—no, no, no.

MR. RUSSERT: I mean, you can, you can…

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, no, no, no.

MR. RUSSERT: …you can have different views on immigration, assault weapons…

GOV. RICHARDSON: I, no no no no. No, what I said…

MR. RUSSERT: But when it comes to Red Sox, Yankees.

GOV. RICHARDSON: What I said, the Associated Press asked me, “If you weren’t running for president, if you weren’t running for president, what would you rather be?” I’ve always been a Red Sox fan, but I said if I weren’t running for president I would like to be number seven, Mickey Mantle, playing center field for the New York Yankees.

MR. RUSSERT: “Because of Mickey Mantle, I became a Yankee fan.”

GOV. RICHARDSON: I, my favorite team has always been the Red Sox.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re a Red Sox fan.

GOV. RICHARDSON: I’m a Red Sox fan.

MR. RUSSERT: End of subject.

GOV. RICHARDSON: End of subject.

MR. RUSSERT: You better get rid of this book.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Oh, no! I’m also a Yankee fan. I also like…

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, now, wait a minute!

GOV. RICHARDSON: You can—Tim…

MR. RUSSERT: I guarantee…

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, I know, I got in trouble…

MR. RUSSERT: …if you go—if you go to Yankee Stadium or Fenway, you cannot be both.

GOV. RICHARDSON: But I like—Mickey Mantle was my hero. If I weren’t running for president, and the Associated Press asked me, I’d play center field for the New York—I wanted to be number seven. And—but I still love the Red Sox as a team. I mean, this is the thing about me, Tim. I can bring people together. I can unify people.

MR. RUSSERT: Yankee fans and Red Sox fans?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Not a chance.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I bet you I can.

The problem for Richardson is that when other people start talking about his resume and performance, they’ll be far less complimentary than Richardson is. Bill Richardson is moving up the polls because he’s talking about his resume. When other people start doing so, they’re going to be far more critical than Richardson is on himself….

As John Dickerson wrote of that MTP appearance:

Richardson also misplayed the candor card. Seven times in the broadcast, he used phrases like “I made a mistake” or “I shouldn’t have said that.” After six years of an error-ridden Bush administration in which it has taken eons for the president to offer even limited mumbles about any errors, we should applaud candidates who admit mistakes. We should also encourage them to tell us what they’ve learned from their wrong turns. But there is surely a limit to the number of mistakes you can admit to before it starts to hurt your authority, and Richardson seemed to zip by it.

[Photo Credit: New West]

Sphere: Related Content

Obama and McCain on the Daily Show, Huckabee on the Colbert Report

These three over the past two weeks have essentially written the book on how to do a comedy show, balancing the humor with the serious. Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Presidential Candidate Tom Tancredo Encourages Lawsuits Against City Of Newark And Suggests Possibly Holding Government Officials Criminally Responsible

Earlier this month, 3 college students were murdered and 1 was injured in Newark, N.J. It turned out that some of those involved were illegal immigrants with previous criminal records, but because of a policy in Newark the Federal immigration authorities were never notified about these individuals. Accordingly, this story has gained national attention given its relation to the hot button issue of immigration.

Speaking in Newark on Monday (8/20/07), Tom Tancredo blasted the policies of Newark and encouraged the victims families to sue the city: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Biden Shuffles Campaign Finance Team

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post writes:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) is bringing in an old fundraising hand to manage the day to day operations of his finance team even as his campaign continues to be dogged by suggestions that it will run out of money before next year’s caucuses and primaries.

Dennis Toner will take over the day-to-day operations of the finance department from finance director Chris Koerner. Koerner will retain her title but will focus much more heavily on raising money from the trial lawyer community in the coming weeks and months. Paula Levine, a New York fundraiser, is also taking a broader role for Biden as is Mary Liz Kane, a longtime Boston fundraiser for Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Cillizza adds that if Biden does not fundraiser more by the third quarter deadline of Sept. 30, he might have to drop out of the race. This is another exhibit of debate performances being overrated. Perhaps, then, Biden’s ad buy in Iowa might be the smartest move right now, if he’s trying to get enough support to draw enough money to stay in the race.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Joe Biden Starts Running Ads In Iowa
• FEC Report: Joe Biden

Sphere: Related Content

It’s Not a Flip-Flop If You Believe Both Positions

More evidence of why 25% of Republicans are supposedly fed up with Romney

Jonathan Martin writes:

After saying for months that he supports reversing Roe v. Wade and letting states decide their own abortion laws, Romney went on ABC’s “Good Morning America” earlier this month and said he would go further to end the practice.

Asked if he backed the GOP convention platform from 2004 that states, “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children,” Romney indicated that he did.

“You know, I do support the Republican platform, and I support that being part of the Republican platform and I’m pro-life,” Romney said.

Such steps, of course, would outlaw abortion and not let states decide how to address the issue.

But that’s not what he said Tuesday, as Teddy Davis of ABC reported:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states “make their own decision” about whether to keep abortion legal.

“My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation,” Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. “Instead, I would let states make their choices.”

Asked by Ralston if it was “OK” with him that Nevada is a “pro-choice state,” Romney said, “I’d let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I’m a pro-life individual. That’s the position I support. But, I’d let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it.”

How did Romney reconcile this seemingly explicit contradiction? By telling ABC Newsthat he believes both:

When ABCNEWS.COM reported Wednesday that states like Nevada would be unable to keep abortion legal if Romney’s ultimate vision were implemented, a Romney spokesman sought to explain the discrepancy by saying that while Romney supports the Human Life Amendment and 14th Amendment legislation contained in the Republican Party’s 2004 platform, he does not view either measure as “achievable” at this time.

By contrast, he views overturning Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court case which legalized abortion throughout the United States, as a goal which can be achieved more quickly.

If Romney succeeds in overturning Roe v. Wade through his Supreme Court appointments, states would once again be empowered to make their own decisions about abortion rights.

States would retain this power, under Romney’s vision, until it is possible to outlaw abortion at the federal level. At that point, they would lose this power.

Romney’s camp, however, does not see this day coming any time soon.

“We should aspire to passing a Human Life Amendment when the country as a whole is prepared for it,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden told ABC News. “The American people just aren’t there yet.”

This isn’t the way to make an nagging campaign issue go away. It seems more like he’s been too busy watching some videos on the internet and wants to advocate both that and the RNC platform position…

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Mitt Romney and Abortion
• Club For Growth Releases Paper on Romney: Another Mixed Record
• Mitt Romney: Everyone Flip-Flops, It’s No Big Deal; Also, Catching UBL Isn’t A Priority

Sphere: Related Content

Follow Up: The Paul Campaign Touts Another Small Straw Poll

Ron Paul finished first in a straw poll in Washington state today. I wouldn’t otherwise comment, but the Paul campaign seems to think it’s a big deal, judging on a press release they sent to us:

The Paul campaign specifically avoids saying how many people participated in the straw poll. The total was apparently (though still unconfirmed) 160, 45 of whom voted for Paul. This would make it s the smallest state straw poll yet,and one that is in no way representative of anything other than strongg grassroots support among a couple dozen people. And if we took a look at the vote for the Libertarian Party in Washington over the years, I’m sure we could have proven that otherwise.

My point is not to attack Paul, but rather how the campaign is trying to tout bigger support than it actually has. This is not a way to get buzz around a candidacy so difference than the other Republicans. Paul will have to engage on the issues consistently, and choose big battles for when he can get more popularity. Paul has a historic opportunity to rebuild support for libertarian policies, and running a traditional campaign touting small victories in straw polls that no one will remember by the end of the month isn’t a strategy built on success.

It’s as if Paul’s campaign doesn’t realize where there are in the polls. And yes, polls where the support is not not self-selected are far, far more meaningful.

I’ll repeat what I said a few days ago: The problem for Paul is that a lot of his supporters sometimes take things too far; touting online polls or sparsely attended straw polls as evidence of far wider support. That’s certainly not the case - heck, even Tommy Thompson won a straw poll or two like Paul has. The only proof of traction is ultimately in the polls (and eventually the election itself) - and in the polls is undoubtedly where Paul hasn’t really generated much success at all.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Ron Paul Left To Tout Small Wins; Also a Look at The Direction of the Campaign

Sphere: Related Content

Club For Growth Releases Paper on Romney: Another Mixed Record

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: a conservative group is hopefully optimistic that what Mitt Romney says on the trail and did as Governor is more important than statements to the contrary before being elected.

Well, this time the group is the Club for Growth and the issue is taxes.

They released their white paper on Romney, and it said the following:

Governor Romney’s history on tax policy is scattered with inconsistencies. As a candidate for governor, Romney refused to sign an anti-tax pledge distributed by the local Citizens for Limited Taxation. He opposed Ballot Question 1 to eliminate the state income tax and proposed an auto excise tax on SUVs and a greenfields tax on the development of ocean space. In 2003, the Governor refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts, earning the praise of Massachusetts liberal congressman Barney Frank, and was even open to a federal gas tax hike. His strident opposition to the flat tax is most curious and difficult to explain since Romney wasn’t a political candidate at the time. In 1996, he ran a series of newspaper ads in Boston, New Hampshire, and Iowa denouncing the 17% flat tax proposed by then presidential candidate Steve Forbes as a “tax cut for fat cats”. Even today, Romney continues to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax “unfair.”

Overall, Romney’s record on tax policy is mixed. His record is marred by questionable statements and positions, and his fee hikes and “loophole” closures are troubling. However, his support for broad-based tax cuts in liberal Massachusetts together with his enthusiastic embrace of the Bush tax cuts on the campaign trail offers hope that Governor Romney’s previous ambivalence on tax policy is more a function of Massachusetts politics than his core beliefs.

It also includes this summation after a concise review of Romney’s economic policy:

As Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney’s record on economic issues was generally good. He demonstrated a willingness to take on his Legislature and deserves credit for the many pro-growth measures he advocated and the modest reforms he was able to achieve. While his record on taxes, spending and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature. His record on trade, school choice, regulations, and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions.

At the same time, Governor Romney’s history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric. His strident opposition to the flat tax; his refusal to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003; his support for various minor tax hikes; and his once-radically bad views on campaign finance reform all cast some doubts on the extent and durability of his commitment to limited-government, pro-growth policies. His landmark steps in the health care arena also exhibit a mixture of desirable pro-free market efforts combined with a regrettable willingness to accept, if not embrace, a massive new regulatory regime. Nevertheless, given his outstanding private sector entrepreneurial experience; the strong pro-growth positions he has taken on the campaign trail; his overall record as governor; and the fact that the U.S. Congress will not be as liberal as the Massachusetts Legislature, we are reasonably optimistic that, as President, Mitt Romney would generally advocate a pro-growth agenda.

A mixed record like this is one reason why Romney has a credibility problem even among Republicans. Hillary Clinton has high negatives, but they’re little when compared to Mitt Romney. (Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan). 1 in 4 Republicans say they would definitely vote against Mitt Romney at this point. Those numbers are simply astonishing. If Karl Rove is right about Hillary Clinton, the same has to apply to Mitt Romney at this point. And it’s based on a mixed record that Romney keeps trying to gloss over, which in turn only enhances the flip flop reputation. I have to wonder if Romney simply peaked too early.

Related at 2008 Central:

• McCain Continues Jekyll and Hyde Campaign, Skipping Club For Growth Meeting to Visit Iraq Instead; Club Releases White Paper
• Huckabee v. Club for Growth, Round 2

Sphere: Related Content

Follow Up: Response to Obama’s Cuba Comments

An article in the Boston Globe today followed up the Obama op-ed on Cuba yesterday with many different responses.

In short: Clinton says it’s too early to tell, other Democrats tend to agree (or go further than Obama), while Republicans disagree. And the policy expert quoted agrees with Obama as well.

The long version after the jump.
Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »