More on Divided Government: The Judicial Question

There’s been a lot said about divided government, including by me. But one aspect horribly overlooked is the judicial question. Jeffrey Rosen looked at it, and if you’re a fan of moderate policies, beware:

In each of the past three elections, of course, these hyperbolic predictions have turned out to be wrong. Since 1996, Roe has been supported by a comfortable 6-3 majority, and the Court, controlled by two relatively moderate swing justices, Sandra Day O’Connor and now Anthony Kennedy, has remained fairly centrist. All of this had led some Court-watchers, including me, to conclude that the stakes for the Court in most presidential elections are less dire than many liberals fear.

Not this time. This year, for the first time since the New Deal era, a single election really does have the power to transform the Court–at the very moment that voters, rightly concerned about the tanking economy and the war in Iraq, are looking the other way. Given the fact that the older justices are liberal rather than conservative–and that the oldest, John Paul Stevens, is 88–it’s hard to deny that nominations by John McCain would change the Court far more dramatically than those by Barack Obama. An Obama victory would maintain the current balance of the Court, while a McCain Court could create a solid conservative majority.

What’s at stake is not only Roe v. Wade, but issues directly tied to the current concerns of the public: among them, Congress’s power to regulate the economy as well as limits on the president’s power to act unilaterally in the war on terrorism. Although McCain claims to favor justices who will defer to the political branches, the most likely Republican nominees are hardly consistent advocates of judicial deference. Voters who are hoping McCain will nominate relatively moderate judicial mavericks should think again.

I’ve said before that I don’t think Roe is an issue, so I’ll take it off the table here. The reality is that the court is on the brink of swinging to a near-Lochner court. There’s been strong pushback against federal government related to interstate commerce, and that trickle could become a deluge with the right Court appointees. Given the relative ages of liberals and conservatives on the Court, a Democratic president would be more likely to retain balance on the Court. Where before narrow majorities upheld issues like basic judicial access for detainees, this would change that. There’s far, far more at stake with the Supreme Court than with the actual Presidential election. Campaign finance is another issue that could be gutted.

A simplistic look at divided government always only looks at President and Congress. In all likelihood, the economy will continue to have problems in the next few years, and at some point, Republicans will be able to take advantage of that, at least in the House and possibly Senate elections. But what can’t be undone are Supreme Court appointments.

Divided government reminds me of speed limits on a highway. Yes, it’s safer to have speed limits on the highway, but what really matters is which way you are driving.

Postscript: I think a more interesting case for divided government is made by the NRSC Dole commercial which assumes an Obama victory. If there’s a run off in the Georgia Senate race, you can expect much of the same.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/15/08)

This podcast provides post-debate analysis for the final debate between Obama and McCain at Hofstra University…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

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

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/12/08)

In this podcast we offer a preview of the third and final presidential debate between Obama and Mccain as well as an overview of the state of the campaign. We also discuss our most recent election projection and the polling trends during the last week. Additionally, we criticize both campaigns on their respective weaknesses and offer some unsolicited advice for improvement. And much more…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

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

Sphere: Related Content

Palin Hits Obama on Abortion

In her speech today that did not mention Bill Ayers, Sarah Palin hit Obama on abortion, saying in part:

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.

I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.

I discussed abortion in a post earlier this week.

The strategy here is two fold. First, find some issue that Obama can be portrayed as radical on. Second, for Palin, this is a good way to build her bona fides for a possible 2012 run.

Of course, I think any attempts of this ilk to change the subject off the economy will be unsuccessful. At best, making this a top issue might save states like Ohio and Indiana. This is a measure meant to stop the bleeding for McCain, not to turn things around. If there’s a counteroffensive on the economy coming later, this is not a bad precursor. It sets up Obama to be on the defensive at the last debate this week.

Related at 2008 Central:

• Abortion: Enough on Roe; Let’s Talk About Casey
• McCain, Democrats, and Abortion: A Riddle Without an Answer
• Social Issues: Not That Important Anymore?
• McCain Declares War on Roe v. Wade

Sphere: Related Content

Abortion: Enough on Roe; Let’s Talk About Casey

A Google Blogs search (arbitrary, I know) turns up 62,919 results for Roe v. Wade. It turns up only 399 for Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That’s about 158 Roes for every Casey.

A regular Google search is similar. There are 2,570,000 results for Roe v. Wade. There are about 67,700 for Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That’s about 38 Roes for every Casey. Better, but still not good.

Why? For all the talk about about overturning Roe v. Wade, it’s not even good law anymore. It has some stare decisis value, but that’s about it. (Precedence, for you non-Latinites.) Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the law. It also has the advantage of being better written and better reasoned.

Casey isn’t referred to for a simple reason: It’s too moderate for both extremes.It’s a slightly complicated case, but here is a brief description:

[T]he Court (5-4) upheld a 24-hour waiting period, an informed consent requirement, a parental consent provision for minors and a recordkeeping requirement, while striking down the spousal notice requirement of a Pennsylvania statute. Invoking stare decisis, the political need for judicial credibility and a consistent Constitutional vision, the Court’s middle wing (O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter), while retaining the “central holding” of Roe v. Wade, overturned its trimester framework and its “strict scrutiny” standard of review, in favor of a new “undue burden” standard, proposed by Justice O’Connor, and a floating viability line where the state’s interest in fetal life becomes “compelling.” Blackmun and Stevens both dissented in part, favoring upholding more of Roe. Chief Justice Rehnquist, with Justices White, Scalia and Thomas, dissented, arguing that Roe had no Constitutional basis and ought to be overturned and that the “rational basis” standard should be applied to uphold the statute. The dissenter’s reasoned that if Roe was wrongly decided, there is no way to justify upholding it. Scalia also authored a dissenting opinion in which Rehnquist, White, and Thomas joined. Crucial to the survival of Roe in this case was O’Connor and Kennedy’s decision to retreat from their prior holdings that the state’s interest in protecting non-viable fetal life was “compelling.” O’Connor’s “undue burden” standard is a pragmatic compromise, allowing limited (and politically popular) state regulation of abortion, yet effectively preserving the general access to abortion that was the goal of Roe.

The Constitutional standard as interpreted right now, in short, looks at whether there is an undue burden imposed by a law, and looks at the viability of the fetus as a sign of a compelling state interest. The result of this, as stated, is a medium of regulated abortion, with reasonable restrictions available as is the case in most of Europe.

The opinion spends a lot of thought an energy on this topic and is worth reading if you care about this issue. As is the case with most O’Connor opinions, it is also very well written.

A law student commented on Casey:

The Court in the opinion delivered by O’Connor, while vehemently affirming Roe, upheld most of the statute. In my opinion it is an affirmation only in words. Justice O’Connor says the three essential parts of Roe are upheld: a right of a woman to choose an abortion before viability without undue interference by the State; a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortion after viability; and third recognition that the State has a legitimate interest in the health of the mother and the life of the fetus at the outset of the pregnancy.
This undercuts Roe. Here we get our first glimpse of undue interference or undue burden. Casey drops the standard of review from strict scrutiny to an undue burden test. In other words, if a requirement is too much of an obstacle to abortion then it is unconstitutional. The only provision considered an undue burden was the spousal consent requirement. Parental consent and the 24 hour waiting period were upheld along with the dissemination of information about other options.
Justice O’Connor affirmed the State’s power to restrict abortion after viability. Roe was very rigid in a trimester scheme with only a slight mention of viability. This scheme was rejected by the Court, but they did not define viability. Without guidance, the States are left to their own definition. Although anything less than twelve weeks might not hold up, the definition of viability could vary widely in each State.
The third essential part of Roe affirmed by the Casey Court, was not really a part of Roe at all. Roe rejected the State’s interest during the first trimester. In Roe, the mother’s interest in her liberty and choice outweighed any state interest in the life of the fetus. In Casey, the State’s regulatory power over abortions can begin at conception, and do not have to wait until the second trimester.
Casey, while affirming the tenets of Roe, actually weakened it. It now allows for more State regulation during the entire pregnancy and lowers the standard of review for other abortion statutes. The lower the standard the more deference is given to the legislature enacting the statute.

Now, to get to my last point: When you hear liberals defending Roe as the middle ground or conservatives looking at the poll numbers of support of Roe or especially when talking about how Roe is badly written or what not, realize that it’s not even the legal standard anymore. It’d be nice if some politicians realized that the great moderate standard of abortion law that the public has been clamoring for already exists.

And if you want fewer abortions? Change people’s minds. That will take care of the law in good time. If an overwhelming amount of people believe all abortion is murder, the law will change. The Supreme Court will not do the work for you.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/06/08)

This podcast analyzes the latest polling data, McCain Campaign’s aggressive tactics, Obama’s newest attack video on McCain’s association with the Keating 5, a preview of the second presidential debate in Tennessee.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

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

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/02/08)

This podcast offers post vice presidential debate commentary and analysis of the debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

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

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (09/30/08)

This podcast offers a preview of the upcoming vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

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

Sphere: Related Content

RNC Live Blog - Day 3: Including Gov. Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney

And we’re off…

[All times are Central]

7:56: Michael Steele takes the stage (no, he’s not the guy that Pierce Brosnon played, he’s the former Lt. Governor of Maryland).  He announces that they are not gathering tonight as Republicans, but as Americans.  It’s statements like this that really frustrate me about politics.  This is a party convention, for the purpose of selecting a party nominee.  This is not an event that’s intended to be inclusive of all Americans, rather, it’s for the Republicans, just like the Democratic Convention was for the Democrats.  Just saying…

8:00: Talks about the importance of putting country first.  Then, he talks about education vouchers.  Huh?  Now, he talks about less taxes and less dependency on foreign oil by promoting oil and gas production at home.  He says what is likely the awkward line of the line, not so much for the statement itself but the tone: “Let me make this clear, drill baby, drill.”  The crowd begins to chant “drill baby, drill.”

8:03: He concludes by saying that in order to put country first, then McCain and Palin need to be elected.  Hmm, it was my understanding that tonight wasn’t about Republicans.  I guess that’s not the case anymore?

8:06: Mitt Romney takes the stage.

8:07: He says that in order to bring change to Washington, Washington is going to have to stop looking to northeast elites like the New York Times editorial board and TV anchors, and instead, needs to look west to McCain and Palin.

8:08: Romney says that Washington is currently liberal and in order to bring a real change, it is necessary to elect a conservative.

8:11: Mentions the need to fight pornography in schools.  I’m not currently aware that this is a major problem.  Oh well.

8:13: Mitt Romney’s suggestion for energy conservation: a cute joke about keeping Al Gore’s private jet on the ground.

8:16: Says, “Just like you, there was never a day when I was not proud to be an American.”  Also says that he believes by the providence of god that the GOP will succeed in the November and that McCain will be elected.

8:19: Refrain from the song currently playing, “If you’re going to hell, keep on going.”  I’m honestly confused.  Why exactly would one want to rush to hell?

8:26: Mike Huckabee takes the stage.

8:27: Thanks the “elite media” for unifying the Republican Party.  Then proceeds to attack the press coverage the past few days.

8:30: So far, Huckabee’s speech is pretty good.  It’s empathic about economic issues and ties it into his personal background (which was impoverished).

8:34: Huckabee says that Palin received more votes runing for the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden received during this run for president.  This is patently false (I just fact checked it myself).

9:01: Okay, it’s Rudy time…

9:03: Tells undecided votes to imagine that they are hiring someone to do a very important job.  They have two applications to choose from, no names or party affiliations.  Both applicants are patriotic with intersting backgrounds.  On the one hand, you have one man that dedicated himself to service of the United States and has passed very test that life through at him.  “On the other hand, you have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education, who worked as a community organizer.” (The crowd erupts in laughter at that point).  Then proceeds to hit Obama on voting present 136 times while he was a state senator.  Follows up by attacking his lack of experience.  Says that this is no time for on the job training. I’m confused as to how the GOP is willing to make this argument given Sarah Palin’s lack of experience.

9:15:  Says that McCain will keep us on offense against terorism.

9:16: Says that Democrats don’t like to say the word “Islamic terrorism” because they are afraid - afraid of insulting someone.  Adds that when you say it, you are only insulting the terrorists.  Look, we’re fair, we’re nonpartisan.  This is just an incredibly dumb statement that really has no bearing on the election and has an incredibly weak factual foundation.

9:19: Criticized Obama for not taking public finacing.  Then says that Obama was against wire tapping before he voted against it.  *sigh* At the risk of sounding like some Obama apologist, which I definitely am not (see my scathing critique of Obama over his FISA vote), but Giuliani’s line here about wire tapping is yet again completely misleading.  The issue wasn’t about wiretapping, it was about immunity for telecom companies.  Look, either Giuliani doesn’t understand this or he’s intentionally deceiving listeners.  And since it’s Giuliani, and he’s a tough New Yorker and feels the need to use a little New Yawk speak, I’ll break this down: Either, Giuliani is dumb and doesn’t understand what the FISA issue was or he’s flat out lying.

9:30: Sarah Palin takes the stage…

9:35: Mentions her son’s upcoming departure for Iraq on 9/11.

9:40: She’s still giving shout outs to family members.

9:42: “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a bull? Lipstick.”

9:43: Just noticed that Pali is wearing a flag pin on her collar, but not an American flag pin … and Israeli flag pin.  Interesting…

9:57: Attacks Obama for being worried that someone won’t read “terrorists who are plotting catostrophic attacks on America” their rights.

9:58: Says that Obama supports plan to raise taxes across the board.  And will increase the tax burden on Americans by hundreds of billions of dollars.

10:04: Says that the presidency is not a venue for personal discovery.  I’m still not sure how she is able to sincerely criticize Obama on the experience issue given her own shortcomings in the department.  It’s truly confusing for me.

Sphere: Related Content

McCain, Democrats, and Abortion: A Riddle Without an Answer

Here’s a riddle:

A number of Democrats and swing voters apparently think that McCain is moderate on abortion and Roe v. Wade. He is not.
Damon Linker points out that most Americans are moderate:

Just below 20 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all cases and circumstances. A slightly smaller number believe it should be illegal in all cases and circumstances. The rest (roughly 60 percent) think it should “usually” be legal or “usually” illegal, showing that the views of a solid majority of Americans confound the purists on both sides of the spectrum. And yet both parties insist on sticking to their extreme positions.

Herein lies the question: how does the Obama campaign take that perceived middle ground from Obama, without angering further the women who he is already at risk of losing because of the Clinton scenario?

I’m not sure there’s an answer. Perhaps the best answer for Obama is to make this a fight of the extremes. Yet that will probably favor McCain, since apparently a lot of people already believe he’s a moderate. It’ll take some real ju-jitsu to make this perception go away.

This underlines, though, the desparate need of Democrats to define McCain over the next 50 hours.

Sphere: Related Content

Social Issues: Not That Important Anymore?

Looking over yesterday’s Washington Post poll, a few numbers stuck out. First, of all the issues surveyed, only one issue was below 40% in terms of importance to voters, that is social issues at 39%. *

Moreover, Obama is trusted more to handle social issues by a wide margin: 56% to 32%.

The poll found that a strong majority of people felt that Obama shared their values, 56% for to 39% against. By contrast, 47% found that McCain shared their values to 49% that McCain did not share their values. (Obviously, this included a number of conservatives who are doing the “holding their nose to vote for McCain” routine.)

These numbers beg a question: is the era of social issues being a strong influence in elections over? Or is it just on pause because of economic problems and two wars overseas? I’d say the economic problems have a stronger influence than foreign policy problems, but after the high voltage campaigning in 2004 over social issues with little payoff for either conservatives or liberals, people seem to have just shrugged it off and moved on. Moreover, it’s clear that the next generation of voters is a lot more liberal/libertarian on these social issues than the previous one.

I think it’s possible that we’ve reached a tipping point where a lot of social issues mean a lot less. The one exception I would note is abortion: I doubt that will ever really go away as an issue; it will just fade in an out as a top issue.

(The only other issue one under 50% was VP choices; clearly the people understand how to ignore that, even if the media does not. And the third least important issue is gun control, right at 50%. A strong amount of people know that Heller has really settled that issue in most significant ways. Just noting that the wisdom of the people often surpasses that of the media.)

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of CNN / LA Times / Politico Republican Debate In California (January 30, 2008)

[NOTE: If you're looking for coverage of the CNN/LA Times/Politico Democratic Debate in California between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, you can find our live blog of that debate here]

Tonight is the CNN/Los Angeles/Politico Republican Debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. It will begin at 8pm est and will air on CNN and will stream live at both CNN and LA Times‘ websites. The participating candidates will be Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

7:45: 15 minutes to go. I’m not sure what the seating locations will be yet, but I do know that McCain’s staffer won the first pick for location on the stage and had to call back to headquarters to confirm the location.

7:49: Format: No rules, No time limits. I guess ever since Wolf Blitzer threw out the rules at the last debate, CNN’s just decided to really go wild.

7:58: Lou Dobbs is expressing outrage (not necessarily about anything specific…just outrage…he wants you to know that he’s very disturbed).

8:00: And here we go! Anderson Cooper begins with a history lesson about the room they’re in. Usually, I’m opposed to these kind of explanatory intros, but given the fact that the debate is being held under the old Air Force One, I can understand the need to explain what the deal with the plane is.

8:03: First question, are Americans better off now than they were 8 years ago? Mitt Romney says that that’s a question for President Bush, then launches into defense of his record in Mass. Anderson Cooper gets indignant and wants an answer, Romney shows viewers that he’s able to stand up to Anderson Cooper, but does offer some discussion of the problems he sees in America now.

8:06: McCain says he’ll bring some straight talk, offers a bit of gloom and then talks about making the Bush tax cuts permanent. McCain states that he believes Americans are better off now than they were 8 years ago, if you look at everything.

8:07: Huckabee plainly states that he doesn’t think we’re better off now than we were 8 years ago, states that the President isn’t solely responsible, so is the congress. Huckabee says that Americans want someone that is honest and straight with them. I wonder if he’s aware that McCain already has that catchphrase locked up?

8:09: Paul states the problems are caused by foreign policy and we must acknowledge that those policies need to come to an end.

8:12: Romney takes a shot at McCain’s conservatism by noting McCain’s NY Times endorsement. McCain reminds Romney that both of Romney’s hometown papers, which know him best, endorsed him over Romney. Ouch. McCain continues to talk up his conservatism by mentioning some people that support him.

8:15: Romney defends his record on job growth by noting that some of the negative data on job growth included a time period under the former Governor. He also explains the fee increases under his administration. Romney also touts the work he did on health care and notes that when he left there was a balanced budget and a small surplus.

8:18: Huckabee talks conservatism: lower taxes, streamlining the government, amendment banning gay marriage and a life amendment. Something about these, “who is more conservative” questions seem sort of pointless at some point.

8:21: McCain is asked about Gov. Schwarzenegger’s environmental law proposals, which are much different than the steps that the Bush Administration would take towards combating climate change. Given the impending endorsement for Arnold, obviously McCain needs to tread lightly and he does. He responds by noting that he believes in federalism, which has really turned into code for “I won’t force you to do something. Please don’t shy away from me because of this issue.” McCain then gives his oft used version of Pascal’s Wager for support of green technology.

8:25: Romney says that he supports states’ rights to control and regulate their own emissions. Huckabee then tries to explain why Federalism is good, he then goes on to state that Alexander Hamilton was wrong. Uhhhh….he’s having a difficult enough time staying in this race against Romney, McCain and Paul…I’m pretty sure injecting Hamilton into this race would only make it worse for him. *sigh*

8:29: Paul asks for some time to discuss and issue and Cooper denies him. For a debate that wasn’t really supposed to have rules, Anderson Cooper seems awfully indignant.

8:33: Talk turns to the economy…excuse me while I relocate to the top floor of my building, preferably a seat near the edge…

8:35: On the economic stimulus: McCain says that we will probably need more. Wow! This is like saying that we need more puppies, fluffier pillows or locations that have Coke Zero available from the fountain.

8:36: McCain is challenged on his initial opposition to Bush’s tax cuts on the grounds that they favored the rich too much. McCain states that he was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution…then proceeds with obfuscation.

8:40: The topic changes to immigration. Huckabee thinks we need to secure the border. He says that two things need to happen in order to do that: 1) build border fence and 2) all current illegal immigrants will need to go back to their home countries and wait in line. Ultimately, Huckabee thinks this is the most compassionate and kind thing…

8:41: Romney is asked about his statement that most illegal immigrants could be deported within 90 days. He didn’t initially recall saying it, and the questioner offered him the quote. Romney talks about being courteous deportation. For example, if the family has a child in school, you let the child finish that school year first. Romney reemphasizes he would not allow illegal immigrants to remain here permanently, then suggests that McCain’s legislation would have allowed for such a thing.

8:44: McCain is asked if his legislation were to come to the floor of the Senate today, and he states that it won’t happen. After being pressed, he states that he would not vote for it because it’s clear that people want the borders to be secured first. It seems somewhat inconsistent for McCain to tout sticking to his principles and ignoring the majority on Iraq…yet, so freely acknowledging deference to the will of the American people on the immigration issue.

8:47: Huckabee is asked if Reagan’s appointment of O’Connor was the right call. He won’t answer the question, but then launches into a discussion of why it’s important to support life and how he would want judges that were pro-life. Ron Paul is given a chance to respond, he says he wouldn’t have nominated her because of her view towards the constitution. Both McCain and Romney dodge the question and instead state the types of judges they would appoint. In a bold move, McCain cites Alito and Roberts as examples of the kinds of conservative judges he’d support. Romny ups the ante and cites Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia as the type of conservative judges he would nominate (Yea, that’s right, take that John McCain). Then, stupidly, Romney takes a shot at O’Connor for apparently not following the Constitution enough and for legislating from the bench. I don’t care if you’re a Republican, Democrat, hardcore liberal or conservative, if you think Justice O’Connor was a bad Justice, then you’re either completely uninformed or completely incapable of making evaluations. Sheesh, and I thought Huckabee was going to take home the award for baseless attacks on historical figures (yes, I know O’Connor’s still alive, but she’s done enough to be part of history).

8:57: And we’re back. Maybe, they’ll finally include Ron Paul in this last half hour.

8:58: Romney is asked about Peggy Noonan’s contention that George W. Bush destroyed the Republican party. Romney states that George W. Bush showed everyone that when America is attacked, we’ll respond. Uhhhh….is that really the best defense he could give?

9:00: Romney promises success in Iraq, which he defines as no safe havens for terrorists in Iraq. He strongly stated that he does not have a date for withdrawal and does not support a timetable. He accuses McCain of being un-Reagan like by raising the issue before the Florida primary and indicates that it may explain the results of Florida.

9:03: McCain reiterates his argument by reading the quote to Romney. Romney asks him what it means. Romney continues to try and defend himself. The audience seems to be on Romney’s side on this issue. Romney and McCain bicker. McCain’s tone during this exchange, reminds me of my grandfather’s tone when we were having an argument about cathode ray tubes once (he used to be an engineer).

9:06: Anderson Cooper regains control, unfortunately, it required his blue steel look in order to calm things down. Cooper asks Romney why he wouldn’t comment explicitly on the surge back in 2006 as he was preparing to announce his run. Romney is mad and accuses McCain of “Washington style” politics.

9:08: McCain responds to the Washington style politics line, by reminding Romney of the negative ads he used against him and Huckabee. He also reminded everyone that Romney used millions of his own dollars in his campaign so far.

9:10: Paul is asked about McCain’s line that we could be fighting in Iraq for the next 100 years. So let me get this straight, the rare chance they include Paul, it’s to ask him a question about John McCain? Paul states that both Romney and McCain are parsing over minor details of the same general policy - both supported going in and both support continuing the war. Paul’s gotten the loudest cheers so far.

9:12: Anderson Cooper asks Huckabee the same question given to Paul. Huckabee complains about not getting time and questions. Then casually says in regards to the 100 year fighting line, “oh it doesn’t take that long.” Then goes on to say that he’ll stay however long it takes to win.

9:13: Huckabee is asked what he sees when he looks int Putin’s eyes. Huckabee states that Putin has taken actions that lead to concern and that we need to have a foreign policy that emphasizes strength. Advocates a stronger military, you know, for deterrence. Is he actually arguing that a return to mutually assured destruction is the only viable foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia at this point? *sigh*

9:17: Romney explains geopolitics: Russia using energy to control policy, China “the wild west of energy” using energy and giving nuclear power to influence policy, Al Qaeda using terrorism to influence policy and the USA, which stands for free enterprise and freedom of the individual. I don’t even know how to respond to this painfully oversimplified explanation of geopolitics. However, would Romney’s analogy make Chris Patten the Wyatt Earp of China? I think so. But aside from that, Romney didn’t even discuss the topic (that he himself said he’d address), which was how he’d deal with Russia.

9:21: Romney’s argument: people ultimately look to Governors and not Senators to lead this country. He was a governor, ipso facto, he should be the next leader. Aside from that, he worked in the private sector, and then goes on his economic argument rant…

9:23: Romney is asked why he’s more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than McCain. Romney doesn’t believe you need military experience to be Commander-in-Chief. Romney says that he prefers chess to checkers (I’m serious).

9:24: McCain responds, takes an irrelevant shot at Romney for having led corporations that fired people. Another ouch. McCain mentions Tom Ridge for the second time this evening.

9:25: Ron Paul states that these people don’t understand that the President isn’t supposed to run the economy and reminds everyone of that fact. Paul then discusses the monetary system. Paul’s discussion of substance causes Andersoon Cooper to become impatient.

9:28: Huckabee complains more about time. Then talks about less government and why it’s important. He states that governors are good presidents because they understand that no issue is isolated..that everything is connected. Metakuya Oyasin.

9:30: Anderson Cooper graciously gives all of the candidates 1 minute to explain why Ronald Reagan would endorse them. This is an appalling question for several reasons, none the least of which is Nancy Reagan’s presence in the first row.

9:31: Mitt Romney says Ronald Reagan would support him because he’d lower taxes. McCain says that Reagan wouldn’t support someone that changes positions and that Regan would support him because he held firm on Iraq and because he was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution.

9:32: Ron Paul talked about how he supported Reagan in 1976, when only 4 other members of congress did and how Reagan campaigned with him. He states that Reagan was very sympathetic to the gold standard (an issue that Ron Paul is very much in favor of).

9:33: Huckabee doesn’t presume to know who Reagan would endorse. Then speaks to the goodness of Reagan and how it’s important to recapture that can do spirit.

9:34: And we’re done.

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog of South Carolina CNN / CBC Democratic Debate (January 21, 2007)

5:51: The debate starts at 8 pm tonight on CNN. It’s been a yin/yang sort of day, with the candidates making nice over Martin Luther King while Obama calls Bill Clinton a liar, more or less. Lucky us, we have master of the subtle Wolf Blitzer to guide us through the minefield. Also, note that Clinton might be pressed on reports that she’s not going to be back in South Carolina after tonight until Friday.

5:59: One other thing; thankfully, we’re Kucinich-free tonight as well. He’s not a viable contender at this point, so spare me the whining.

7:40: Back. To commenters, the debate is streaming on cnn.com. Right now Howard Dean is addressing the audience. Presumably, he’s not scheming to steal their delegates. (But he also is not addressing a silly emerging controversy that is completely his fault.)

7:42: Rules of the debate. Apparently the Secret Service did not allow any cell phones or pagers into the building. CNN is also excited to show America the candidates walking onto the stage, citing transparency. Hey, they’re CNN, they do dumb crap like show candidates walking instead of debating or talking policy. The first half of the debate is a podium debate with rules, and the second half is candidates seated with ‘no rules’! CNN is sadly excited about having no rules (if they are so excited, why not do the whole debate in that format?).

7:46: CNN cannot find Wolf. I’m serious. With any luck, he’s lost and we’ll get a real moderator.

7:47: CNN presses for applause on 40 members of Congress showing up. Well, they’re not busy doing anything else, there’s no excuse to not be there.

7:48: The CNN Washington Bureau Chief says his Blackberry is going off, and a disembodied voice demands that he get applause; he’s run out of things to talk about, and a member of the audience demands he start telling jokes.

7:50: They found Blitzer. Damnit.

7:52: Blitzer says it is fun, and his fourth debate. He introduces himself. Regarding his name, he “did not make it up for the first Gulf War” and it is his real name. This is absurd.

7:54: This is a two and a half hour debate? What the hell? I’m betting 65% of it is pointless. Blitzer says it’s not easy, and he’s right; picking out inane topics to fill so much time is a tough job. Blitzer is concerned and has a guy ‘fix him’ to ‘make sure he looks good.’ He asks the audienceif they have any questions, and they demand to know where he was; he laughs it off, which is emblematic of the whole program.

7:57: Joe Johns and Suzanne Malvaeux are there. Blitzer says he always saw Malvaeux covering ’some ugly story in Washington’ every night. Good to know his true opinions of Washington, apparently.

7:59: Disembodied British voice congratulates me on watching the process, whatever that means. I feel like I’m watching dirty laundry, if that makes any sense.

8:00: If there are no rules in the second half, can Dennis Kucinich wander up on stage? CNN is really pushing no rules, but at the same time, half of the debate has the same rules they’re criticizing.

Alright, we’re actually starting, apparently.

8:01: It’s Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Wolf tells me. He announces the candidates are not on stage, but the press pool is. Thanks, Wolfman. Edwards is introduced first, Obama second (to slightly louder cheers than Edwards, whom he gives a half hug to), and Clinton (to regular cheers). She loudly welcomes Barack, John, and Wolf by name. No half hug for Hillary.

8:03: Clyburn in the house, as Malveaux says people want substance. Well, no shit sherlock. But we’re watching people takes pictures of people hugging.

8:04: You can’t have a moment of inactivity without Dean popping back up onstage. Joe Johns says people want to know who is on the ballot. Groundbreaking analysis from the best political team on television, or meaningless drivel? You be the judge!

The press finally starts to get out of the way.

8:06: More housekeeping, although ironically without an illegal immigrant. Maybe they are coming for Blitzer’s job? Blitzer says they are on the honor system for time. Good luck with that.

8:07: He’s still going on as if this is a new idea, not the 98th debate or whatever it is.

8:08: Joe Johns asks Clinton about the economy, and worldwide markets in a tailspin. He wants to know how much the average South Carolinian will get. Umm, WTF? Clinton talks about most of her plan going to deal with the mortgage crisis and a moratorium on foreclosures. She also talks about freezing the interest rate for 5 years, and giving people $650 to deal with energy costs; she segues from that to creating green jobs; she says rebates need to be done right and need to target seniors and ‘working people’ who do not pay income tax. Thanks the CBC for leading on the issue. Obama points out the King march on Washington was for jobs and not only for justice. Says Bush ruined the economy and failed with his leadership on the war and education. He says that Clinton caught up with him on rebates after he mentioned tax cuts, and mentions the same demographics as Clinton. Blitzer asks if $650 is enough. (Seriously, this is what is being discussed). Obama says Social Security is a manner through which you can provide rebates and money for energy. Edwards starts by making up for his gender and race by talking up the CBC and the work of King, and how bad poverty is. He does admit there is no rebates in his package, but says he wants to end poverty. He says the difference is that he provides long term benefits in energy. Clinton just talked about doing this. Edwards says there is a difference on jobs, and the Peru trade deal hurt South Carolina … but Blitzer cuts him off and distinguishes the candidates on long term v. short term. This is an unfocused mess, with everyone giving their own talking points on the economy.

8:16: Obama says green jobs are important, but a long term focus. Says an immediate stimulus is necessary, not just long term. Obama says there are textile mills closed because of Nafta (and hits Clinton on it again). On Peru, Obama says Peru had standards for environment and labor, and the economy is the size of New Hampshire, and concludes by hitting Edwards on China. This is a hard hitting debate from Obama and Edwards so far. Clinton says that her original plan allowed for rebates, but does not want Republicans to alter the tax code, but now is too late and there is no other option. She criticizes Bush instead of responding in turn to Obama. She also talks up the green jobs, specifying some program in Oakland, before allowing that it is a long term issue. Says the CBC will lead on green jobs. This is awful and unfocused. Edwards says his green jobs would be created within 30 days. Edwards’ father is in the audience. Edwards says enforcement of standards lies with Bush. Obama says that he’ll be enforcing the laws in a year. Obama says Edwards gives powerful talk, but he’s taken action on the matter as a community organizer. Obama is criticizing Edwards for talk as compared to his action. Interesting turn of the tables.

8:22: Question for Obama on fiscal responsibility. Obama says that what Clinton said was not true, and it’s part of a pattern of factually inaccurate statements. Wow, Obama on the warpath. Criticizes Bill’s statements on his position on Iraq, or statements on ideas since Reagan. Says improvements matter, and that he’s tried to run a substantive campaign.Clinton responds that’your record and what you say does matter.’ Says Obama continually has to clarify what he said. Clinton says Republican ideas were bad, but Obama liked them “and we can give you the exact quote.” Says there is no evidence on his site on how he would pay for foreign programs. Says that he did oppose the war in 2002, but took the speech off his site and agreed with Bush and voted to fund the war. Says it is about words v. action. Obama said Clinton just lied about his statements and the two start bickering. Criticizes Clinton for being a corporate lawyer on the board of Walmart, and he spent a lifetime fighting Reagan’s policies. Says that appealing to independents and Republicans to build a working majority. Says Clinton and Bill Clinton praised Reagan in Brokaw’s book. Edwards starts yelling and Clinton goes off. Obama jumps in that he does not know who he is running against. This is great. Obama says he did not say the ideas were good ones. Clinton brings in Rezko and calls him a slum landlord, and Blitzer goes … to Edwards, who complains about being left out. Edwards says this squabbling helps no one, and is not about candidates personally. Goes back to fiscal responsibility and touts his plans. Edwards says Obama and he both talked about reform of Social Security, but Hillary does not talk about raising the cap even though it makes sense economically. Says Clinton does not want to talk about raising taxes.

8:33: Johns asks Edwards if lenders have specifically targeted African Americans? Edwards says yes, it’s a racial issue. Then he immediately backs off and says they targeted the lowest income families who tend to be black. Says we cannot pretend there is not a history of slavery and discrimination; that leaves African Americans more vulnerable to predatory lenders. Says he saw 38 foreclosures in one block in Cleveland. That’s because there’s no jobs there, John. I lived there. Says people need to be taught financial responsibility. Blitzer says Greenspan that plans like Clinton’s would prolong the agony by having a freeze. Clinton says economists were wrong for the past years, and it is destroying dreams of Americans, and it is a ‘work out’ not a ‘bail out.’ Says banks can borrow money from Abu Dhabi but people lose their homes. Obama says that helping people is important, not helping the speculators. He says it is not new, and there is a long history of preying on poor people. Echoes Edwards in that more people need access to banks. He talks of his action in introducing a bill two years ago and what he did in Illinois. Talks about the bankruptcy bill of 2001, and Clinton’s statement that she voted for it but hoped it would not pass. Obama gets a chance to respond to the charges on Rezko. Says he did five hours of work in a long firm for a church group, but the biggest issue is people trusting leaders. Clinton responds that she regretted voting for it and said so, and opposed a similar bill in 2005. Talks about an amendment of credit card companies charging over 30 percent interest and Obama voted for it. Also says that Obama did bidding for insurance companies in Illinois on health care. Says she is used to taking fire, and you have to expect attacks ‘in this arena.’ Obama says he voted for it but the limit was too high, and he opposed the bill the entire time. Oh, legislation. This is why Senators are not elected president. Clinton says Obama never takes responsibility and talks up the present votes. It’s a really dishonest line of attack. Obama says he feels bad for Edwards. Obama says he sponsored the bill in question. Says that he’s had family members be victims, and there was a legal problem with it. Says it presents one issue in the wrong light. Says people cannot say anything to get elected.

8:46: Edwards says that it is important to take hard positions. References the CBC taking hard positions. Wonders why Obama voted present. Obama says present votes indicated you had problems with a bill that you would otherwise vote for. Edwards says it would be safer to just not show up. Obama says there was technical problems with votes. Says he opposed legislation that put juveniles in the system as adults, and spoke out against the war. Says Illinois is different from Congress. That took too long.

8:49: On health care, now. Why are African American women better off under Clinton’s plan? She says it is not not government run and includes everyone. Says it will withstand attacks from the right. Says bills will be passed on to everyone, not just those sick. Johns asks if his plan covers illegal immigrants. Obama says it does not, since there are limited resources. Says there is an obligation to cover children. Says the critical issue is how to cover everyone. Says Clintons tried to pass health care in 1993 in the wrong way, that you have to have negotiations in a public setting. Says responsibility includes Congress as well, and that can only be done through the people. Edwards says none of the three plans covers illegal immigrants. Says you can strengthen the net of health care that could include people if there is comprehensive immigration reform. Edwards goes on to say that Obama’s plan is not universal. Obama says he received money from employees, not lobbyists. He says this is a legitimate policy debate, and that he disagrees with a mandate on adults that forces people to buy health insurance. Says Edwards allows that it might mean taking money out of people’s paychecks. Segues to his stock discussion of lowering costs and copayments. Says his plan reduces costs through catastrophic accident. Obama says that it allows for anyone to opt in, and that Edwards and Clinton do not coverthose with hardship arguments. Obama mentions Massachusetts, and Edwards says this is like the Social Security debate. Clinton says that you cannot get universal health care if you do not start out by standing for it. Says this is a core Democratic issue, and she will ‘go to the mat for it.’ Talks about Obama being for single payer in the past, and this being separate. She links it back to the ‘present’ votes and cites Sweet (I think) who said it was taking a pass. Obama gets 30 seconds and Edwards wishes him luck. Says if you are not making health care affordable that you cannot mandate it. Says that people will purchase the health care if it is affordable. Says that a single payer is only preferable in theory. Says that Hillary’s presentations have evolved. This is tense.

9:03: Moving to Iraq for the first time in a long time, it seems. Question about her statement that the next president has to end the war. Does she want to end the war or win it? She says she wants to bring troops home, and there is no military solution. Says that ‘the so called surge’ was able to pacify some areas, but the purpose of the surge was to move the Iraqi government quickly towards resolution. Says the political debate is motivating Iraqis. Blitzer asks Edwards about McCain saying the surge is working. Edwards says the surge was intended to create an environment for political progress. He jokes about even Bush recognizing it. Says there has been no meaningful political progres, then just a little. Edwards says everyone is committed to ending the war, but how quickly and aggressively is a question. Obama gives the careful getting out as careless getting in line. Says it depends on what happens in the next year, but creating a stable Iraqi government with no permanent bases is the goal. Obama says that financially the war is not sustainable, and Al Qaeda is stronger than ever since 2001 and needs to be addressed. Clinton says she will move as quickly as possible, and agrees with Obama on not knowing what will be inherited from Bush. Clinton mentions Bush’s argument of pushing for permanent bases in Iraq without the consent of Congress. Touts the CBC working on this legislation.

Time for a commercial debate. No rules, coming up. I hope Kucinich wanders up on stage. That would be high comedy.

9:15: The crowd laughs at the inability of CNN to exchange podiums for chairs.

9:19: Seven minutes later, the chairs are in place. Question for Obama on Rangel saying that black voters should do not what makes them feel good but is what is best for the country. Obama says the notion is right and women should vote that way and white males, Says he is running because he wants to bring the country together, and looks forward to working with him as President. Awkward question.

9:21: More awkward question, on whether African Americans will be seen differently if there is an African American president. Says that he is on the vanguard of issues Kings worked for, like poverty. This is as pointless as the MSNBC debate. Really, really, really dumb. Clinton respects his commitment to end poverty, and talks of working at the Children’s Defense fund after graduating law school. It’s why she is in legal service, etc. She wants a ‘reality check’ on how to end poverty. Says African Americans lost income under Bush, but were gained income in the 90s. She may as well be screaming ‘the 90s were great! Let’s go back!’ Obama says that he has put forward a poverty plan, but it’s more than talking about it during a campaign, and he worked in low income areas. He says that it’s not about race, but people want to move beyond it for positive change, partially blaming the media. Says there is an “African American, a woman, and John” to laughter, and talks up the Democratic Party on the issues. Edwards cites his battles with Bill O’Reilly on homeless veterans, and other work. It’s a resume battle and Richardson is nowhere to be seen. Edwards tells a story about poverty.

9:31: Question for Obama on Bill Clinton being the first black president. What does Obama think? Hillary chuckles. Obama cites Bill’s affinity with the African American community that still exists that is well earned. Says that the progress made indicates that people can change, and Bill is emblematic of that. Says that he’d have to look into Bill’s dancing abilities ‘before he judges whether he was a brother.’ Hillary says that can be arranged, and this is suddenly a love in. What a weird shift. Clinton says the stage celebrates King. Cites the ‘content of our character’ comment of King. Says the differences between them have a responsibility to be brought out. Obama says that there should not be too much civility. He says that ingoring the race and gender of a candidate does not mean you ignore racial problems in the country. Clinton moves into gender inequality as Obama agrees. There’s absolutely no attacks anymore. How strange. She goes onto attacking Republicans for not addressing these issues. John Edwards says his father who is in the audience (and worked in a mill!) taught him that people that work in the mill and own the mill are equal. Says America is not just about rich folks who can move out of problem neighborhoods.

9:40: Clinton is asked about Bill overshadowing her, as the audience oooohs. She defends him advocating on her behalf, but the campaign is not about spouses. Says what matters is who is the best president on day 1 and who can withstand the Republican attacks. Says it is not about them, but about the people, citing her 35 years of experience. It’s turning into a list of talking points, and I get the feeling attacks are coming. She says politics is not a game. Obama says he would expect Bill to campaign vigorously. Obama mentions that he is troubled to the extent of which his record is portrayed. Obama tries to distinguish withstanding the attacks from redrawing the political boundries to get through legislation they are talking about. Says that Bush and Cheney have given their party a bad name, and its a crucial opportunity to expand the Democratic base, and that there has been record turnout, noting that he is not taking all the credit. Edwards says people are voting for who is going to oppose McCain, and who can campaign against him everywhere in America. Edwards says he will campaign in the south against McCain. Edwards says it is important who can be competitive in rural areas, joking it is not a racial issue. Cites the CNN poll that put him up the most against McCain. Edwards is really tiptoing carefully on electability. Blitzer jumps in suddenly for another commercial break. Cue the overly dramatic music ….

9:52: Blitzer says there is a ‘raging conversation’ going on at CNNPolitics.com. But does not say what it is on.

9:53: Obama says he won rural areas in Nevada, and moves on to the issue of faith, saying that the Democrats did not reach out to evangelicals because of ‘choice’ or gay rights. Clever way to rebut the Muslim spears, but a bit heavy handed as he continually mentions he is a Christian. Hillary jumps in that there are polls that show her winning too. Clinton says a McCain nomination means a general election on national security and says she is the best on that issue. Says she has been there and done that and is still here. Edwards now says it is not about polls. Edwards cites campaign finance reform that McCain stands for and says that he made a commitment to not hiring corporate lobbyists. She says Edwards draws artificial distinctions and accepts money from people related to corporate lobbyists. Edwards says people expect something for their money. Edwards defends money he accept from trial lawyers who want him to stand up for rights in the courtroom.  Clinton says there is no difference, and she wants to get campaign finance. She says its important to look at the interests, not who rejects the lobbyists. Obama says no one has clean hands, but there are distinctions who can be drawn. Obama goes back to national security issues, and says that you take on McCain not by being like John McCain, but you have to have a strong contrast who stands against the politics of fear. Says he would not hesitate to strike if someone threatened America, but you have to describe a new foreign policy that looks at negotiating with enemies, instead of battling on GOP territory. Edwards says you have to appeal to youth and prevent them from going to Al Qaeda. Wants America to be a shining light. Reaganesque, ironically.

10:01: If MLK were alive - and Wolf points out he is not - why should he endorse you? Edwards drops the name of MLK III and  says poverty and equality. Cites the Voting Rights Act and people disengaged who do not vote. Obama says King would not endorse but would hold people accountable. Talks about change being from the bottom down, specifically mentions women a couple of times. Clinton says change comes from the American people, but King pushed political leaders and pushed them to be part of the movement, citing Clyburn and John Lewis (if you drank every time she mentioned the CBC tonight, you’d have been passed out by 9:30). She says she intends to follow in his lead, and everyone shakes hands as Wolf thanks everyone.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday Briefing (November 30, 2007)

Republicans

Fred Thompson: Thompson, realizing these debates show him not at his best, proposes an alternative that will never, ever happen … You want proof that these debates are not the best for Thompson? He had to clarify that he was against abortions in almost all cases. Yes, the candidate who less than a month ago was endorsed by the NLRC had to clarify that. The new language seems to be ‘prohibited,’ but he does not say by whom; I imagine it’s the states given his prior statements…

John McCain: Jim Geraghty at NRO thinks McCain won the debate. … McCain is not seeing progress in the polls, in large part still because of his immigration and campaign finance positions, even though he can tout Iraq now. … McCain did a MTV/Myspace forum, talking in part about the dangers of global warming.

Mike Huckabee: A review of Huckabee’s record on taxes finds mixed results. … David Yepsen says Huckabee should be considered a top tier candidate now. … Huckabee was on Hardball and talked extensively about religion, while also criticizing the questions asked in the debate. It’s worth a read, if only to see Matthews go on and on about no religious test for public office and then only ask Huckabee questions relating to his faith…

Mitt Romney: A new poll shows Romney down three points in Iowa to Huckabee, and you know what that means: new commercials and new mailings from Romney. … The WSJ looks at the campaign work of Romney’s sons. … Romney made a dumb mistake in regards to the Red Sox in the debate, saying they waited 87 years, not 86 for a title. …

Ron Paul: Paul is on track to raise the most money of any Republican candidate; I’m not sure that doesn’t say more about the rest of the candidates than it does Ron Paul and how alienated the civil libertarian wing of the Republican Party feels right now. I wonder if any of the other candidates can tap into that at all. I’m not terribly optimistic. … More on Paul and that superhighway, including government denials that will appease no one who believes in it. …

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani calls the Politico story on funding a dirty trick; Jonathan Martin at Politico shrugs it off with some good comments. That’s not an especially convincing angle, especially since the Giuliani campaign was notified of the impending article earlier in the week. More facts are still emerging. … The Economist says Giuliani would be the candidate for those who think Bush has been timid in foreign policy. …  Giuliani has a new ad up in NH, trying to make a push with Romney slipping virtually everywhere. …  An extensive fact check of Giuliani’s boasts about NYC crime going down finds that he might be overstating what he did. … Giuliani’s business ties to Qatar are being looked into for terrorist links. …

Democrats

Barack Obama: Obama met with NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg this morning over breakfast in what was technically a private meeting, in as much as breakfast in front of a window before members of the NY media can be private. You can read more on this here or virtually anywhere, and see video clips (very pointless, imho) 105863">here. My take is that Bloomberg needed the meeting to be this public far more than Obama did. … Obama maintains his statistically insignificant lead in Iowa. … Obama rallied in Harlem last night with Cornel West and Chris Rock, and met with Al Sharpton prior to the event. …

Hillary Clinton: Reporters have struggled getting access to Clinton. Ipol commented on just that. … Hillary Clinton addressed Rick Warren’s AIDS conference and got rave reviews. … The Boston Globe says that New Hampshire is becoming Clinton’s firewall with Iowa so tight, but that race is tightening as well. …  Clinton’s campaign is calling for Obama’s health care ad in New Hampshire to be taken down; neither side is giving up over the mandates, but Clinton’s constantly on the offense and Obama constantly on defense on the subject. That has to favor Clinton if anyone. …

John Edwards: Edwards is also now too criticizing Obama’s health care plan. … The Des Moines Register takes a look at the vast differences in style and substance in John Edwards between now and four years ago, starting with the line: “John Edwards tells voters that there are still two Americas. What Iowa caucusgoers must decide is if there are two John Edwardses.” … Edwards outlined his trade policy in Iowa. …

The Rest: Joe Biden is at 8 percent and Bill Richardson at 4 in the newest ARG poll. Ipol’s take says everything I could possibly want to say on it. … Richardson is still trying in Iowa, even with prospects looking bleak. … Joe Biden threatened impeachment if Bush attacked Iran without the consent of Congress; somehow, I think that threat is more meaningful than Kucinich’s. Biden also attempted to flip the Secretary of State argument on its head. …

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of CNN Democratic Debate In Las Vegas, Nevada (November 15, 2007)

7:55: We’re here and ready to go. Campaign news of the day: John Edwards launches this site, aimed at taking down Hillary Clinton (at any cost?). General news of the day: Barry Bonds was indicted.

8:00: Mike Gravel is again not here. I have to think that hurts Clinton the most, as all the other attacks on Clinton sting less when Gravel is sitting on the sideline attacking everyone.

8:01: Candidates are being introduced one at a time, and CNN decided to “bring to you” the photo opp. What a shocker, CNN bringing something of little to no substance and touting it as some innovation. Clinton definitely got the loudest ovation when entering the stage. From left to right: Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Edwards.

8:04: CNN tries to bring in its political team, and says Clinton has to engage. I disagree with them: Clinton has the audience on her side, so anyone who attacks too hard risks getting hard boos they probably do not want. This goes for Edwards more than Obama. The CNN political analysts keep talking about mixing it up. How about previewing particular issues? 7 minutes in, not a single mention of anything beyond the horserace.

8:08: Campbell Brown and John Roberts are asking the introductory question, and Blitzer will ask follow ups at his discretion.

8:09: Clinton is asked about her immigration position and Edwards’ attack of the ‘politics of parsing.’ Clinton says people know where she’s stood, and talks of the importance of a tested candidate and leading from day 1. Obama is brought in regard ‘triangulating … whatever that means.’ He says that straight answers to tough questions are needed, and cites her answers the past two weeks, and also cites Social Security. Gives his stump speech of Washington changing. Clinton responds that Obama’s health care plan is a failure, as it leaves 15 million people out (coincidentally the population of Nevada, SC, Iowa, and New Hampshire). Obama says the problem is nto mandating health care plans, but making it available and affordable. Clinton jumps in, saying the Obama’s plan “does not cover everyone” and “does not mandate the kind of change mine does” as Obama says “that’s not true.” Blitzer tries to move on, but Obama forces an answer as someone in the audience starts yelling, distracting Obama. Now John Edwards finally gets a chance, saying it is about ‘trust,’ and there are fair questions. He goes over Iraq, Iran, Social Security, and change in general. Much more concise and focused of an answer than Obama’s repetitive answers. People in the audience are getting restless and yelling randomly. Clinton indicates that Edwards’ attacks are out of the Republican attack book, and that Edwards was not for universal health care when he ran in 04 but is now. Hillary bringing out the big guns. Biden says that this is ridiculous, and it’s not what people care about. Says it’s about action, not experience and change. Cites Georgia, Russia, and Pakistan. Starts a laundry list of things he’s done, but cuts himself out.

8:20: Second question, Edwards is asked about changing his positions, on Yucca and health care. Says he thinks its about learning and maturing and everyone ought be willing to do that. Says that is different from saying two things at the same time. Edwards cites Clinton saying two things on trade in the past week, as the audience noticably groans. Says the question is about America. This is just a nightmare; the issues are not getting talked about, the only thing getting talked about is vague generalities. Now Dodd gets asked about saying Edwards has changed. Dodd says there is a shrillness to the debate, and truer words have never been spoken. Richardson starts off 24 minutes in by introducing himself, and says that Edwards wants to start a class war, Obama wants to start a generational war, and Clinton wants to keep the Iraq war going, and that he wants to give peace a chance. Light laughter for a line that must have seemed a lot better on paper. Finishes with a call to be positive … after slamming the top three. What a nightmare.

8:25: Everyone gets asked if they would support the nominee. Edwards asks if the question was planted, I roll my eyes. Everyone of consequence says yes, Bidenjokingly says “Hell no!”

8:26: Obama gets asked about immigration. Says people should be frustrated. Step one of his is border security, step two is holding employers accountable, and that would get them out of the shadows, and after they pay a fine and go to the back of the line, then there can be peace on the issue. Specifically on licenses, he says they come to work, not to go get food, and that he voted for it in Illinois. Blitzer presses for a yes or no, and Obama hedges a bit (oddly, given what he just said: it’s a bad moment. From five stars to zero in terms of clarity) and says it is a distraction. His first two answers were great, the last one was mediocre at best. Edwards says no, Dodd says no, Obama says yes, Clinton no, Kucinich argues about language, Richardson says he did it, and Biden says no. Richardson and Edwards elaborate at length.

8:34: Dodd is asked what is wrong with merit pay if teachers make a difference. Dodd talks about the standards being crucial, and education is the most important issue. He gets a loud cheer for attacking No Child Left Behind, and then gives a -yawn- laundry list of bills he was involved in. He calls for a single debate on education. Blitzer says that “they’re talking about education now” before changing the subject to unions. Kucinich is asked if there are any unions with which he disagrees. Kucinich says unions are key to human rights, and workers should be included in trade deals. Richardson says he wants to be the education President and teachers are underpaid, and NCLB should be abolished. Clinton says that merit pay should be by school, and that teachers who are bad should be weeded out. This debate is slightly better now that it’s not meta, but just about issues. Biden says that the judgment should be improving themselves outside of the classroom. Talks about his plan to spend more money on education.

8:42: Biden is asked about Pakistan, and the balance between democracy and a key allies. Biden says he’s talked personally to Musharaff and Bhutto, even before Bush did. Says he would take action on military aid and increasing economic aid to help the middle class. Richardson is asked about his proposal to cut off military aid helping the terrorists there. Richardson says that human rights should be more important than security (Carter-esque) and gives his own laundry list of conditions for aid. Says that Islamists get 15% if the vote in Iran, so moderates should win in free elections. When asked if human rights are more important than security, he says yes, and talks about Halliburton for some reason. Edwards talks about reasonable goals for Iran, including elections and nuclear weapons. He says that the ad hoc approach of dealing with nuclear weapons will not work, and instead there should be a long term international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapon. Obama says that the concepts of human rights and national security are not contradictory. Dodd starts out with criticizing Bush, and says obviously national security is more important, and that balance is necessary to prevent Islamists winning across the Mideast. He does not want to condition aid, and terminating the relationship leaves the country more dangerous. Clinton agrees with Dodd, and criticizes Bush on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clinton cites calling for a Pakistani envoy earlier in the year. Kucinich complains about not getting to answer as Blitzer ignores him.

8:53: Richardson is asked about the surge if it is working. He says body counts are pointless, and no benchmarks are being met. Says troops need to get out and a political agreement negotiated. He’s not clear how he would do that. Kucinich is asked the same, and talks about his record on Iraq. Then criticizes the Democrats for funding. Kucinich says on Pakistan that aggression on Iraq and Iran helped cause these problems. Obama talks about regional diplomacy and working towards a political solution. Saying that going from horrible to intolerable is not a justification for the surge.

8:58: Do people who voted to open trade from China bear responsibility for faulty toys? Kucinich says yes, and says China has massive problems. Kucinich attacks Edwards for opening trade from China, and that it hurt workers. Also attacks him for being a trial lawyer. Edwards says that America’s trade policy has been a disaster. Edwards tries to deflect the attack on the Clintons for passing NAFTA but not universal health care. Edwards says the mistake is not holding China responsible, but bringing them into the WTO is not the problem. Clinton is asked if Perot (???) was right on NAFTA. Says that investigations should be done to make sure things are safe, and if not, nothing should be brought in. Says NAFTA was a mistake to the extent it did not do what they thought it would. Reminder about time outs on trade are needed. Dodd jumps in and reminds about Obama and Clinton supporting the Peruvian trade deal. Dodd adds that he calls for action on China. Obama clarifies that he did not flip-flop on Peru, and distinguishes it from Korea or CAFTA. Compares America to Japan on China, and failure on that. Biden says that action can be done under the WTO, and action can simply be taken. Candidates are all wanting more time.

9:06: Yucca question, what to do with the waste. Obama says that there’s no reason for Nevada to be the reason to repository for waste, and science is working on other options. He then talks about his energy plan broadly. Blitzer follows up where the waste should go, and Obama says that Blitzer needs to stop making assumptions. Richardson says he was in charge of the labs Obama mentioned. Richardson says he opposed it all his life (despite voting for it at one point) and that he would turn Yucca into a research facility, and nuclear is not an option. Calls for an energy revolution.

9:12: Is Clinton playing the gender card? Clinton says she’s playing the winning card, not the gender card. And adds that it’s because she is winning, to applause. Follow up about what she meant about the ‘boys club’ she mentioned. She says there have been ‘impediments’ to women and a glass ceiling for women. Everyone is asked about if Clinton is playing the gender card. Edwards says differences should be brought up. Edwards mentions Clinton taking money from lobbyists, and the crowd boos.

That wraps up part 1 of the worst debate so far this year. Except for Clinton, probably, who’s attacking others and then riding high on incredible support inside the auditorium.

Part 2, questions from voters.

9:27: First question from a mother of someone who did three tours of duty in Iraq who wants the troops to come home now. How would people show leadership on Iran. Biden says that it’s important to take a stand, referencing Kyl-Lieberman and it was a mistake that convinced the rest of the Muslim world that America is against them. Blitzer asks Clinton about voting for the resolution. Says the fear about the resolution is baseless but does not elaborate at all, and says aggressive diplomacy with Iran is needed, to just get them to the table. Says that Iranian Nation Guard has killed soldiers in Iraq and sanctioning them is part of diplomacy. Edwards is asked about Clinton’s comments, and says that stopping Bush and Cheney is the crucial element. Obama says the problem with the vote was not just about declaring the group a terrorist, but that it also said that forces should remain in Iraq to blunt diplomacy. Obama is asked about missing the vote and says it was a mistake. Everyone thanked the soldier and his mother. Kucinich tries to get in and Blitzer ignores him.

9:32: Another question from a mother of someone serving in Iraq, about troops making significantly less than private contractors, and also wishing Richardson a happy birthday. Richardson says he pull out private contractors and enlarge the military. Also talks about health care cards for veterans and mental health care.

9:34: Racial profiling question from an Arab-American (he may not be Arab-American, which would be horribly ironic). Edwards asmits he voted for the Patriot Act, but it needs to be changed, and illegal spying needs to stop, and Guantanamo needs to be closed and torture ended. Kucinich says he voted against the Patriot Act because he read it. Kucinich says people who are profiled are owed an apology. Says that people are changing their position far too often, and impeachment needs to be done now. Biden says that nothing in the Patriot Act allows profiling, it’s just a convenient excuse. Biden says that the two leading candidates voted to fund Guantanamo, but the standard should be a plan now.

9:39: Question about Lou Dobbs linking terrorism and illegal immigration despite no terrorist coming from the southern border. Richardson first says he was not in Washington for many of these votes, and Congress’ approval rating is lower than Cheney’s. Talks about declaring a border emergency in New Mexico, but it’s time to stop demonizing immigrants. Talks about tougher diplomacy with Mexico and no fence among otherwise a very conventional comprehensive plan. Dodd responds in Spanish at first. Says that a fence in some places would make sense. Says that upholding rights and security is important.

9:42: Question from a grandmother who works in a casino, about what happens when the Baby Boomers retire en masse and what happens with Social Security and Medicare. Obama thanks the Culinary workers. Talks about fiscal discipline will help but not cure everything. Says adjusting the payroll tax cap will help with Social Security. On Medicare, says it is tougher because of health care inflation. Says a universal health care plan with prevention will save money and save Medicare. Clinton is asked by Blitzer about criticisms from Obama but ignores it and talks about fiscal discipline of the 1990s. Says a bipartisan commission will help. Says Obama’s plan is a one billion tax increase on the middle class. Compares the attack to Romney and Giuliani, playing with numbers, and just involves the top 6%. Clinton says that there are some in the middle class who are in that. Says Obama called for a bipartisan solution on MTP. Clinton is maintaining her composure far more than Obama tonight.

9:54: Dodd is asked about SCOTUS nominees. Dodd talks about a clear judicial record, not an academic, but not believing in litmus tests, although he feels strongly about Roe v. Wade. Biden refuses to just answer Blitzer’s question, and says he has taken on justices. Biden says he will nominate a woman next, and a right to privacy exists under the 14th Amendment. Richardson gives four questions he would ask, if that is a litmus test, so be it. Kucinich said he would have a litmus test on abortion, and he will lower the need for abortions. Clinton says any nominee would have to share her belief about privacy. Credits Biden on the issue. Obama says he would not appoint anyone who did not believe in a right to privacy, and that the Court is meant to protect the vulnerable in the political process. Edwards essentially agrees with Richardson, and cites Brown v. Board and the courage needed on the SCOTUS.

10:01: Obama is asked about uniting the country regarding the Middle East, but says he did not say that Clinton could not unite the country. Says that he would hold regular foreign policy meetings with Republicans and Democrats. Clinton is asked about being too polarizing, says she heard the same thing in New York. Says she will enlist the best of the best. Biden answers the question by talking about being respected in the Congress. Richardson talks about his record and his approach to Israel, including an envoy.

10:08: For Clinton: Diamonds or pearls? She says she wants both. Biden says he likes diamonds.

That’s all.

My quick rankings:

1. Clinton

2. Edwards

3. Biden

4. Obama
5. Dodd
6. Kucinich
7. Richardson

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (10/21/07)

This week’s podcast covers: 1) Value Voters Summit; 2) Mike Huckabee’s Moment?; 3) Candidates from all parties attack Hillary Clinton, She responds…

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

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

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

Next Page »