Follow-Up: Richardson On Pakistan

Earlier this week, I wrote about Bill Richardson’s silly recommendation for dealing with Pakistan. Mark Steyn at the National Review offers a critical look at Richardson’s “plan” and provides some excellent substance. Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Huckabee: Does Everyone See This Negative Ad on Romney? Everyone? Even You In The Back? I’m Not Going to Run It, Then

Fact 1:

After a weekend of endless assaults on him by the Romney campaign, Huckabee took time to film and (potentially) briefly air attack ads on Romney, before pulling it in a strange series of events. Huckabee also spent the weekend calling Romney basically a liar. Take this excerpt from Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: But has Mitt Romney said anything that’s untrue about you?

GOV. HUCKABEE: How long do we have on the program today? He’s said many things that are untrue. He said that I reduced methamphetamine sentences in Arkansas. Truth is I signed a bill in 1999 that doubled those sentences. We did not reduce them. Our sentences were four times harsher than they were in Massachusetts. He said that I supported special breaks for illegal aliens. That’s not true, Tim. We supported simply giving children who had earned a scholarship the same–it never happened, it didn’t make the legislature. He made allegations that our increased spending by ridiculous amounts, and The New York Times came back and defended that, and said that’s just simply not true. And they took him apart and showed that the increases in spending were, frankly, the same if not a little better than his if you took into consideration the accounting methods we changed in Arkansas, very modest gains in spending.

He made claims about things like tax increases, but he failed to mention that some of those were either court ordered or they were voted on by the people and approved by the people for things as roads. And I left my roads in great shape, took them from the worst in the country to what Truckers magazine said were the most improved. He left his roads in a mess in Massachusetts, with huge problems in the infrastructure. He claimed that he didn’t raise taxes, but, in fact, he did raise taxes by half a billion dollars.

And from the same show:

MR. RUSSERT: You’re suggesting that Mitt Romney’s not running an honorable campaign.

GOV. HUCKABEE: I’ve been very clear about it. Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign. He’s attacked me, and, and yesterday–or Friday, I guess it was, he launched then just a broadside attack against Senator McCain. Now, Senator McCain and I are rivals for the presidency, but I’ve said on many occasions, I’ll say it again here today, Senator McCain is an honorable man, and I believe he’s an honest man. I believe he’s a man of conviction. And I felt like that, when Mitt Romney went after the integrity of John McCain, he stepped across a line. John McCain’s a hero in this country. He’s a hero to me.

And I just felt like that when Mitt Romney gets on your show and says that he had the NRA endorsement when he didn’t; when he comes on and says he’s pro-life and yet he signed a bill that gives a $50 co-pay for an elective abortion in his state’s health care plan; when he claims that he’s really for the Second Amendment, but he–on this show he talked about how he supported limitations and restrictions on lawful, law-abiding citizens having gun ownership rights, those are not the marks of a person who’s pro-life and pro-Second Amendment. And then the things where he’s made up these visions that he’s had of marching with Martin Luther King and his dad marching with him. You know, Tim, what I’ve said, and I’ve been pretty blunt about it, if you aren’t being honest in obtaining a job, can we trust you to be honest if you get the job?

Fact 2:

Huckabee is short on money, and the solution has constantly been to be thrifty as often as possible.

Even with his newfound resources, Huckabee will probably remain well behind Romney and Giuliani — who between them raised $100 million between January and September — when presidential candidates submit their fundraising totals to the Federal Election Commission on Monday. All three are expected to remain far behind the best-financed Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are expected to add tens of millions to the more than $150 million raised between them so far.

Nonetheless, Huckabee should for the first time have enough money to contend with an onslaught of costly advertising and organizational challenges during the early primaries. Chip Saltsman, Huckabee’s campaign manager, said he remains unconcerned about any financial imbalance heading into Feb. 5, when candidates must compete in huge, expensive media markets across the country.

“It’s not how much money you raise; it’s what you do with the money you do raise,” Saltsman said. “There’s a reason we’re doing so well, and it has nothing to do with money.”

Cynical Conclusion

Huckabee had a random change of heart and made his campaign waste a lot of crucial time and resources in the one state that can make or break him; this would be a hallmark of an incompetent campaign.

Really Cynical Conclusion

Huckabee intentionally backed off at the last minute to both have his cake and eat it too; he clearly shows what the negative attack would have been, and also tries to show himself as above it, despite having clearly already attacked Romney numerous times, with no intention of stopping anytime soon. This would be the hallmark of a Rovian campaign done cheaply.

Potentially Naive Conclusion

Huckabee just had a change of heart about putting a negative attack ad up. This is either the hallmark of someone really nice, or someone who would not have the stomach to be president.

Sphere: Related Content

Is Iowa The Right Choice To Go First? Gov. Strickland Says No.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland made some comments regarding Iowa to the Columbus Dispatch:

Beginning the presidential nominating process in Iowa, as will occur this week, “makes no sense,” says Gov. Ted Strickland, who recently campaigned there for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

“I’d like to see both parties say, ‘We’re going to bring this to an end,’ ” he said.

First, the problem is that no one asks these questions except just before or after primary season. That’s why the Michigan and Florida primaries are so screwed up. But we’ve been over that.

The problem with the ‘bring it up when it happens’ theory is that the real questions (why do two random states get to whittle down candidates almost completely?) get lost in the politics of the moment; namely, that Strickland happens to be a Clinton supporter who campaigned for Clinton this past week in Iowa.

This is the record of the flap in the New York Times:

At every campaign stop across eastern Iowa, Mr. Strickland repeated a message of electability, declaring: “She is the most tested politician in America.” He hailed the Iowa caucuses, saying the state served as a bookend to the traditional battleground role that Ohio plays in the general election.

Yet when he returned home to Columbus, he seems to have veered a bit off script.

In an interview with The Columbus Dispatch, Mr. Strickland said that starting the presidential nominating contest in Iowa “makes no sense.” He added, “I’d like to see both parties say, ‘We’re going to bring this to an end.’”

The Clinton campaign was quick to distance itself from his remarks, issuing a statement declaring “Hillary and Governor Strickland strongly disagree.”

“Senator Clinton has worked her heart out campaigning in Iowa because she knows it plays a unique and special role in the nominating process and that role must be protected,” said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “As she has said many times she is glad Iowans are entrusted with this responsibility because they take it so seriously.”

Some thoughts, numbered one through eight for organization:
Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Joe Klein On Edwards’ Over The Top Rhetoric

Klein says that his current rhetoric on corporations has “jumped the shark” and his position on trade is “wildly irresponsible.”

Edwards seems to have jumped the shark. His latest pitch has taken his natural populism over a cliff. It sort of sounds like: The Corporations Are Going To Eat Your Children. Actually what he says is, “We’re not going to let corporate greed steal our children’s future.” Over and over again. There is a strong argument to be made that the natural balance of the American economy has tilted toward the wealthy and the power of entrenched special interests, and needs to be tilted back in the direction of the middle class and poor. Both Clinton and Obama make that argument effectively, and place it in a reasonable context. For example, both say: Yes, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries will try to block universal health insurance, and we’re going to have to beat them. Edwards says, “I will never–never!–sit down at a table with them,” which is just ridiculous. If he wants to pass universal health insurance, he’s going to have to build a coalition that includes or neutralizes much of the business community–if not the insurance and pharmaceutical industries–or it won’t pass. As it is, he just sounds desperate, contentious and unreasonable.

Edwards is also wildly irresponsible on trade. He’s now saying that trade deals have cost “millions of jobs.” They haven’t. NAFTA has been a wash, creating as many jobs as have been lost. This is demagoguery–implying that if we just shut down the free trade regime, the global economy is going to go away, and stop taking low-value-added manufacturing jobs to other countries. It raises false hopes among the hardest working Americans, which is just disgraceful. It is also slightly out of date: with the weak dollar, exports represents a sector of the economy poised for real growth. A more responsible candidate, who really had the interests of the working class in mind, would emphasize the need for a stronger social safety net, more help for displaced workers and higher taxes to pay for it. Edwards believes in all that, but he’s not saying it these days–he’s choosing, instead, to use the heaviest, ugliest weapons in his arsenal.

It’s pretty clear that that sort of rhetoric simply will not sell to the vast majority of Americans. Even if he had not accepted matching funds, I wouldn’t give Edwards much chance at being electable against most of the current Republican field, even with it as weak as it is.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Morning Talk Shows: Huckabee, Obama, Thompson, Clinton, McCain, Edwards, Biden, Dodd

Last Sunday Before the Caucuses and we’re bringing back the quick run down of who is where this Sunday morning:

Meet the Press: Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama

This Week: Hillary Clinton, John McCain

Face the Nation: John Edwards

Fox News Sunday: Fred Thompson

Late Edition: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd

See here for a comprehensive rundown of everybody else.

Sphere: Related Content

You Know You’re In The Second Tier When …

. . . you need someone from the West Wing to campaign for you in Iowa. It’s hard to say you’re about to topple the front runners and at the same time call Richard Schiff in to help.

And you know you’re in the third tier when you can’t get someone from the West Wing to campaign for you.

Bonus Context:

Jon Stewart: Now listen, what do you think about, you definitely also have a little bit of that Hollywood flair. You’re gonna start drawing the celebrities. Oprah is gonna throw a fundraiser.

Obama: Right.

Jon: That doesn’t seem good. I still remember Howard Dean in Iowa, with Martin Sheen introducing him, quoting an Indian poet to a caucus group of literally like AFL–CIO workers, and just seeing their faces like this: “Huh?? What is he talking about?”

Obama: Well, you know, you don’t use folks in that way. I think Oprah’s support is wonderful. I think having the celebrities want to do stuff for you — but the truth is, in Iowa and New Hampshire, people just want to talk to you. They want to lift the hood, they want to kick the tires, they want to look you in the eye, they want to get a sense, are you telling the truth? There’s nobody that can do that job other than you.

Sphere: Related Content

Ron Paul Excluded From Fox News January 6 Forum In New Hampshire

The Paul campaign has issued a statement regarding their exclusion from Fox News’ presidential forum in New Hampshire on January 6, 2008:

“According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2007.

“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”

Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”

The AP reports that the participants will be Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabe, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.  Paul is currently polling higher than Thompson and has been since mid-November.  Paul also polled higher than Huckabee in late September/early October and briefly in late November, before Huckabee’s surge.  Paul also has more cash on hand than several of the candidates.

On it’s face, it does seem like a pretty unfair decision.  I’m usually in favor of offering more choices over less.  That said, it is Fox News’ right to make this decision.  They are probably basing their decision on the notion that Paul is not a nationally viable candidate and therefore are not obligated to include him.  Accordingly, the Paul campaign and supporters should welcome this as an opportunity to demonstrate that the idea that Paul champions - being that the market will solve - actually works by compelling Fox to allow Paul to participate.

Just to be clear on two things: 1) If it was my call, I wouldn’t prevent Paul from participating and 2) I’m not saying that the Paul supporters can’t make this happen, but I’m also not saying that they can either — I’m just saying they could capitalize on this is all.

Sphere: Related Content

On Electability and 2004 …

Walter Shapiro at Salon writes:

Four years ago, Iowa Democrats went for John Kerry in large measure because they believed that this Vietnam War hero would offer the strongest challenge to George W. Bush. These caucus-goers could not have foreseen that Kerry would be photographed windsurfing and that his consultant-clogged campaign would fritter away a month before it made a half-hearted effort to respond to the Swift Boat ads. And predicting the arc of the Kerry campaign was theoretically possible since the Massachusetts senator had been in Washington for 20 years and everyone knew his opponent.

As much fun as it is to absolve innocent Iowans of responsibility for their choice four years ago, I can’t agree. Kerry had run an awful campaign up to he moved to Iowa and convinced everyone he was presidential despite not liking him at all. Moreover, exit polls directly contradict that.

Here’s what William Saletan said four years ago (my emphasis):

By media consensus, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is over. Why? Because John Kerry has won 12 of the 14 primaries and caucuses held so far. And why has Kerry won these contests? Not because voters agree with him on the issues. The reason, according to exit polls, is that voters think he’s the candidate most likely to beat President Bush. There’s just one problem: The same polls suggest this may not be true.

Two weeks ago, Kerry beat Howard Dean by 12 percentage points in the New Hampshire primary, convincing Democrats around the country that Kerry was their most electable candidate. How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1 advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because “he can defeat George W. Bush in November.” Among voters who chose their candidate because “he agrees with you on the major issues,” Dean and Kerry were tied.

Let me say that again: Among voters who picked the candidate they wanted based on the issues, not the candidate they thought somebody else wanted, Kerry did not win the New Hampshire primary.

Let me put this as delicately as possible: Voters are awful pundits. Terrible. They see defects that do not exist, or are blind to those that do exist.

Encouraging people to vote based on electability is essentially nonsense; I covered a lot of this in my Open Memo. The ONLY hard rule that applies is that someone who accepted matching funds or is way to the left of the Democratic mainstream or right of the Republican will not get enough independents to win. That’s all.

And thus, it should be a race between Clinton and Obama. Memo to Iowans and those elsewhere: Vote your gut, whoever it is.

Related at 2008 Central:

An Open Memo To Iowa Democrats

Sphere: Related Content

A Rudy Co-Chair Said WHAT?

Via TPM Election Central:

John Deady, the co-chair of New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy, is standing by the comments he made in the controversial interview with The Guardian we posted on below, in which he said that “the Muslims” need to be chased “back to their caves.”

In an interview with me, Deady confirmed that when he made the comments, he was referring to all Muslims.

“I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims,” Deady told me by phone from his home in New Hampshire. “They’re all Muslims.”

When a mere campaign volunteer to Hillary got caught forwarding the madrassa email about Barack Obama, it was national news for days and she had to quit the campaign. While the parallel isn’t perfect, Deady’s comments are more explosive than the act of forwarding the email is, and Deady is more than a mere volunteer to Rudy’s campaign.

Giuliani clearly does not share those beliefs; even his most vicious opponent could look at his record and find that he’s not anything like that. However, presidents and those campaigning have a responsibility to reign in silly statements and actions by those they appoint to official positions. Something this egregious demands some sort of formal action, not a mere off the cuff refuting.

However, Giuliani has a history of keeping his friends close, and … when in doubt, closer. So taking an action on this could show to what extent he will allow friends to have free reign. With stories like Bernard Kerik out there, symbolic action can be important.

Update: The Rudy campaign reacted, swiftly and appropriately.

Sphere: Related Content

Recap of Mike Huckabee Blogger Conference Call

This afternoon, we had the privilege of joining a conference call with Gov. Huckabee. He began by talking about recent events and the excitement he is seeing; Chuck Todd of MSNBC says he’s been through the crowds and could not find any one person who was definitely going to caucus. I find that kind of absurd, but it is possible this late rush could be very soft. On the other hand, Romney is not exactly the type to have rock solid support either. Huckabee to that extent said that he has 1,000 people a day pledging to caucus for him.

Huckabee also noted his fundraising appearance in Florida, and other appearances in Florida. Craig Crawford has also noted that Huckabee drew a crowd in Orlando twice the size of Giuliani’s campaign. Huckabee also noted the national polling which shows him coming up. Concludes by saying how notable his rise in Iowa has been, particularly that winning in Iowa would be a “seismic event talked about for years to come.” He’s clearly getting ready to get a bigger bounce from Iowa.

Moving on to the question portion. Just about every question was from a Huckabee-friendly source; we did not have the time to ask a question.

Huckabee was first asked about the attacks on his son; we covered those here. Huckabee called them a “low blow” and said they happened when his son was 17, and he became an Eagle Scout shortly thereafter.

Regarding accepting fees for a speech from a company that promotes stem cell research, he first spoke to his need to still be paid form time to time for speeches, and also that the speech in question for diabetes; moreover, that the Premier Speakers Bureau set up and paid him for the speech. All are true, but adding a middle man, and the speech being on diabetes does not change raw facts; the question is more broad: is it OK for him to accept a speakers fee from this sort of group? I expect that it is; Huckabee is trying for political goals; working with this company on diabetes is akin to working with Democrats on some common ground, whatever that might be. No big deal.

What about the likes of Novak and Coulter calling him out? Huckabee says they’re typical Washingont insiders, etc. and he offers real change, comparing himself in that regard to Reagan. It certainly sounds like a Democratic messagethis cycle , and you have to wonder how long it can carry him outside of Iowa.

What about accusations of Huckabee supporting touch back amnesty? Huckabee says that is a lie, and that illegals have to go back and to the back of the line; anyone deported has to wait ten years before even getting in line. Cites the support of Jim Gilchrist as proof of his chops on this issue.

After talking about his supporting Michigan, he was asked about what Ed Rollins has done. Said he looked at the organization and was impressed, and talked at length about the job the campaign has done under Chip Saltsman. Wants to send the message that Ed is adding a different perspective, but that the campaign is continuing without a hitch or substantial changes. Effective in doing so.

What would he do to mend bridges with fiscal conservatives once he wins the nomination (I told you this was a pro-Huckabee call)? Says people will realize that he does not want to make rich people poor, but rather he wants to make everyone rich. He said small businesses are the engine of the economy. Moves on to the fair tax, citing how it will show people how big a burden the federal government is and spur more change. (Trojan horse alert!)

Lastly, he talks about Pakistan, and cites a September speech on his website as proof of him talking about it long before now. SDays Benazir Bhutto was a symbol of courage, a symbol of democracy. Says it is important to show that women can be in power in 97% Muslim country.

Here is an excerpt from his September 29 speech:

“On September 12, 2001, President Musharaff agreed to sever his relationship with the Taliban and let us fight Al Qaeda inside Pakistan. Distracted by Iraq, we have allowed Musharaff to go back on his word. While warning us not to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty with our forces, he promises to go after Al Qaeda for us, then claims he can’t because he doesn’t control the territory where Al Qaeda has its safe haven.

“What exactly is our policy toward Pakistan? Just like Musharraf since 9/11, the Bush Administration has played both ends in the middle – assuring the American people that it is doing everything it can to protect them, while tiptoeing around our supposed ally, afraid of upsetting the apple cart, even though that cart contains poisoned apples destined for export to the United States.

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog of Rudy Giuliani on Hardball (December 28, 2007)

5:32 PM: Matthews has just blasted Huckabee for saying that there needs to be a watch for suspcious entrance of Pakistanis into the country 13 hours after Bhutto was killed.

5:34: How would you catch Bin Laden? Giuliani says more emphasis needs to be on Afghanistan, and that this event could be an event that forces action, and that in cooperation with more action with the Pakistan government, and says pressure is on Musharraf. Giuliani says a cause of death should be made clear, stability resotred, and then elections; he said that should be a fairly quick process.

5:36: Does he blame Bush? Not really, but admits efforts need to be redoubled, and more has to be done. Giuliani says he has personally spoken with Bush, and bringing UBL to justice is more than symbolic, and is important to everyone.

5:37: When will he win a state? Giuliani says you have to win your share of the primaries on or before Feb. 5, citing Florida, Iowa, NH, California, Illinois, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. When pressed about the timetable, Giuliani demurs, citing his organization on the Feb. 5 states. He also declined to make any predictions in Iowa.

5:40: Giuliani says he the best prepared to lead America, and has the most experience of anyone running, citing how difficult a job NY mayor was even before 9/11, also citing his fiscal conservatism. Matthews actually - strangely - makes him say he is the best man to lead America.

That was fairly pointless. But in between a story about a butter sculpture and old polling numbers, what do you expect?

Sphere: Related Content

Drug Company Sent Giuliani To Avoid Prosecution

The New York Times today took a look at Giuliani’s work for Purdue Pharma. He did publicity work for the group which was under fire for its aggressive marketing of Oxycontin:

As a celebrity, Mr. Giuliani helped the company win several public relations battles, playing a role in an effort by Purdue to persuade an influential Pennsylvania congressman, Curt Weldon, not to blame it for OxyContin abuse.

Despite these efforts, Purdue suffered a crushing defeat in May at the hands of Mr. Brownlee when the company and three top executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges.

The article also indicates that a deal was reached with the DEA for Purdue to pay a $2 million fine; the original recommendation was for $20 million; at the time, Giuliani was also working with the DEA to form a DEA museum. The DEA denied that the final settlement was inappropriate, however, despite the apparent conflict of interest.

Lastly, the victims of Oxycontin abuse were unhappy with the plea agreement:

After years of denial and a high-profile public relations campaign, the company was forced to admit that it had misled doctors and patients. But to the parents of young people who had died getting high on OxyContin, the absence of jail time was evidence of Mr. Giuliani’s influence.

They voiced that view inside and outside the packed courtroom in Abingdon where the men were sentenced in July.

Mr. Giuliani was 360 miles away at the time, campaigning in Myrtle Beach, S.C., where he met with local firefighters and talked about 9/11. But his role in the case had been so substantial and sustained, the presiding judge felt compelled to address the parents’ concerns.

“It has been implied that because Mr. Giuliani is a prominent national politician, Purdue may have received a favorable deal from the government solely because of politics,” said the judge, James P. Jones of United States District Court. “I completely reject this claim.”

Even today, some of those parents are not persuaded. Ed Bisch, whose son died of an OxyContin overdose, said that he believed that Purdue got a free pass for years thanks to Mr. Giuliani.

“It was all because of Giuliani,” said Mr. Bisch. “And he got to take the money.”

Judge Jones was nominated to the bench by President Clinton and before being nominated was a prominent Democrat in Virginia.

This might be a story a Democratic nominee brings up to gain ground on health care should Giuliani be on the ticket come summer.

Also, ABC news reported on this back in May.

[Photo Credit: ABC News]

Sphere: Related Content

2008 Central Corrects Historical Comparisons, Part I

John Edwards gave his closing speech today:

When America was founded, there were people who wanted to negotiate with King George. Imagine if we had followed that path. There were people who wanted to contain the trusts instead of bust the trusts. Imagine if we had followed that path. But look what happened when Americans of great conviction led America to stand up for its principles and reach for higher ground. We fought for change, and we changed history. During the Great Depression, FDR stood up to powerful, entrenched interests to lead this nation out of our darkest hour.

First, there’s a little history of something called the Olive Branch Petition:

When the Congress convened in May 1775, the delegates were deeply divided over how to deal with the ongoing crisis with Great Britain. Most Delegates followed John Dickinson in his quest to reconcile with the King. However a smaller group of delegates led by John Adams believed that war was inevitable. During the course of the Second Continental Congress, Adams and his group of radicals decided the wisest course of action was to remain quiet and wait for the opportune time to rally the people. This decision allowed John Dickinson and his followers to pursue what ever means of reconciliation they wanted. It was during this time that the idea of the Olive Branch Petition was approved.[1]

The Olive Branch Petition was first drafted by Thomas Jefferson, but John Dickinson found Jefferson’s language too offensive. Dickinson rewrote most of the document although some of the conclusion remained Jefferson’s. [2][3] Dickinson claimed that the colonies did not want independence but they merely wanted to negotiate trade and tax regulations with Great Britain. Dickinson suggested the King draw up a final plan or agreement to settle trade disputes. To help the King with his plan Dickinson also suggested that either the colonists were given free trade and taxes equal to those levied on the people in Great Britain or no taxes and strict trade regulations. The letter was signed and sent to London on July 8th 1775.[2] Dickinson had hoped that word of the bloodshed at Lexington and Concord combined with the “Humble Petition” would inspire the King to at least negotiate with the colonists.[1]

Unfortunately his petition was undermined by a confiscated letter of John Adams. John Adams had written a letter to a friend expressing his discontent with the Olive Branch Petition. In his letter he wrote that the war was inevitable and that he thought the Colonies should have already raised a navy and captured British officials. This confiscated letter arrived in Great Britain at about the same time as the Olive Branch petition. The British used Adams’s letter to claim that the Olive Branch Petition was insincere.

Also, we should point out that the Revolutionary war was an ACTUAL war where the goal was to get Britain out of America; the goal for Edwards is to get the insurance companies to give up more money voluntarily; it’s a metaphorical fight, not a real one.

Secondly, Jonathan Alter already dismantled the comparisons to FDR in an article last week. Key quote:

Bear with me for a brief history lesson: The so-called “First New Deal” of 1933-34 came after Roosevelt won a landslide victory over Herbert Hoover in 1932 in a campaign devoid of any populist message despite an unemployment rate of at least 25 percent. First, FDR worked with Hoover treasury officials from the other party to rescue the banks under a conservative plan that included steep budget cuts. The rest of his famous “100 days” agenda-which included unprecedented jobs programs, agricultural reform, labor rights, and regulation of financial markets—was achieved with much more compromise than Krugman recognizes. Social Security came in 1935 after a big Democratic mandate in midterm elections and was enacted piecemeal and cooperatively (to the disappointment of many New Deal liberals) with everyone at the table.

During and after his 1936 reelection campaign, FDR—angry at the ingratitude of the rich Americans whose fortunes he had saved—adopted class-based politics. In 1937, with a big victory under his belt, he tried confrontation with his court-packing scheme. It failed badly. So did his effort to “purge” the opposition in 1938. The rest of his second-term was far less productive legislatively than his first. By the end of it, he turned to foreign policy. FDR’s third-term success, dominated by World II, was dependent on his unifying the country.

Similarly, Woodrow Wilson’s big legislative triumphs over entrenched interests in 1913 (for example, an income tax), Lyndon Johnson’s in 1965 (Medicare and the Voting Rights Act) and Bill Clinton’s in 1993 (painful tax increases) were achieved with legislative skill, not brute force and a populist message.

Edwards’ comparisons are wholly inadequate.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton Not Taking Questions From Audience Anymore

As the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary draws near, the Clinton campaign has tightened up its operation by ceasing Hillary Clinton’s practice of taking questions from the audience after she delivers a speech. After being asked about the new practice, the campaign cited the Senator’s desire to meet as many people as possible and hinted at the intention to control the message:

Clinton campaign officials said that she may take questions in the coming days. But her focus is on seeing as many voters as possible before the caucuses next Thursday — and spotlighting the messages she wants to deliver.

This new practice, which I strongly disagree with even though I understand it’s political utility does seem to support a recent criticism that Barack Obama levied against the Clintons:

“If they’ve been secretive in the past, they’ll be secretive as president. If they haven’t been all that strong on lobbyists in the past, [it] doesn’t matter what they say in the campaign, they won’t be that strong about it when they are president.”

At the very least, this new practice will not make Iowa voters happy. One Iowa voter after an event said:

“I was a little bit underwhelmed. The message was very generic — and no questions.”

I’m sure others are picking up on the new practice as well.

Sphere: Related Content

Richardson Says Musharraf Should Step Down, Calls For Halt In Aid To Pakistan

I recognize that Bill Richardson is trying hard to distinguish himself from the other candidates during this crucial time, but separating oneself isn’t useful unless it’s accompanied by something positive. In his latest effort to draw a distinction, Richardson called for Musharraf to step down. Further, today Richardson will deliver a speech where he calls for the United States to cease anti-terror financial aid to Pakistan until Musharraf steps down. Previewing the content of the speech, Richardson said:

“Not a penny more in aid will be provided to Pakistan to fight terrorism until (Pakistan President Pervez) Musharraf leaves office.

“I would send the vice president,” Richardson said of Vice President Cheney. “He and Musharraf are buddies.”

Richardson also said he is sure that “al-Qaeda perpetuated this crime.

Now, I realize that there are issues with Musharraf, but demanding that he step down, especially at time like this seems troubling for a few reasons. First, it’s strikingly inconsistent with Richardon’s foreign policy ideology of negotiating and working with other nations. How is demanding that a leader step down that drastically different from the Bush policy that he criticizes so often? Further, if he’s sure that Al-Qaeda was the cause in the assignation, why exactly is he punishing Musharraf? Additionally, doesn’t it seem unnecessarily risky to enhance the turmoil in that country by either deposing its current leader or reducing the money that it uses to fight terrorism?

Perhaps I’m judging his position to quickly and maybe he will answer these questions and clear up any confusion in his speech today. However, that seems unlikely. These are the kinds of shoot from the hip comments though that Richardson is inclined to make. The most recent one before this was his suggestion that he would have a national ban on junk food during a Q&A at Google (I think he was referring to a ban on junk food in just schools, but that’s not what he said in his answer to the question).

[Photo Credit: 4president.us]

Sphere: Related Content

Mike Huckabee: Doesn’t Need To Rely On Consensus

Earlier today on Morning Joe, Mike Huckabee was asked if he was prepared to be deal with situations like Bhutto’s assignation as president. Huckabee responded by saying yes and reminded listeners that as a Governor he has experience at making decisions. What was striking was a remark that he made about not needing to hold hearings and reach some type of “consensus” before acting. Now, I recognize what he was trying to get at (I think). He was likely trying to say that he has the ability or at least the desire to cut through some of the red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that exist in DC.

However, it just seemed like an odd odd given the type of situation that is being dealt with and may underscore a criticism that’s floating around regarding Huckabee’s resistance to working with the legislature. For a candidate that recently received some flak for criticizing the Bush administration’s “bunker mentality,” it doesn’t seem consistent to then make a remark that seems somewhat hostile to external input. Huckabee will have to get a bit better when it comes to his rhetoric if he hopes to continue riding in the top tier.

Additionally, Huckabee made reference to the “eastern border” of Pakistan being a trouble spot for Al-Qaeda; it’s actually the western border. This would be the second flap regarding the specifics of Pakistan. Yesterday, he made reference to martial law in Pakistan, even though that was lifted two weeks ago.

Huckabee also referenced his major foreign policy speech from September, where he discussed Pakistan a bit:

“What exactly is our policy toward Pakistan? Just like Musharraf since 9/11, the Bush Administration has played both ends in the middle – assuring the American people that it is doing everything it can to protect them, while tiptoeing around our supposed ally, afraid of upsetting the apple cart, even though that cart contains poisoned apples destined for export to the United States”

[Photo Credit: AP Photo/Cheryl Senter]

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (12/27/07)

This podcast covers (1) the assassination of Bhutto; (2) Iowa Caucus process; (3) Democratic and Republican candidates closing strategies.

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for next week’s podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Subscribe to 2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast

Sphere: Related Content

Bloomberg Featured In Ads In Iowa And New Hampshire

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg may deny that he’s running for president, but you wouldn’t be able to guess that with his Google Adwords buy, issuing a statement on international events and now by running newspaper ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. Yesterday, Mayors Against Illegal Guns ran ads in The Des Moines Register and The New Hampshire Union Leader that asked where the candidates stand on illegal guns and contained a picture of Mayor Bloomberg and several other mayors from the organization.

It was a gentle reminder about the questionnaire that the organization submitted to all the campaigns earlier this month that they asked the campaigns to return to them by January 2, 2008. Thus far, none of the surveys have been turned in yet.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »