Presidential Candidates As Batman Super Villains

With all the silly political talk of comparing the Bush Administration to Batman, I thought I’d take a look on the lighter side and compare various Presidential candidates to different Batman villains. This isn’t serious political analysis, but dammit, I have this site as a forum and I intend to use it. (And frankly, if it’s good enough of a topic for Wall Street Journal editors, It’s good enough for me.) I picked super villains arbitrarily. I don’t want to get into a “who is Batman and who is evil” argument. That’s just boring.

Barack Obama as Harvey “Two Face” Dent: The idea that spawned this post. While others are doing strange things like comparing Dick Cheney to Batman or something like that, given that the arch of the story is the rise and fall of newcomer and beacon of hope DA Harvey Dent, I’m surprised there’s not more comparisons between the two. There’s this article, sure. But that seems more intent on criticizing platitudes than it does at looking at something deeper: are figures of hope like Obama and Dent doomed to failure? Clearly they are doomed to dim. Wile the article criticizes Obama for lack of particular details, it’s ultimately Dent’s drive for only results that dooms him. When pushed towards the edge by his horrific scaring and in TDK the (spoiler!) death of Rachel Dawes, Dent is concerned only with the ends, not with the means, of resolving problems. One gets the feeling that more contemplation on platitudes would have helped him, not hurt him. So I think Obama differs in that respect. On the other hand, that side of Dent always existed; it was just hidden by both his meteoric rise and previous success. After all, anyone can keep their secrets hidden while succeeding.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as Ra’s al Ghul and Talia al Ghul: In the comics, they are father and daughter; here they are husband and wife. Let’s just gloss over that difference. In the comics, Ra’s could not be killed thanks to the Lazarus Pits; where he could rise from the dead. Surely, this reminds everyone of the numerous times that Bill himself rose from what was surely political death. The intrigue between the al Ghuls rivals the reported intrigue between Bill and Hillary. Bill has actively and inadvertently hurt Hillary in the past, as any sane person would admit. In the comics, this antagonism even leads Talia and Batman to sleep together. Similarly, Hillary and Obama used to be close allies, with Hillary even fundraising for Obama at one point during his Senate run, the political equivalent of sex if there is any. Moreover, this also means that the normal Clinton confidantes are known as the League of Shadows. Just as in Batman Begins, they are regarded as formidable by Ra’s, but in the end do absolutely nothing to help him, and only allow the enemy to take him down. One can imagine Obama as Batman goading Bill to please bring on four pawns (Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, James Carville, and Terry McAulliffe) instead of just four. Although in reality, it’s because the four will get in each others ways. Of course in this analogy, Hillary as Talia has her own henchwomen, who are none the more competent (Patti Solis Doyle) for the most part. (You’ll never, ever hear me say anything negative about Maggie Williams, mostly because I think she would have me killed for real.)

Tom Tancredo as the Dr. Jonathan Crane, aka The Scarecrow: A candidate who bases his entire campaign on fear. But more than that: Tancredo never intended go through with his campaign. In Batman Begins, Ra’s al Ghul states that Scarecrow believes the plan was to hold the city to ransom. It seems Tancredo’s entire campaign was based on the premise that he would hold the Republican Party hostage unless they elected someone he agreed with. And then they decided not to anyways.

John McCain as the mob. Yes the mob as a whole. Carmine Falcone, Sal Maroni, the whole bunch. In the comics and in the Dark Knight there are factions of the mob, just like they are factions of McCain supporters. Rick Davis, John Weaver, Mike Murphy, Steve Schmidt and others all had their time to be in control before circumstances forced them out, and they all do not like each other, and do not work well together (as seen in the mob scene in The Dark Knight before the Joker arrives. Each of them backstabs and steals from the other, ostensibly to protect the rest). Moreover, there is no control over them from the mob as a whole. McCain is said to be a laissez faire manager just as the mob as a whole favors looser rules. Moreover, McCain absolutely seems to abhor Barack Obama, just as the mob abhors Dent for the type of change he wishes to bring. They want things to change to, but jsut to the way things used to be. They are in a way as old as McCain is. In the movies, the mob is somewhat like McCain in that they refuse to go away. Like the Hydra, you can cut off one head, but two more will sprout in its place. McCain similarly seems to never go away no matter how many times he seems out. Like the mob turning to Joker in the Dark Knight, McCain also seems to have no good plan whatsoever, and changes plans on the fly when things turn out to be different than he thought. Does this say anything about what McCain is doomed to be? I don’t think so. The mob keeps on existing, but never in the same format. It’s certainly not predestined in any movie that the mob will lose. Indeed, the only comparison seems to be that McCain’s campaign could turn out to either be the Joker tormenting the mob’s opponents, or the Joker later threatening the entire barge full of mob associates with death. Also like the mob, McCain functions better when backed into a corner. Lastly, McCain lacks a certain shine and appeal that the mob also lacks in comparison to other “freak” type villains.

Mitt Romney as Oswald Cobblepot, AKA the Penguin: Whereas the Penguin used his ownership of the Iceberg Lounge to gain entry into Gotham, Romney uses his leadership at Bain Capital for much the same purpose. There was always a question of taking what Penguin says as truth: he never comes across as sincere. Romney may not have come across as insincere as Penguin did in, say, Batman Returns, but his numerous problems with flip-flopping caused serious problems for him this cycle. Moreover, his sons are everywhere, just like the Penguins were seemingly in Batman Returns. And just as the Penguin in One Year Later seemingly abandons crime for a legal presence, Romney also aborted what was a previous hard line stance against McCain suddenly to endorse him shortly after Super Tuesday. Most superficially, the Penguin is the high society type criminal compared to all the rest; similarly, Mitt Romney seems the most high society of all the candidates, due in large part to his massive wealth. Note: If there is one supervillain Romney is not, it is Deadshot.

John Edwards as Waylon Jones, aka Killer Croc: The easy choice for Edwards is Two Face. Running a completely different campaign than his first time, being an impressive trial lawyer and all. But in reality, the specific flaws and details of Edwards this cycle have nothing to do with the flaws and defining characteristics of Harvey Dent. Killer Croc is the one villain whose entire existence is almost entirely defined by his appearance: his reasons and justifications for doing what he did are inconsequential, if they exist at all. In this campaign, despite the support he got (which, compared to all but Obama and Clinton, was very substantial), Edwards was doomed because of the perceptions he allowed to be created about himself: the expensive haircuts, the video of him combing his air, etc. Essentially that he came to be defined in the market place as someone really, really vain. Killer Croc is the only Supervillain similarly concerned with image. While Edwards allowed himself to be defined by his, Croc hid and acted out because of his image. And yes, there’s also that small matter of Edwards sneaking around in basements of hotels being stalked. Very Croc-ian.

Dennis Kucinich as Jarvis Tetch, aka the Mad Hatter: Like the Mad Hatter was inspired by Lewis Carroll, Kucinich seems torn out of a different era of politics, one where William Jennings Bryan and Eugene Debs were the constant candidates. The delusion of the Mad Hatter strikes me as exactly the same as the delusion of Kucinich that he can win. His many tricks in the comics are similar to Kucinich’s tricks in politics. Tetch was seemingly run over by a train, only for it to turn out to be a trick; similarly, Kucinich was thought done when he ran the city of Cleveland into bankruptcy, only to emerge years later as a Congressman. Moreover, anyone who is not his supporter wonders why he is still trying. I’ll just end with that there’s something of a physical resemblance as well.

Fred Thompson as Bane: Bane was introduced in the comics as essentially the negative version of Batman: awesome power, awesome intellect. He ended up breaking Bruce Wayne’s back. But I’m not comparing Thompson to that Bane. I’m comparing him to the Bane in Batman and Robin, the horrible fourth batman movie. In that movie, going on the legacy of the comic book Bane, Bane instead becomes an unimportant tool who only serves as muscle; That is regularly noted as one of the worst transitions from comics to movies ever. Thompson similarly entered the race to great fanfare, only to find out he was far too little far too late. Thompson, like Bane, was a supposedly fierce character who when put into a campaign fizzled beyond what anyone expected. The comic Bane is the Fred Thompson that people expected; the awful film version is the one people got. I also have no problem comparing Holly wood to a South American prison. Many suggest that a new interpretation of Bane in the current Batman series could be widely successful; I’m not so sure. Wildly intelligent, strong, and athletic people tend to not sneak around in masks. While the true believers may never admit it, the concept at heart just is not very believable. Note: Just because Thompson and Clayface both were actors does not make them similar in any meaningful way.

Ron Paul as Lennie Adkin, aka Anarky: One sentence in Wikipedia says it all: “Lonnie Machin, a teenage prodigy who, believing in Anarchism, creates improvised gadgets and attempts to subvert government in order to improve society.” Paul himself was not young - the opposite of it - but he certainly attracted youth en masse to his libertarian oriented campaign. And while some would say the dominant Paul story as the racist old newsletters, Paul had no chance to win before or after that story broke. Moreover, Paul’s campaign innovated on the internet in ways few others have ever done, either their notable moneybombs and extensive social networking (and comment bombing). Moreover, the obvious comparison is in the goals of Adkin and Paul: both wanted substantially smaller governments (Adkin clearly went further than Paul). Does Adkin’s failure indicate that Paul’s crusade will never be successful? I don’t think so. There will probably never anytime soon be an extensive, successful libertarian movement, but there can certainly be small steps made in that direction. As a bonus, the character was created in part from Paulite hero and Alan Moore creation V from V for Vendetta.

Rudy Giuliani as Eddie Nashton, aka The Riddler: The Riddler, simply put, is known for leaving riddles after crimes; it’s a dare to be caught, whereas conventional wisdom would normally lead criminals to, you know, try to get away with the crimes they commit. The defining tactical decision of the Giuliani campaign was skipping all the early states that conventional wisdom said he had to at least get a symbolic if not a real victory in for him to be competitive in later states such as Florida. He decided not to. Moreover, the Riddler is covered with question marks all over his suit that give away not only his identity but also his only useful sentence was a Riddle to lead people to him. And while Giuliani’s innumerable references to 9/11 were not at all that pathological, there was clearly something in Joe Biden’s joke that ever Giuliani sentence contained a noun, a a verb, and 9/11. In short, Giuliani was the Riddler in that a lot of his campaign was built on one very simple and repetitive riddle.

Mike Huckabee as Arthur Brown, aka The Cluemaster: The Cluemaster was a failed game show host, and if there’s any four word phrase in Batman history that could define Huckabee, it is ‘failed game show host’ - with the possible exception of ’successful game show host’. The rise of Huckabee’s campaign was in large part due to his charm, and the fall of his campaign was ultimately responsible for his inability to transcend that charm as, say, Ronald Reagan did. The comic plight of Cluemaster is largely not very similar, except that Cluemaster ends up doing surprisingly well and survives a battle even when many thought he was dead from being shot in the chest. Similarly, Huckabee’s campaign refused to die even when it was mathematically impossible for him to win.

Bill Richardson as Catwoman: Get your gender jokes out of the way, I’m not interested in them. Good? Ok. The essence of the history of Catwoman as defined by Wikipedia: “Selina Kyle, starting as a criminal who wore a cat-themed costume and often operated as a burglar, has a love/hate relationship with Batman. For years, she skirted on the edge between villain and antiheroine. However, she has largely reformed in recent years, adopting the role of the guardian of Gotham’s crime-infested East End, though she still comes into conflict with Batman on occasion.” This mirrors Bill Richardson in many ways. First of all, Catwoman is the ultimate resume villain: she’s done it all. For evil, for good, she’s been there. If I had a nickel for every time Richardson said “Look, I’m a governor” this election as to prove what he has done, I would be able to hire someone to write this post. Moreover, Richardson essentially had a love-hate relationship with all his opponents. Clinton supporters liked him when he defended Hillary during debates, and then were outraged when he first appeared to help Obama on Iowa Caucus night and then endorsed Obama after allegedly promising not to. (Obama supporters were the opposite). In the end, Richardson was distrusted by all and left to run hos own state which was shockingly bad in most rankings. Similarly, the most recent Catwoman movie was shockingly bad by even the most generous standards. The Catwoman character, like Richardson, is championed by a small minority who think it is essential to Batman; others think its inclusion in any TDK sequel would be repetitive and boring. I’d be inclined to agree with the latter. The Catwoman character is played out and in the end not very interesting. A jewel thief who is athletic? In the Nolan’s Gotham, that’s about as small and pointless as they come. Meanwhile, just like some predicted Richardson would be a dark horse candidate, once people got a long look at him,  he disappointed; the more the Catwoman character has been exposed in movies, the less popular they have gotten. It’s fair to say that to some extent the character was a failure in Batman Returns and was again surely a disappointment in Catwoman. Also, Catwoman would probably defend cats as innocent ipso facto them being cats, just as Richardson accidentally defended Alberto Gonzalez in the first debate just because he was Hispanic.

Duncan Hunter as Garfield Lynns, aka Firefly: I don’t even have to add comment on this one. Wikipedia on Firefly: “Garfield Lynns, an orphan who became a pyromaniac and has developed a fireproof suit and flamethrower to further pursue his ‘hobby’. He was originally known as a cunning criminal who invented numerous weapons that use light to commit crimes with.” And Eve Fairbanks on Duncan Hunter: “During the trip, we stopped at a gold mine, and Hunter got the idea that the Brobdingnagian ore haulers (whose wheels alone are ten feet tall) would make good troop vehicles in Iraq since they’d resist IEDs. (Possibly true, but they also resist steering.) These kind of pie-in-the-sky, mad-inventor brainstorms earned the nickname “Hunter Specials” among staffers on the committee he chaired, Armed Services. I wondered occasionally if Hunter’s ruthless thrashing in the GOP primaries had dampened some of his unusual style of enthusiasm, but apparently it didn’t. This morning’s Post carried the story of a Hunter Special for the ages: He submitted a request to our embassy in N’Djamena, Chad, to personally hunt and serve wildebeest to needy Darfurian refugees there. ” Wow. Easiest one yet.

Last but never least: The Joker after the jump. ….

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Presidential Candidacies, Even Failed Ones, Offer Increased Influence To Candidates

This is hardly scientific, but it’s worth noting that presidential campaigns, even failed ones, have a tendency of increasing a candidate’s influence/power (as one would expect).

Below is a table indicating the candidate’s power ranking in their respective chamber for the years 2005 through 2008.  It’s worth noting that the sudden changes in some of the rankings between 2006 and 2007 is mostly the result in changeover from Republican to Democratic control.

[Table=7]

[Table=8]

[* = former candidate]
[Source: Congress.org]

In retrospect, some campaigns, which at the time made no sense at all, make at least a bit more sense now, while some continue to haunt my brain to this day.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (01/25/08)

This podcast takes evaluates the current state of the campaign and looks ahead to Nevada, South Carolina and Florida…

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).

Sphere: Related Content

Why Kucinich’s Debate Exclusion Is OK

This is probably our last exclusive Kucinich post until he drops out, for what its worth, but he’s complaining about being excluded from tonight’s debate. The criteria included finishing in the top four in Iowa, or being above 5% in a national or New Hampshire poll. Kucinich complained, sending out the following press release shortly ago:

As complaints keep pouring in to ABC News regarding the network’s decision to exclude Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich from tonight’s Democratic Presidential debate, the most recent data from ABC and co-sponsor Facebook show Kucinich ahead of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who was invited to participate.

Kucinich, according to Facebook’s own figures, ranks fourth in popularity among Facebook members. In the latest ABC News Poll, Kucinich ranked ahead of Richardson. And, Kucinich has won more than a dozen major on-line polls and post-debate surveys, including one conducted by ABC News.

First of all, Kucinich cites being ahead in a “ABC News Poll” but does not mention what poll that even was. The latest polls from Washington Post and ABC News poll contain no poll result either in Iowa or New Hampshire where Kucinich out polls Richardson, nor any poll where Kucinich breaks 5% either nationally or in New Hampshire.

Citing online polls are a joke; with apologies to Ron Paul supporters, they only measure a self-selected sample group and are not representative. They measure fervency of support for certain, but in no way breadth of support.

The standards for the debate tonight are fair; it is late in the election season and it is not the job of any news station to allow for miracles to happen, particularly with candidates who have campaigned for months and still have a negligible amount of support.

Kucinich says the criteria are arbitrary and has even filed a complaint with the FCC; they are arbitrary. But they are also fair and realistic.

I would say the same to Mike Gravel and Duncan Hunter, both of whom also are likely unhappy.

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of Concession/Winning Speeches

9:00: Reminder, Dems: Obama, Edwards, Clinton; GOP: Huckabee, Romney, Thompson/McCain/Paul

9:09: Andrea Mitchell calls it a “remarkably bad outcome for Hillary”

9:10: Matthews says the Clinton comeback begins now.

9:11: John Edwards is making an appearance, smiling; Matthews cites Edwards’ need to win in order to be relevant after Iowa. Elizabeth Edwards introduces him, and thanks everyone.

9:13: Elizabeth Edwards cites their campaign being outspent 6-1 combined. That’s REALLY disingenuous. Edwards speaks, saying that the status quo lost and change won. Essentially declares the death of Clinton.

9:15: Edwards talks about problems with health care, including a girl who was denied coverage of health insurance, and also the man who could not talk for 50 years. He also cites the Maytag plant closing. Cites the Roosevelts and Truman as presidents with backbone. By the way, it’s unclear if the insurance company really was responsible as Edwards claims:

Mark Geragos, attorney for the girl’s family, said he plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against CIGNA HealthCare in the case. The insurer “maliciously killed her” because it did not want to bear the expense of her transplant and aftercare, Geragos said. Video Watch as the family takes on CIGNA »

Nataline had been battling leukemia and received a bone marrow transplant from her brother. She developed a complication, however, that caused her liver to fail.

Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to CIGNA Healthcare on December 11. The Philadelphia-based health insurance company denied payment for the transplant.

On Thursday, about 150 teenagers and nurses protested outside CIGNA’s office in Glendale. As the protesters rallied, the company reversed its decision and said it would approve the transplant.

Despite the reversal, CIGNA said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline’s case.

“Our hearts go out to Nataline and her family, as they endure this terrible ordeal,” the company said. ” … CIGNA HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant.”

9:19: Edwards rails against corporations, including oil companies. Every cliché is hit. He even drops that Elizabeth has breast cancer, and others will too. It’s a litany of sob stories, including homeless veterans. Says America can fix all this.

9:22: Edwards says change won. He’s going on and on, possibly to minimize others getting on 11pm newscasts on the east coast? Just a guess. He hasn’t said much at all.

9:23: Matthews notes that neither Edwards congratulated the victor, and that they did not want to concede in ‘04; the campaign theme song of Kerry kicks in. (The Rising, by Springsteen).

9:25: The Clintons are on stage, with a large group of people including Vilsack, Albright, and Clark. In other words: we still have a lot of support. A ‘Hillary’ chant breaks out as Bill gives a thumbs up. She promises to take the enthusiasm to New Hampshire and ‘it is a great night for Democrats.’ Says this turnout means Democrats will win. She congratulates Obama and Edwards and thanks Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, and Biden by name.

9:27: Her demeanor is pitch perfect for such a disappointing night. Pivots to focus on how a winning with a candidate “who can go the distance … and be the best president on day one.” Cites her plans to run a national campaign through the early states, while chiding independents and Republicans who came late to the table.

9:30: Families are good and need to be kept good.

9:32: She is ready to lead. Cites health care and energy. Also cites education reforms. Says she is more optimistic about the country than her campaign. Says a lot of people could not caucus - those in the military. Also says people work at night. This sounds like a line of excuses.

9:34: Thanks the unions across the country who support her. She says the election is about the future (uhm, no crap). And that’s it, and everyone starts hugging each other.

9:37: Huck! He’s ready to go. Chuck Norris is right behind him, and smiling like a cheshire cat. He says he loves Iowa a lot tonight. Thanks everyone who treated him with respect and listened to him. Really humble and personable approach that really works in direct contrast to most of the field. Says his wife will be a great First Lady. Thanks his children.

9:41: Says his campaign starts in Iowa and ends in Washington a year from now. Says money has proven to be overrated. Says that tonight could forever chan gethe political system. (Uhm, probably not.) Says choice was for a change, but change can be for the worse or better.

9:43: The greatest generation can be the next generation. (Another anti-boomer candidate?) Says the election and country is not about him, but tonight will start a “prairie fire” across the country. Says the people are the ruling class in America.

9:45: Huck cites GK Chesterson, a Christian apologetic, and says people must love people behind them not hate those in front of him as Chuck Norris stands directly behind him. Says we must do whatever it takes to do what is right for those in America. Reminds everyone that this is the beginning. Again thanks Iowa.

9:51: Tim Russert looks like he’s been drinking whiskey all day. He’s staring at Brian Williams a bit uncomfortably.

10:02: Romney spoke at the same time as Huckabee, citing the Olympics as different events having different results.

10:03: Obama takes the stage with his family. They leave and Obama takes the podium.

10:04: Says the cynics have been proven wrong. He’s in ‘big speech’ mode. Cites New Hampshire next, and the rest of America after that. Cites the big turnout, and Democrats, Republicans, and Independents standing together for change and for one country. Starts echoing the 04 Convention speech with uniting red states and blue states. Says time has come to take power back from lobbyists and for an honest president. Says he can be that president if New Hampshire gives him the same support. Unbelievable atmosphere compared to the other campaigns. Says he will make health care affordable and available to everyone. Promises a middle class tax cut. Speaks of freeing America from the tyranny of oil. The speech is focused on him as a president, and mixing that message with his campaign theme.

10:11: Thanks organizers and precinct captains; no one else thanked them. Thanks his wife, “the closer on the campaign trail.”

10:12: Says it was not done for him, but for American ideals and fighting against odds for what people believe in.

10:13: Says nights like this justify the hard times in a campaign, and this is the moment it all began. Says the improbably and “what Washington said was inevitable” are torn down. Says politics of cynicism were beaten down. Says hope is not blind, but that something better is available if it is worked for. Says hope was what inspired the American Revolution, World War II, and the civil rights movement.

10:17: Obama says it’s about the USA and wraps it up to thunderous applause.

10 :18: Quickly over to Biden, who is dropping out. He thanks film makers and those that are supporting him. Thanks his wife.

Sphere: Related Content

Google Adword Watch: Fred Thompson And John Edwards Ignored

Google Adwords provide some excellent insight into the thinking and strategy of campaigns.  We saw this very early in the election cycle during the Republican Adword war that Google eventually stopped because it violated the terms of advertisements and with Mike Bloomberg purchasing election related AdWords months before the buzz of the last few days.  With the Iowa Caucus tomorrow and the NH Primary in just 4 days, I figured it was worth taking another look at the state of Google Adwords.  Here’s what came up…

Mike Huckabee is running Adwords on searches for Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter.  Interestingly, Huckabee is not running Adwords against neither Fred Thompson nor Ron Paul.

Rudy Giuliani is running Adwords against John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson as well as the top two Democrats - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

John McCain is only running Adwords against Rudy Giuliani (as an aside, this ad argues that McCain is more electable than Rudy).

The takeaways from this information:

• Huckabee doesn’t consider Fred Thompson a threat, at all.
• John McCain is going to start pushing his electability in coming days/weeks.
• Only Obama and Clinton drew Adwords from their opponents, the other GOP candidates are not running them against John Edwards.
• Democrats don’t use AdWords in order to dip into supporters for opposition.
• Aside: the operator of this blog, who is an Obama supporter, must have paid an awful lot of money to advertise on searches for John Edwards.  At this point, the blog doesn’t really contain very much other than a strong reminder about the candidates’ positions on the Iraq war (it’s not flattering of Edwards).

Sphere: Related Content

Daily Republican Briefing (December 26, 2007)

Duncan Hunter

Former NH Senator Bob Smith endorsed Hunter; classic case of too little, too late. Had this happened 10 months ago, who knows. This probably hurts Thompson more than anything; he could have used a bump like this in NH.

Hunter is going to actually going to do some campaigning in Nevada.

Fred Thompson

How bad are things for Thompson? This Jed Babbin article complains about the AP treatment of Tancredo dropping out and choosing to endorse Romney, while ignoring that the Iowa state chairman for Tancredo, Bill Salier, endorsed Thompson. The problem is that all of Thompson’s press and blogs are not about Fred Thompson at all, but rather about the negative coverage of his campaign, or are plainly just turning on the candidate. Thompson supporters might want to highlight the good (Salier coming to Thompson, Thompson touring Iowa, etc.) instead of lingering and letting the whole Fred Thompson story be about how he has faltered since entering the race. Nominations are earned, and Thompson is seemingly not doing much to earn it. Blaming the AP over not reporting about a Tancredo state chairman seems … shortsighted, to say the least.

Here is one positive story: a Tennessee writer says that those tired of the Romney-Huckabee fights may turn to Thompson as the alternative, as Thompson historically has been a strong finisher.

Far more common is this sort of editorial by Lee Bandy in SC: Thompson has been disappointing as a candidate and may not even be in the race come the SC primary.

John McCain

McCain has an ad up in SC regarding his efforts to change the Iraq strategy.

An editorial by conservative radio host Jay Severin in the Boston Herald today examines whether a ‘maverick’ like McCain can ultimately win over Republicans; Severin concludes that he can’t.

McCain is in Iowa fighting for a third place finish.

McCain and Huckabee are both complimenting each other as they unite to take down Romney.

McCain offered his tax cut plan, which is built around repealing the AMT and making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Mike Huckabee

Huckabee is under fire for not taking action to negotiate a deal with DHS to train Arkansas state police to enforce federal immigration law; Huckabee’s camp says the clock ran out; Powerline isn’t buying that explanation.

Huckabee’s positions on Iran are not helping his popularity in Israel; this blog entry compares him with Democrats on foreign policy.

Huckabee is still being blasted for being too far left from the GOP base on almost every issue; will this ever hurt him?

Home school advocates and Fair Tax advocates are doing what they can to help Huckabee.

NRO points out that a potentially valid criticism of Huckabee was done in such a way as to play right into his hands.

Huckabee went hunting in Iowa to show his commitment to the cause.

Huckabee is still giving paid speeches to pail the mortgage.

Mitt Romney

The WSJ compares and contrasts Huckabee and Romney, with one quote noting that Romney stands for competence; will that help him in the end the way it helped Dole and Kerry in the past, or is this election enough of a change election that voters will overlook it?

The LA Times looks at the relationship between Mitt Romney and his father George Romney.

Romney is catching flak for supporting laws at the state level that would give gays some rights to adopt.

Romney is focusing on New Hampshire.

Ron Paul

Justin at Donklephant says what needs to be said about Ron Paul.

Rudy Giuliani

The AP ran a profile of Giuliani, including some interesting new anecdotes, but nothing groundbreaking.

Giuliani was back on the stump in Florida today.

Sphere: Related Content

Daily Briefing (December 25, 2007)

Merry Christmas everyone!

Both Democratic front-runners receive profile pieces today courtesy the NYT company. The experience of Hillary Clinton in the Bill Clinton White House went under the microscope in the New York Times, while Barack Obama’s time as a law school professor and its influence is looked at in the Boston Globe. For another perspective on that, here is a diary of a former Obama student on the Daily Kos about ‘Professor Obama.”

John Edwards and Mitt Romney are returning to New Hampshire tomorrow.

When I first heard of Fred Thompson’s Christmas ad, I wondered if it was an ad at all, as it just thanked the troops and did not mention him at all. The more I thought about, the less substance there was in any of the other Christmas ads, and the more that one candidate just decided to acknowledge the current reality is appreciated. So, I would agree that Thompson’s ad is best of the Christmas ads, and not for the general reason (’it’s good to thank the troops’ - I find that annoying since the troops normally get nothing out of it).

Duncan Hunter can’t even get Tancredo to honor a gentleman’s agreement to endorse him. He really ought get out of the race to not take away votes from someone similar to him who might actually win. On the other hand, that presumes he’s going to get any votes.

John McCain is going back to Iowa: this time to fight good friend Fred Thompson for third, and a possible pre-NH bump.

Alright, that’s all for the day. We here wish you and yours a Merry Christmas; don’t drink too much eggnog, the final stretch begins tomorrow.

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of The Des Moines Register Republican Debate (December 12, 2007)

The Des Moines Register is having a Republican debate in Iowa today beginning at 2pm eastern. It is being aired on Iowa Public Television, as well as Fox News and CNN.

2:oo: Yup, we’re live blogging. From left to right: Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Alan Keyes (yes, Alan Keyes is there). As an aside, this moderator looks like she’s going to be scary.

2:03: Is the debt a threat to national security? Moderator insists yes or no. Giuliani uses question to talk about tax cuts. Says it is not a national security issue, but it’s an economic security issue. Ron Paul thinks it’s a national security issue. The moderator already seems mad at some of the crummy dodgy answers she’s gotten so far. Fred Thompson rambles about social security and medicare. As a reminder, this was a yes or no question. Romney: ’strengthen the American people.’ Again, not really an answer. Huckabee says yes and then explains. McCain also directly answers the question. Republicans in Luntz’s group seem to like McCain’s response the most. McCain promises oil independence in 5 years. Keyes says yes, there’s a threat to national security.

2:11: What sacrifices, specifically, would you ask Americans to make to lower the debt? Giuliani says the American people aren’t the problem and that the government should cut it’s spending. Follow up, if you’re going to cut nonmilitary spending by 10%, then won’t people who use those programs need to sacrifice? Giuliani says that people relying on those programs will need to find other ways.

2:14: Huckabee says that instead of treating people after their sick, we should focus on prevention.

2:17: Tancredo: Don’t ask the government to help you from beginning to end or there will be a humongous deficit. *sigh* I always love when candidates use 2nd grade rhetoric.

2:18: Who is paying more than their fair share of taxes relative to everyone else? McCain says that low and middle income taxpayers pay the most and suggests that it’s time to fix it. Takes a swipe at the Democrats for wanting to raise taxes. Huckabee: FAIR TAX! Moderator tells people to start answering questions “a little snappier.”

2:23: Giuliani doesn’t say who is paying more than their fair share of taxes, but talks about reducing the tax burden through either a flat tax or reducing taxes on corporations. Why can’t these folks just answer a question?

2:26: What is the plan for protecting U.S. jobs? Huckabee talks about three causes for this, one of them is red tape. Huckabe states that as president, “I can’t part the red sea, but I can part the red tape.” I realize that he’s affable and makes some good quips, but sometimes, they seem a bit too forced.

2:28: What specific changes should be made in NAFTA? Giuliani says that it should be enforced and is a good thing. So far, I haven’t really heard any real responses to this question. Do you get the feeling that perhaps they may not really know the specifics of NAFTA? Tancredo states some specific problems with NAFTA and notes that it is fueling the immigration problem. Hunter follows up and complains about the trade imbalance caused by NAFTA.

2:32: Fred Thompson’s “free moment” to say anything he wants comes up. He takes the opportunity to

2:32: Do you believe that global climate change is serious and caused by human action? (show of hands) Fred Thompson refuses and the other candidates quickly follow his lead in refusing to do a show of hands. The moderator stands her ground, sasses the candidates a bit and proceeds with her question. McCain answers the question and says even if humans aren’t to cause, going green doesn’t hurt us it helps us. Giuliani agrees. Romney asks for time to answer too…he states that it is “global warming and not American warming” and that Americans should therefore not pay for most of it. Perhaps he’s not aware of the proportion of energy consumption in the US vs. other countries?

2:37: Alan Keyes rhetorical flurry alert! He says that the only emission he would curtail is the hot air from politicians.

2:38: What will you do to reduce gas consumption? Increase mandates on biofuels? Huckabee says that if the government makes changes, the market will be changed because the price for alternative fuels will change.

2:40: Tancredo uses his free moment to talk about the dangers of having a “polyglot boarding house.”

2:42: What educational standards does the US need to adopt in order to compete in the global economy? McCain talks about choices. He doesn’t talk about how he’d enable those choices, but does cite choices. Giuliani says that he’s where he is today because of the educational choices of his parents and that choices need to be increased. He also doesn’t really talk about how he’d increase choices. Again, are the candidates just not listening to the question?

2:47: Romney cites some specifics among them are English immersion and scholarships. Huckabee says that education is a state issue, but there are some things that can be done at the federal level that will help all the states. 1) “personalize the learning” and 2) institute “weapons of mass instruction” which would increase education on arts and other subjects across the board. I’m not sure how that’s consistent with this opening that the federal government should be out of education, but who cares about contradictions and meaningless slogans when you’re running for president. VIVA LA PERSONALIZE THE LEARNING!

2:48: Alan Keyes gets mad and scolded the moderator for not asking him questions. She says fine and that he gets 30 seconds. He complains that it’s unfair that other candidates get a minute and he only gets 30 seconds. Keyes then says the problem with education is that God is no longer in the education.

2:51: Fred Thompson states that the biggest obstacle to educational reform is the National Education Association because they stand in the way of choice. Tancredo points out the contradiction in Huckabee’s argument.

2:53: Huckabee responds and says that he was suggesting that the government become a clearinghouse for reform. Says that the president’s second most important job, after being Commander-In-Chief, is to be “communicator-in-chief” and using bully pulpit to communicate.

2:54: Realistically, what do you believe you can accomplish in the first year of your administration? Giuliani: secure against Islamic terrorism, begin winning war against Islamic terrorism, secure borders and accomplish energy independence. Ron Paul: would end the war, bring the troops home, would increase his the credibility of US abroad. Tancredo: would use the pulpit to explain that we are not fighting a war

3:00: Romney states he would do more than talk in his first year, he would: keep the world safe from global jihad, advance schools, wants to get health insurance for every person in America. Mike Huckabee: he likes the laundry list, but notes that it’s not going to happen unless someone brings the country together and he intends to be president of all 50 states. John McCain also talks about the need for making America safe and the second most important thing would be to restore faith and trust in government by fixing broken programs. Alan Keyes: would restore the sovereignty of the American people, sign an executive order protecting unborn life in the womb (aka: would ban abortion), would establish a national border guard in order to seal the border (he realizes that we currently have one, right?).

3:02: Romney uses his free moment to pander to Iowans. Rudy Giuliani uses his free moment to talk about the fact that he’s been tested by proving his leadership through crises like 9/11, being a US attorney and Mayor of New York.

3:07: Giuliani is asked about the security for Judith Nathan that’s been discussed a lot lately and whether or not he could have handled it better.

3:09: Keyes is asked how we would have a transparent White House. Keyes attacks Romney for changing his position on abortion.

3:10: Romney gives the stock response.

3:12: Huckabee is asked about two examples of how his faith would define his policies in education and health care. He cites not treating people differently. Shockingly, fails to offer two specific examples. Oh well…

3:19: Tancredo is reminded that his website only contains 5 sentences about Iraq and is asked what assurances Americans can have that he’s prepared to take over foreign policy? Response flatlines…

3:20: Ron Paul is asked about how he would bring about some of his revolution changes through Congress. Paul says that his message is appealing and would therefore bring the congress together.

3:24: Ron Paul’s New Years resolution for others is to re-read the Constitution and to realize that we are well protected against enemies foreign, but that we need to be better protected against enemies domestic.

3:25: And the debate is over. The moderator did a great job, seriously.

Sphere: Related Content

Poll Vaulting: Why Do Polls With 500 Participants Make And Shape National News?

The DesMoines Register’s most recent poll was released yesterday and it’s certainly creating a lot of news…

Democrats:

• Barack Obama: 28%
• Hillary Clinton: 25%
• John Edwards: 23%
• Bill Richardson: 9%
• Joe Biden: 6%
• Chris Dodd: 1%
• Dennis Kucinich: 1%
• Not Sure/Uncommitted: 7%

Republicans:

• Mike Huckabee: 29%
• Mitt Romney: 24%
• Rudy Giuliani: 13%
• Fred Thompson: 9%
• John McCain: 7%
• Ron Paul: 7%
• Tom Tancredo: 6%
• Not Sure/Uncommitted: 4%

Relevant information about the poll:

• Sample Size: 500 likely Democratic and 500 likely Republican caucus goers
• Dates polled: November 25 - 28
• Margin of error: 4.4%

I am truly astounded as to how influential this poll has been. It’s being talked about all over and it’s being used by some campaigns to adjust their strategy. Both myself and JW consistently warn about the problems with polls whenever we report on them, but this recent example just goes above and beyond.

How is it that a poll with a sample size of 500 people is considered reflective of voters? I mean, Huckabee’s bump is likely the result of the amount of attention he’s been getting in the press the past few weeks. This attention has not been focused on his policies (or lackthereof of specific, in depth policies) nor has the attention been focused on his record. Rather, what we’ve heard about the past few weeks is that Huckabee is on the move. And sure enough, after a few weeks of hearing that a poll comes out and supposedly demonstrates it. Additionally, all we’ve heard about the past few weeks is how vulnerable Hillary is. We haven’t seen in depth coverage of what has changed about her from August until now. All we’ve really heard is that she’s on a downward spiral. And sure enough, this poll is used by those in the press to “demonstrate” it. Couldn’t it simply be the case that people hear something discussed so much that they just think that’s the case and thus their responses to polls are reflective of it?

Aside from the small sample size, am I the only one concerned about how good that sample really could have been given that the poll was conducted just after the Thanksgiving holiday, when the food coma is just ending and diets and holiday preparations are at the forefront of people’s minds?

I’m not suggesting that the poll is “wrong,” I’m merely stating that it’s being seriously overstated by the media and accordingly will only feed into the current trend that they are on. Think about it, assuming no margin of error (even though there is one), only 15 votes would separate Obama from Clinton and only 25 votes would separate Huckabee from Romney. This of course, neglects any other realities like: who’s going to show up and who these voters’ second choices are. In short, this poll really doesn’t tell us anything other than the election in Iowa is close and that polls don’t really tell us anything.

Recently, a smart friend of mine opened about the majority of election coverage by saying that the press is no longer reporting, they’re simply creating stories. I am inclined to agree and only wish I had the time to cover this election the way that I used to. The good news: finals ends in mid December and then I have nice long break right before and during the early primaries to devote my full attention to the election.

[Photo  Credit: Cartoonstock.com]

Sphere: Related Content

CNN/YouTube Republican Debate In Florida Candidate Time Allotments (November 28, 2007)

See below for the amount of time that each candidate spoke in tonight’s CNN/YouTube Republican Debate in Florida…

Actual Time Spoken:

• Rudy Giuliani: 16 minutes, 40 seconds
• Mitt Romney: 14 minutes, 18 seconds
• John McCain: 11 minutes, 28 seconds
• Fred Thompson: 10 minutes, 23 seconds
• Mike Huckabee: 9 minutes, 45 seconds
• Ron Paul: 7 minutes, 34 seconds
• Duncan Hunter: 4 minutes, 40 seconds
• Tom Tancredo: 4 minutes

Opportunities to Speak (Questions/Rebuttals):

• Rudy Giuliani - 20
• Mitt Romney - 20
• Mike Huckabee - 13
• John McCain - 12
• Fred Thompson - 11
• Ron Paul - 10
• Tom Tancredo - 8
• Duncan Hunter - 7

*Please note that given the way this debate was conducted, there was a substantial amount of very short exchanges between some of the candidates. Accordingly, some of the candidates time may differ from the actual time spoken by a few seconds.

[Kind thanks to 2008Central supporter BDA for his work in compiling this data]

Related at 2008Central.net:

• Brigadier General From CNN/YouTube Debate on Clinton Advisory Committee (11/28/07)
• Live Blog Of CNN/YouTube Republican Debate In Florida (11/28/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of CNN/YouTube Republican Debate In Florida (November 28, 2007)

7:02: And we are ready. 1 hour to go until tonight’s CNN/YouTube Republican Debate. The participants will be: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson. Alan Keyes (yes, he’s running) will not be participating. Keyes is taking the role formerly taken by John Cox, who, mercifully, has stopped trying.

7:20: The Giuliani campaign has sent out a pre-debate email discussing what they consider to be a high volume of negative attacks from Romney’s campaign [pdf]. It’s fairly extensive and is obviously intended to increase the press’ coverage of Romney’s negative attacks themselves (as opposed to any fallout that may come as a result of those attacks).

7:54: Lou Dobbs is ranting.  No analysis required.

7:59: The snowman apparently will not make the cut, as per the web preview on CNN.com. Three commercial breaks are scheduled for the two hour debate.

8:01: Charlie Crist is going to introduce the candidates, who are all going to fantasize about receiving his endorsement. From left to right in reverse order of their introductions: Tancredo, Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Paul, Hunter. It’s mildly amusing to see them all trying to be nice to each other on stage.

8:06: CNN thinks Mitt Romney is still the unabashed front runner in the early states. Apparently they are holding this debate in October. It’s a dead heat in Iowa with Huckabee having so much more committment than Romney in Iowa.

8:08: Anderson Cooper previews questions. U-S-E-L-E-S-S.

8:10: A song that would get about 1,000 viral hits starts off the debate. This is really corny humor that will go over well with some and induce a lot of eye rolling by the rest.

8:12: The debate begins! A New Yorker asks why Giuliani ran NYC as a sanctuary city and if he would continue it. He explains why he left children exempt, why they could be treated, and why they could report crimes, and those were the only exemptions. Romney says NYC called itself a sanctuary city and that Giuliani brought a suit to that effect, and not everyone that was reported as committing a crime was deported. Two well-crafted and obviously practiced answers. Giuliani retorts by citing sanctuary cities in Massachusetts and a ’sanctuary mansion’ at Romney’s own mansion. Tough answer, and Mitt tries the direct response, and Giuliani retorts. Romney points out he hired a company and says he should not check employees of that company for immigration papers. Romney eventually segues into his record and the answer gets a lot less interesting. Seems like equals yelling back and forth, ending with Giuliani getting booed to the next question.

8:19: Pledge to veto any amnesty bill? Thompson says yes. This is inducing a lot of stump speeches. Thompson accuses Romney of flip-slopping on the Bush immigration plan ‘unsurprisingly.’ The Giuliani campaign is rolling, as we’ve already received an email about Romney hiring immigrants. Thompson accuses Giuliani of bringing a lawsuit to protect sanctuary city status, Giuliani repeats his exceptions line. McCain, using a really serious and low tone, says the plan was not amnesty and he would veto amnesty. Talks about lack of trust in the government to control the borders first, and everything else needs to be resolved second, and that the illegals are God’s children as well second.  Cites demagoguing of the issue, and that the rhetoric contributes nothing.

8:24: Tancredo basks in the glory. An employer of seasonal workers asks what he would do about it. Tancredo talks about the evils of immigration as a while, and that he rejects the idea that there are jobs that no Americans will take. Hunter makes a cameo appearance, and shockingly talks about the double fence he built in San Diego. Did he jsut send the tape of him to the debate ala Leia in Star Wars?

8:28: Why did illegal immigrants get to pay in state tuition but not children of military members? Huckabee said he supported a bill to allow people who had been in Arkansas their whole life to go to school at that rate, since he did not want to punish a child for the crime of a parent. Huckabee says a veterans bill of rights would be needed. A reasonable answer. Romney says it’s a great reason for giving money to illegal immigrants, and it is not his money, it is taxpayers money. Huckabee said it was not given, it was earned. Says we are a better country to punish children for crimes of a parent. Romney says they were here illegally and should not get benefits.

8:33: Question for Paul regarding a North American Union conspiracy. Says there is a move toward the North American Union like there was in Europe years ago, and money is spent on it. Talks about the international highway from Mexico to Canada. Sufficiently vague to not weird out many people and appease the most nut supporter (and I use that term endearingly).

 8:35: What to do about the national debt? McCain says spending has gone out of control, including a humorous example about bear DNA in Montana. Gets more passionate than his last answer, knowing his position is more in line with the GOP majority. Romney says McCain is right, and that vetos need to happen on pork bills. Mentions his health care record here in a public right. Giuliani says there should be across the board agency cuts and less rehiring when people retire, even saying Bush should do it now.

8:38: What are three programs you would decrease in size to save money? Thompson says there’s a lot of programs, and most programs would not solve the program. Thompson talks about reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and eliminating 100 programs the OMB cited as wasteful. Says reform saves a lot more money than a wasteful program here or there. He’s far better specifically on the issues than generally. Paul says that Washington did not change him. Paul says he would cut the Depts. of Energy, Education, and Homeland Security. Huckabee talks about the IRS and the Fair Tax, and that Homeland Securityis a mess. Lots of cheers for Paul and Huckabee. Good humor again showed by Huckabee.

8:42: Uncle Sam in a cartoon asks if McCain supports the Fair Tax? McCain says he does not and that it would increase some tax rates into the 30% according to the WSJ. Gives a serious answer about reforming the tax code. Then segues into attacking Ron Paul for isolationism and that it caused World War 2. Gets a lot of boos AND cheers for that answer, that it allowed Hitler to come to power. Cites Thanksgiving with the troops, who said to him ‘Let us win.’ Strong McCain answer, if off topic notionally. Paul cites getting the most money from military personnel, and that he is not an isolationist.

8:45: Grover Norquist, someone who already has a platform and a pledge, asks if the candidates would vow to oppose any tax cut. Thompson says he does not do pledges to anyone but the American people, and McCain agrees, although agreeing in spirit. Paul says the real issue is spending. Everyone agrees in spirit. Hunter says there could be a national emergency or something.

8:47: Why are there farm subsidies if you are fiscally responsible? Romney gets put on the hot seat. Romney compares food to energy and says it is importantto keep people farming, and that new energy technology may come from farms. Also says the competition is subsidized, and changes need to be made together. Giuliani agrees, saying the subisides in Europe are higher. (But aren’t third world subsidies a lot lower if nonexistant? Comments would be welcome.) Question to Giuliani on the police force, and they were handled, “as far as I know, perfectly appropriately.” Interesting, considering they seem to be billed horribly inappropriately.

First introductory video, for Tancredo, comparing him to Clinton. One solitary person clapped at the end.

8:51: What to do about lead toys, and what can be done to fix things. Tancredo talks about immigration of ‘things’ being illegal if the things are illegal. Hunter gets to talk about his other issue, and that it’s in the interest of America to buy American. Does not mention how much more expensive American toys are.

Thompson’s video attacks Romney on abortion and Huckabee on taxes, using their old clips. Cooper: “Senator Thompson, what’s up with that?” And welcome to the 1993. Thompson retorts briefly. Romney jokes about being young then, and says he was wrong then on abortion and he’s not the person who is going to always have been right on every issue. Huckabee says the sales tax was ‘one penny’ higher in his time. Huckabee says that when you get kicked in the rear, it shows you’re out front. Impactful video from Thompson.

First commercial debate.

8:59: McCain video retorting Clinton, including his moment from the last debate about being ‘tied up at the time.’ Cooper says the next question is about ‘guns.’ It’s like having me ten years ago host this thing. Hunter talks about using guns ‘as his son did in Fallujah’ and that the person in the video was unsafe in his use of guns, but that the tradition is from the American soldier. Hunter’s continuing use of his son is a little annoying as well; it’s as if he’s only there to campaing for his son who’s running for office.

9:02: To Rudy: Why should citizens be required to pass tests to own guns? Giuliani says laws on the books need to be enforced, and reasonable regulations can be imposed on them, such as criminal background and mental health background. Cites the Circuit Parker decision. Thompson says Giuliani supported a wide variety of gun control laws and attended signing ceremonies to that extent, and it’s not a choice but in the Constitution. Says DC took the same position as Giuliani in NY. (I don’t think Giuliani supported outlawing handguns. That’s a significant jump). Giuliani retorts to that extent. No mention of the test mentioned in the question.

9:05: Another gun question, anyone wanting to tell about their collection. Thompson declines to say where his are. McCain says he used them when in the military but does not own one now. Hunter talks about a gun type his dad showed him. Giuliani does not own a gun, and the only guns in Romney’s house are owned by his son. 

9:07: What about inner city black crime? What an irrelevant question for this debate. Romney talks about values and having moms and dads being important, and cites Bill Cosby. Not sure that Romney should invite comparison to Jello. Also talks about schooling and more policing and ‘drunk driving’ as if that’s what causes inner city crime. Giuliani says Romney has a mixed record on violence, and Giuliani touts his strong record in reducing crime.  Finishes off with the changes he made in NYC. Romney says he was not a mayor and did not have a commissioner, and did what he could, but agrees that Giuliani’s record is nice.

9:11: Should women be charged with a crime if they get an abortion if it is made illegal? Ron Paul says the crime should be to the doctor/abortionist, and that the penalty should be up to the state. Thompson talks about the procedural posture of the question. Talks a lot but eventually agrees with Paul in talking about twice as long seemingly.

9:13: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on abortion, would you sign or veto? Giuliani says he would not sign it, and leave it to the states instead. Elaborates a little more. Romney says he would welcome a consensus on the matter, but America is