|
Monday, December 31, 2007
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini
at
8:20 PM
Because we seem to be headed for a replay of the same dynamic that prevailed in the early 2000 primaries, I thought it would be helpful to go back and take a second look at the exit poll from the ‘00 NH primary, which John McCain won by 18 points — 48.5% to 30.3% for then-Governor George W. Bush. My recent posts notwithstanding, McCain looks to me like the prohibitive favorite in the Granite State. I was in New Hampshire for Bush. The night before, the race leaned slightly to McCain. In their weak moments, the volunteers on the guessed we’d fall short by 3 or 4 points. We lost by 18. There was a hidden vote for McCain on primary day that counted for as much as 15 points. McCain will not get 49 percent — the also-rans are stronger this time — but 40 or 45 percent is not out of the question. To see why, we need only look to McCain’s amazing strength among virtually every subgroup in the 2000 primary, and the overall composition of the New Hampshire GOP electorate. In stark contrast to rest of the nation, it is very difficult for a candidate running as a conservative to win a Republican primary in the Northeast. McCain won every New England state except Maine against Bush in 2000, even Bush’s ancestral Connecticut. With Obama failing to close the sale and McCain surging, independents will vote in large numbers in the Republican primary. After Romney’s increasingly likely victory in Iowa, the best I suspect he’ll be able to do is claim that as his “conference championship” win to advance to the finals, and raise a cloud of dust to limit the damage in New Hampshire. As Bush discovered in 2000 and Bob Dole discovered in ‘96, New Hampshire is strange and an outlier. Here is a reminder of the scope of McCain’s win in New Hampshire, by the numbers: - McCain won every county and all but a handful of small towns.
- McCain ran stronger among men, 57 percent of the primary electorate, winning by 50 to 28 percent.
- He won voters over 60 with 52 percent, and those over 65 with 54 percent. The formidable Mike Dennehy turnout operation has the blessing of being able to mobilize seniors, the highest-propensity voting group, who already identify with John McCain.
- He won college graduates, 52 percent of the electorate, by nearly 2-to-1, 53 to 28 percent.
- Barely 53 percent of the electorate “affiliated” with the Republican Party — though more were registered — and McCain took 38 percent of this most-conservative half of the electorate, running just three points behind Bush.
- Just 51 percent of GOP primary voters considered themselves conservative (that’s compared to 73 percent in the 2000 Iowa Caucuses). McCain edged Bush 37-35 percent with conservatives.
- McCain won 48 percent of Pat Buchanan voters.
- McCain won registered Republicans 44-35. That’s right: had this been a closed primary, McCain still would have won by nearly 10 points.
The underlying demographics are also tough for a Mitt Romney or a Mike Huckabee: - Just 16 percent of voters considered themselves “religious right” — that number was 37 percent in Iowa.
- 20 percent were Born Again or Evangelical.
- Just 36 percent attended religious services weekly or more. 42 percent of voters nationally fell into this category, both Republican and Democrat. One imagines the number was well north of 50 percent for Bush voters.
What’s changed since 2000? For one thing, New Hampshire has become more Democratic as the footprint of Metro Boston continues to expand. The Republican Party has shrunk, leaving the GOP primary more apt to be influenced by independents. If anything, these unfolding trends only reinforce the likelihood of a McCain blowout on January 8th.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini
at
2:42 PM
This is astonishing: LOWRY: If you don't mind, I want to ask you a domestic policy question, a straight talk question, if you will. In retrospect, was it a mistake for you to vote against the Bush tax cuts? MCCAIN: No, because I had significant tax cuts, and there was restraint of spending included in my proposal. I saw no restraint in spending. We presided over the greatest increase in the size of government since the Great Society. Spending went completely out of control. It's still out of control. Wasteful earmark spending is a disgrace, and it caused us to alienate our Republican base.
Real fiscal conservatives understand that tax relief is a good in and of itself, generating economic growth and keeping the government's grubby hands off more of our money. John McCain doesn't. Spending is a real problem, but to tie spending to tax cuts is nothing more than a liberal ploy to keep taxes high. Why do you think Nancy Pelosi rushed to institute PAYGO rules as her first order of business in the House? Since Ronald Reagan, lower taxes have been the glue that have held the modern Republican party together. What other tax cuts would McCain have deferred? The Reagan tax cuts? The recent patch to the AMT -- which hits New Hampshire especially hard? To nominate a candidate who would jettison this unifying principle would represent an profound and permanent change for the worse for the Republican party. New Hampshire must vote no.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
12:34 AM
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
10:15 PM
 Sparked by the combination of the books I have been reading and by Patrick's post below, one comment about Senator McCain: He has survived as a candidate because of the legendary toughness he displayed as an American hero enduring the worst the communists could throw at him. The beautiful film, The Kite Runner, is a movie about courage, and it evokes the old line from Thucydides: "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage." It also reminds us of the brutality of the enemy we are facing, and their fanaticism. A president will need courage in great quantities in the years ahead. Courage is not enough to make a good president, but it more than enough to make a great man. I hope the senator does not get close to the nomination because on the issues there is a vast gulf between him and the center of the GOP, and others seeking the nomination will also bring courage to the office, though of course nothing like Senator McCain's sacrifice on behalf of the country. But his appeal is obvious: The world's bad guys would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the U.S. through terror. That could not be said with certainty of any of the Democrats, and it is ultimately why Republicans would put aside their many differences with the Arizona senator and support his candidacy whole-heartedly if he somehow figured out a path to the nomination. The same is true of Rudy, Mitt and Fred. Each has earned a number of political enemies in the course of the campaign, but the party would unify behind any of them because they understand the war, and are generally conservative. I sincerely do not believe that would be the case with Mike Huckabee, as many Republicans would see in his economic populism a deal killer, while others would worry that even Hillary would be tougher on the bad guys in crisis. I would vote and work for him, but in a Kite Runner world, Mike Huckabee would see a lot of Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary on the theory that she is at least toughened by years in the arena and political crisis after political crisis.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
7:28 PM
By Patrick Ruffini
In preparation for a John McCain presidential run, I clipped out what is perhaps the seminal article on McCain’s transformation from a Goldwater conservative to a maverick quasi-Democrat during the 2000 campaign and the early Bush years. Jonathan Chait’s assessment of just how far McCain had gone to the left in the April 29, 2002 issue of The New Republic stood out even at the time. I Googled it a few years later, and saved the full text. It is no longer available on TNR’s website.
The piece is heavy on speculation of a McCain presidential run as a Democrat. That issue has been discussed in this campaign. But it also sets the context in which these rumors swirled, laying out factual reasons for why John McCain (D-AZ) made sense. McCain was the chief Republican enabler of the Democrat-led Senate not just on campaign finance, but on taxes, health care, CAFE standards, guns, global warming, and corporate governance. People who were not active in politics in the first year of the Bush presidency may wonder “Why all the fuss?” about McCain. This article is why.
McCain denies ever considering a party switch, but he certainly did allow his aides, including then-Democrats John Weaver and Marshall Wittmann, to flirt with the idea:
John Weaver hunches his angular frame over a Styrofoam cup of coffee in the basement cafeteria of the United States Senate and tries to explain what might seem–to an outsider–his peculiar political loyalties. Once a loyal Republican strategist who directed the presidential aspirations of ber-conservative Phil Gramm and helped plot John McCain’s maverick primary run in 2000, he has since reregistered as a Democrat and severed consulting ties to all Republicans except McCain, for whom he still serves as chief strategist. “I only work for Democrats now,” he tells me. Noticing that he has overlooked the party affiliation of his most prominent advisee, I helpfully add: “And John McCain.” Weaver shrugs his shoulders and grins, “Oh, right.”
On his transformation during the 2000 campaign:
Pretty soon McCain was veering off in directions nobody could have foreseen even a few months before, openly pointing out that Bush’s tax cut favored the rich and attacking influential religious conservatives like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as “forces of evil.” As Marshall Wittmann, who advised McCain during the primary, puts it, “Ideologically, we all changed.”
Note: Wittmann was an ur-weblogger in 2001, blogging at “The Bull Moose,” which I read daily. A McCain independent run was a prominent hobbyhorse of his, and he was later hired back as McCain’s Senate communications director.
The prominent issues on which McCain sided with Democrats and against Republicans are as long as my arm, including a much-overlooked attack on Second Amendment rights:
The degree to which McCain has abandoned contemporary conservatism is reflected in the legislative program he has championed since Bush took office. Most notably, of course, he shepherded campaign finance reform–an effort that put him in close cooperation with Democrats in Congress. McCain also collaborated with liberal Democrats John Edwards and Ted Kennedy on a patients’ bill of rights; with Charles Schumer on more widespread sale of generic prescription drugs; with Ernest Hollings to put federal employees in charge of airport security–all of which set him against fierce business lobbying. And he teamed up with Evan Bayh to promote AmeriCorps, an effort Bush later co-opted with his own smaller AmeriCorps boost.
But perhaps most amazing has been McCain’s willingness to take stands even many Democrats are afraid of. He voted against Bush’s tax cut, the centerpiece of the new president’s agenda. Along with John Kerry, he sponsored legislation to raise automobile emissions standards, and he paired with Joe Lieberman to try to force Bush to reduce greenhouse gases in compliance with the Kyoto accord. Also with Lieberman, McCain has proposed forcing people who buy firearms at gun shows to undergo background checks–closing the “gun-show loophole”–even as most Democrats shy away from any form of gun control. He has infuriated the gambling industry by proposing to ban wagering on college sports. And along with Carl Levin, he has co-sponsored a bill to force companies that deduct executive stock options from their taxes to disclose the cost on their financial statements–another effort few Democrats have been willing to join.
It was no wonder that,
on high-profile issues, McCain’s legislative coalitions consist entirely, or almost entirely, of Democrats.
McCain likes to paint himself as the true economic conservative in the race. Here’s what he was saying on this just a few years ago, sounding more like Upton Sinclair than Ronald Reagan:
In the last year though his ideology has grown coherently progressive. “We have had regulatory agencies always to curb the abuses or potential abuses of the capitalist system,” he said earlier this year on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “This is not a totally laissez-faire country.”
And here is his dodgy, conflicted rhetoric on Life:
Moreover, it has gotten hard to discern to what degree McCain is actually anti-abortion at all. At one point during his primary run, he told a reporter that “certainly in the short term or even the long term I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.” Another time, when asked what he would do if his daughter sought an abortion, McCain replied that he’d leave the final decision to her. In both instances, he restated his anti-abortion position after the ensuing uproar, but polls showed that voters believed he was pro-choice. In the last year McCain reversed himself and came out in favor of stem-cell research. So while it’s hard to figure out where he stands, the best guess is that he remains personally against abortion but neutral, or even opposed to, making it illegal.
None of this is entirely new. But since June of 2004 (when McCain did an about-face from his role as Kerry surrogate-in-chief against the Swiftvets, and decided to campaign actively for the President), he has done a surprisingly good job of cloaking his Senate record. For months, we have heard him talk about nothing except the war and earmarks. In this topsy-turvy campaign, it’s easy for Republicans to get caught up in the other candidates’ flaws and forget why they distrusted McCain.
This piece is a vivid reminder why, in living color. I’ve reposted it in full below so you can judge for yourself.
Read it before you vote.
UPDATE from Hugh: I have deleted the Chaitt article as I don't see a reprint permission from TNR or Jonathan Chaitt. If we get the OK, I will be pleased to repost it.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
5:47 PM
 George Weigel is the Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and the author of many fine books, including a highly regarded biography of John Paul II. Now Weigel has written Faith, Reason, and the War against Jihadism, and after an hour with it this afternoon, I know it belongs on that shelf of essential books on the war which I referenced in the past. Two paragraphs from the introduction:
The war in which we now find ourselves began before 9/11. We did not recognize its opening shots for what they were when fatwas authorizing the murder of all Americans were issued from caves in the Hindu Kush, or when American embassies were bombed in East Africa, or when, in the port of Aden, the USS Cole had a huge hole blown in its side by al Qaeda operatives who had rigged themselves into human torpedoes. The war is now being fought on multiple fronts, with more likely to come. Many are interconnected: There is an Afghan front, an Iraqi front, an Iranian front, a Lebanese/Syrian front, a Gaza front, a Somali front, a North Africa/Maghreb front, a Sudanese front, a Southeast Asian front, an intelligence front, a financial-flows front, an economic front, an energy front, and a homeland security front. These are all fields of fire --some kinetic, others of a different sort-- in the same global war, and they must be understood as such. Al Qaeda attacks on the United States and American diplomatic and military assets were, for example, planned in the Philippines and other parts of Southeast Asia. Places unknown to the vast majority of Americans are know among the most evil places on earth, as one U.S. Special Forces officer puts it; what happens in locales previously unknown save in the most recondite geography bees --North Waziristan-- has direct effects on our armed forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. What is being plotted in such places could have devastating effects on the homeland.
Bernard Lewis, the English-speaking world's pre-eminent scholar of the history of Islam, was reflecting on all of this and noted the difference between our times and the days when he worked for British intelligence, during the darkest period of World War II. Then, he told the Wall Street Journal, "we knew who we were, we knew who the enemy was, we knew the dangers and the issues. It is different today. We don't know who we are. We don't know the issues, and we still do not understand the nature of the enemy. Not knowing, and worse, not wanting to know, is lethal. That was proven beyond any doubt on 9/11; any similar events in the future will provide an exclamation point to what we should have grasped by now.
His short "Third Lesson," that "Jihadism is the enemy in the multifront war that been declared upon us," should end the long-running debate over what to call this conflict, and his examination of the theology of the jihadists is a necessary submersion for anyone serious about war. It is a relatively short but wonderfully written book, and you should get it. Send one to a member of the media. I mentioned in a post last night the book I am currently listening to, The Nuclear Jihadist, by Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins. You really need to read this as well to understand why the crisis in Pakistan is so troubling. The book not only charts the rise of A.Q. Khan and his nuclear network, but also provides an introduction into the history and politics of Pakistan as well as U.S. foreign policy towards the country which will make the current events much more understandable.  I have been hunting for good Pakistan-centric blogs the past few days, and thus far think All Things Pakistan is the best, though I welcome pointers via hugh@hughhewitt.com. The other titles on the shelf: Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower:  Mark Steyn's America Alone Norman Podhoretz's World War IV Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts and Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts  And Bernard Lewis' The Crisis of Islam
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
4:44 PM
From the New York Times:
Mitt Romney got a surprise endorsement on Saturday from the Rev. Morris Hurd, chairman of the Iowa Christian Alliance, a prominent conservative Christian group in the state, as he introduced the former Massachusetts governor at a rally tonight.
Officials with the group typically avoid making public endorsements because of their tax-exempt status, but Mr. Hurd blurted out his decision tonight in what felt like a bit of an accident.
“I’ll tell you a little secret,” he told the audience of more than 200 people. “I haven’t told anybody else this. I’ll tell this secret out here. Next Thursday, when I go to the caucuses, I’m going to cast my vote for Governor Mitt Romney.”
Neither Mr. Hurd, nor Mr. Romney, who took the microphone afterward, identified Mr. Hurd as the chairman of the Alliance’s board.
“I don’t think I’m supposed to endorse a candidate,” said Mr. Hurd afterward, when the Caucus approached him. “I hope I don’t get in trouble.”
Mr. Hurd downplayed the weight of his endorsement, but Tim Albrecht, Mr. Romney’s Iowa campaign spokeman, called it a “huge validator.” Team Romney also blasted back at Mike Huckabee's attacks made this morning on Meet The Press:
-
To correct Governor Mike Huckabee's misstatements on "Meet The Press" today, Governor Mitt Romney released the following statement reiterating his support for our pro-life and pro-Second Amendment platform:
"Just days before the people of Iowa begin the process of selecting the Republican nominee, I want to reiterate my commitment to our party's pro-life and pro-Second Amendment values. I am proud to be firmly pro-life. As Governor, every decision I made came down on the side of life and I will be a pro-life President. When it comes to protecting the Second Amendment, I do not support any new gun laws including any new ban on semi-automatic firearms. As President, I will follow President Bush's precedent of opposing any laws that go beyond the restrictions in place when I take office. The laws I do and will support include decades-old restrictions on weapons of unusual lethality like grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic firearms and what are legally known as destructive devices and would include similar restrictions on new and exotic weapons of similar or even greater lethality. I am proud of my record of defending life and the Second Amendment."
Read More...
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
1:32 PM
With Governor Huckabee on MTP, and Senator McCain on This Week, Team Romney was busy this morning. Here's their fact-check on John McCain's that he has never supported amnesty.
Here's their fact check on many Huck statements. Politico's Jonathan Martin reports on the chaos in the Huckabee camp. (Why did Joe Carter leave the campaign? He was the best thing MH had going for him.) Key graph:
Huckabee’s slide can be explained by a series of inter-related factors. His rise came right as the media began to closely cover the campaign, he and his undermanned campaign organization have been ill-prepared to push back against broadsides from both the media and Romney, and his positions and rhetoric have drawn the enmity of a constellation of groups within the conservative establishment. Martin compares Huckabee's campaign to Senator McCain's of 2000 when conservative groups almost all backed Bush and opposed the Arizona senator. It is very difficult to win an open race for the Republican nomination if you can't appeal to a significant portion of each of the three circles of GOP support --the foreign policy conservatives, the free market conservatives, and the social conservatives. Huck has strong support only among the social conservatives, and McCain only among the hawks. Romney, by comparison, has strong support in all three groups, as do Rudy and Fred. (Social conservatives are more than the pro-lifers and include the tough-on-crime-and-drugs/border security conservatives.)
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
1:22 PM
David Reinhard is an associate editor and columnist for the Oregonian. He has an excellent offering today. Key graphs:
Yes, we are a polarized nation. Our politics are embittered when they're not silly. Our presidential nomination process is out of control. But the Bhutto assassination reminds us of two things: One, how lucky we are. Two, how serious the stakes are in this election, because of events in Pakistan.
Our candidates don't hit the campaign trail fearing there are forces that want them dead or that the administration in power won't provide adequate security for them -- even after prior assassination attempts. A front-loaded primary schedule, ad nauseam debates, even vicious attack ads are trifles next to what Bhutto faced in Pakistan. And what the next American president will face in our dealings with Pakistan.
An already complex and dangerous -- perhaps impossible -- situation became all the more so as a result of last week's assassination and suicide bombing in Rawalpindi.
Pakistan is a central front in the war against Islamic jihadists, and Bhutto was the Pakistani leader most committed to fighting the war on terror. She had said, for example, she would let U.S. troops hunt down Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. She was a democrat and a force for moderation. It's still unclear if al-Qaida and its allies were responsible for her murder. But they swore they would kill her before she returned from exile, and here's what they claimed Thursday: "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen."
An enemy of the mujahadeen and a woman no less.
No matter who the GOP nominee is, I'll support him. And if the Democratic nominee wins in November, they'll need support in the war as well. Between Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, it will be an incredibly difficult term for the next president.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
10:49 AM
From Clark Judge, longtime Reagan and Bush I speechwriter:
Huckabee Stumbling
By Clark S. Judge, managing director, White House Writers Group
It is becoming a good bet that former Arkansas governor Michael Huckabee will fail in his hope to finish first in the Iowa GOP caucuses Thursday night.
The simple fact is that, despite poll numbers that rocketed skyward in recent weeks, the Huckabee campaign shows all the signs of being in trouble, and knowing it. After feeling secure enough to campaign elsewhere, the candidate has returned to the Hawkeye state in the last couple of days and has uncharacteristically lashed out at his closest rival, Mitt Romney, in a clearly ill-advised press conference.
Talk with Republican loyalists almost anywhere in the nation and the reason becomes clear. While Huckabee is universally admired as a likeable, decent, honorable man with tremendous podium skills, a remarkably large proportion of GOP activists have decided he is unacceptable as the party’s 2008 standard-bearer. The reason is not personality but policy.
What might be called the Republican Project from Ronald Reagan to the present has had three parts, on which for only one, the social issues, is Huckabee seen as a plausible leader. In the party’s quest to promote entrepreneurially driven economic growth through lower taxes and less regulation and to keep the nation secure in a dangerous world, Huckabee is not considered a serious contender.
Romney’s ads about the former Arkansas governor’s record make this point. Huckabee charges that they are not true, but Romney is merely repeating what likely GOP caucus goers have already heard from other, credible sources and believe.
On the economy and taxes, for example, the independent, highly respected supply-side advocacy organization, the Club for Growth, has been at least as hard on the Baptist preacher turned politician as Romney. Its president, Pat Toomey, recently said, “Nominating Mike Huckabee… would constitute an abject rejection of the free-market, limited-government, economic conservatism that has been the unifying theme of the Republican Party for decades.” And while effectively calling Romney a liar for his ads, Huckabee has made no real effort to counter such charges not just from the Club for Growth but from other independent critics like the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
So the view is settling in that to nominate Huckabee would be to abandon the party’s devotion to economic policies that have made the United States the global growth champion not just as measured by grow domestic product but (despite the drumbeat to the contrary from Democrats) broadly based personal incomes. That is not going to happen.
On foreign policy, Huckabee’s candidacy is even more of a non-starter. Democrats may trumpet that the GOP candidates are all running from President Bush. The truth is that every serious contender but Huckabee has embraced the President’s policies if not always his execution in Iraq and the War on Terror. Huckabee’s now notorious Foreign Affairs article and his fumbling and uninformed comments following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto have convinced many that Huckabee is far from ready for prime time.
Since the late 1960s, the American people have turned to the GOP for leadership whenever the nation’s safety has dominated their concerns. Again, the view is settling in that Huckabee’s nomination would represent an abandonment of that legacy and responsibility.
So Huckabee is stumbling. Look for some of his supporters to leave him by Thursday and for boosters of candidates far back in the pack to decide to cast their ballots so he comes in second, rather than staying with their first choices. Because of the compressed calendar, Iowa cannot determine the GOP nominee this year, but it can exercise a veto. At this writing – despite Huckabee still leading in the Real Clear Politics average of polls – the candidate they effectively nix looks likely to be Mike Huckabee.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
11:37 PM
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
11:30 PM
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
10:33 PM
Mitt Romney's statement:
"Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq. This latest tape from Osama Bin Laden is further evidence that the surge is working. We need to maintain our resolve in wiping Al Qaeda off the map wherever we may find their depraved fighters. America remains committed to the people of Iraq and to helping forces of moderation across the Islamic world combat violent, extreme jihadists. This week has been a stark reminder of the threats faced by the civilized world. But ultimately, America will prevail in this defining struggle of our generation."
By contrast, Mike Huckabee is watching another alleged foreign policy advisor disavow a connection with Team Huck:
Huckabee said he had also spoken with...former national security adviser Richard Allen...
Reached via e-mail, Allen said an intermediary asked him to speak with Huckabee, but he hadn't yet agreed. "I'm gradually getting older, but am fully capable of recalling with whom I have spoken," said the former Nixon and Reagan foreign policy campaign adviser.
I think it is almost impossible for a voter tuned in to the complexities of the war to vote for Mike Huckabee. The other four GOPers at least understand the stakes and have teams of serious people advising them. Mike Huckabee has been running for president for a year and he doesn't have a list of advisors who will agree they are advisors?
Politico's Jonathan Martin (best new blogger of '07?) reports on the latest MittMail:
Mitt touts his endorsement from National Review and includes the less flattering comments they have for his GOP rivals in a new New Hampshire mail piece hitting Granite State households today.
The most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning in November is Mitt Romney. In every year since 1960 that assessment has marked the GOP nominee.
BTW: Governor Huckabee might want to read The Nuclear Jihadist by Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins. This book will keep most thinking people awake at night, and it reminds all voters why the U.S. can't vote for the nice guy, but must vote for the candidate with the capacity to deal with the world as it is --a very, very dangerous place. That means a vote for either Romney, Giuliani or Thompson. I will almost certainly vote for Mitt in the California primary, but I can enthusiastically support Rudy and get behind Fred with energy as well. But I think Mike Huckabee is not ready for the presidency, and that John McCain is burdened with too much baggage to win, though I would vote for either of them over any of the Dems.
Here's the book:
Frantz and Collins deliver a brusque reminder: It wasn't just Iran that the naif Carter lost, but Pakistan as well. The coup that took down Benazir Bhutto's father --with all his nuclear ambitions-- occured on July 5, 1977. A. Q. Khan's network, already established, flourished under Jimmy Carter, another former governor of a small southern state, and metastasized under Bill Clinton, another former governor of a small southern state. Reagan and Bush, the book makes clear, are not blameless in this slowly exploding crisis, but Carter and Clinton are completely clueless and erratic throughout their presidencies, as is the CIA. Why? Because the two presidents thought the world was Atlanta and Little Rock, respectively, and because the CIA was under assault from Dems running key committees in the Congress.
The world is in danger of attacks that could send it spinning out of any ordinary cycle. The West needs a leader that has the character and capacity to absorb and act on the many information flows that inform the Oval Office. He (or she) will have to be able to project sunny optimism about the decade ahead while practising a steely resolve to survive.
We need another Reagan. I think that is Romney.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini
at
9:12 PM
In 2000, it took till South Carolina and Virginia for the gaffes to start rolling off the assembly line. In the wake of McCain’s “phony” attack, it looks like the pressure may be getting to him. There’s this: McCain — asked about Romney’s latest immigration attack in New Hampshire — says “Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty — and the pig likes it.”
And then this: MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain joked Friday that given his campaign’s ups and downs, he’s shown the stamina of the last man on Earth. “I’ve been declared dead in this campaign on five or six occasions. I won’t refer to a recent movie I saw, but I think I am legend,” he told reporters, referring to the film in which Will Smith stars as the last man on Earth.
Oy.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
5:13 PM
Lester Holt asked Governor Huckabee about border security and Pakisitan this morning. The former Arkansas governor's reply included the wrong assertion that Benazir Bhutto had been running for president of Pakistan when she was assassinated:
HOLT: Governor, are you saying the main reason for a border fence is to keep out Pakistani terrorists and not illegal Mexicans?
HUCKABEE: No, not at all. And if the context of my statement would be completely examined, I said, "How does this affect people in Iowa today?" Because sometimes people look at the assassination of Prime Minister Bhutto and they say, "How does this affect me?" The fact that the former Prime Minister and Presidential candidate was assassinated in Pakistan, it does touch the world. I was simply drawing a line to say that there are no ways we can isolate these world events from our own lives. And the fact that violence in Pakistan, a very unstable situation there, does have an effect upon us here in America. that's exactly what I was bringing home. And that point is quite valid.
A third consecutive day of foreign policy pratfalls isn't a way of locking down a base vote in a time of international crisis.
Keeping the pressure on the increasingly angry sounding McCain campaign, Team Romney released another ad on the Arizona senator's record on illegal immigration.
The Romney camp also released two e-mails on McCain.
The first --originaly posted this morning but which I tookdown because of its code's impact on the site-- read:
THE MCCAIN WAY
Campaign Launches Negative Personal Attack
To Avoid Addressing Substantive Issues |
|
"Senator McCain has a troubling history of neglecting substantive issues and getting personal in his attacks against those who happen to disagree with him. It’s the McCain way." – Romney Spokesman Kevin Madden
Sen. McCain Cannot Explain His Positions, And So He Launches Negative Personal Attacks:
Sen. McCain Can't Address Criticism Of His Tax And Immigration Policies Because He "Has No Good Response." "Both responses by McCain have this in common -- they fail entirely to address the substance of Romney's criticism. The reason, of course, is that McCain has no good response. He did oppose tax cuts, support for which does lie at the essence of Reagan conservatism. Similarly, he did support comprehensive immigration reform and his line on that support now is a grudging acknowledgement that the American people (though not necessarily McCain) want border security first." (Paul Mirengoff, "Romney's Point," Power Line Blog, www.powerlineblog.com, Posted 12/27/07)
Sen. McCain Complains That Discussing Policy Positions Is "Attacking." SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: "If there’s any doubt that we’re doing well, it’s when Mitt Romney starts attacking." (National Review Online, Posted 12/28/07)
And Now, Sen. McCain Has Launched A Negative Personal Attack On Gov. Romney. "'I begin the ad by indicating he’s an honorable man,' Mr. Romney said. 'I believe he is a good person. I make no attacks on his character, no attacks of a personal nature whatsoever. I’ve just seen the text of his ad. It’s obviously of a very different nature. It’s an attack ad. It attacks me personally. It’s nasty. It’s mean-spirited. Frankly, it tells you more about Senator McCain than it does about me that he’d run an ad like that.'" (Marc Santora, "McCain Ad: Right Back At Ya, Mitt," The New York Times' Caucus Blog, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, Posted 12/28/07)
Launching Negative Personal Attacks Is The McCain Way – As Seen In The 2000 Campaign:
In 2000, Sen. McCain Ran An Attack Ad Comparing Then-Gov. Bush To Bill Clinton. SEN. MCCAIN: "I guess it was bound to happen. Governor Bush's campaign is getting desperate, with a negative ad about me. The fact is, I'll use the surplus money to fix Social Security, cut your taxes and pay down the debt. Governor Bush uses all of the surplus for tax cuts, with not one new penny for Social Security or the debt. His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We're all pretty tired of that. As president, I'll be conservative and always tell you the truth. No matter what." (McCain 2000, Campaign Ad, 2/9/00)
To watch the 2000 campaign ad, click here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoXkCprdL4
Gov. Romney: McCain's Latest Attack Is Reminiscent Of The 2000 Campaign. "'It’s reminiscent of what he did against George W. Bush in 2000, which as you recall, he accused President Bush of twisting the truth like Bill Clinton,' he said. 'Again, this is the kind of nasty, personal attack, which really doesn’t have a place in this process.'" (Marc Santora, "McCain Ad: Right Back At Ya, Mitt," The New York Times' Caucus Blog, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, Posted 12/28/07)
These, On The Other Hand, Are Substantive Facts – Not Negative Personal Attacks:
FACT: In 2001, McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Vote Against The $1.35 Trillion Bush Tax Cut. The bill lowered marginal rates, eliminated the marriage penalty, and doubled the child tax credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31; I 0-0, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay)
FACT: In 2003, McCain Was One Of Only Three Republicans To Twice Vote Against The $350 Billion Bush Tax Cut. The comprehensive bill lowered taxes by $350 billion over 11 years – including increasing the child tax credit and eliminated the marriage penalty. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 50-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay)
FACT: In 2002, McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Twice Vote Against Permanent Repeal Of The Death Tax. (S. 1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay, H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay)
FACT: McCain Sponsored An Immigration Plan To Allow 11 Million Illegals To Remain In The U.S. "The McCain plan -- which is being put forward in the U.S. House by Arizona GOP Congressmen Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe -- allows the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. to stay in the country if they apply for legal status and pay a $2,000 fine." (Mike Sunnucks, "Napolitano, Hayworth Criticize Bush On Illegal Immigration," The Phoenix Business Journal, 2/1/06)
- Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Called The McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill "Amnesty." "[McCain] has also teamed up with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), a liberal Democrat, on an immigration bill that many conservatives despise. 'It would have legalized and provided a path for citizenship, which is amnesty, for 66.1 million people,' said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who has called Kennedy and McCain 'amnesty mercenaries.'" (Michael D. Shear, "McCain Fighting To Recapture Maverick Spirit Of 2000 Bid," The Washington Post, 3/15/07)
- Manchester Union Leader Editorial: McCain-Kennedy Proposal "Would Encourage Border Jumping." "Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy have a bill that, surprise, includes a generous guest worker program that would encourage border jumping. Illegals who register would have to pay a fine and taxes, but they would get to stay here and apply for permanent residency. That sure beats waiting at the border and hoping to be let in." (Editorial, "Turnstile Security," The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 3/27
| The second, blasting McCain for an appearance on Hannity & Colmes where McCain asserts he'd vote again against the Bush tax cuts, reads:
SEN. MCCAIN: I'D STILL VOTE AGAINST BUSH TAX CUTS |
|
"'The Bush tax cuts were a driving force behind the economic prosperity of the last couple of years and a cornerstone of a pro-growth philosophy,' said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. 'Not only did Senator McCain oppose these cuts, he aligned himself with the likes of Ted Kennedy in his rhetorical attacks in 2001 and 2003. Four years later, American taxpayers still have not heard the Senator disavow his misguided statements and votes.'" ("John McCain's Record on Economic Issues," The Club For Growth, 3/12/07)
Watch Sen. McCain says he'd still vote against the Bush tax cuts: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F1IuoR-o24
Sen. McCain Says It Was NOT A Mistake To Vote Against The Bush Tax Cuts…
NATIONAL REVIEW'S RICH LOWRY: "Senator, things are really heating up on the campaign trail. If you don't mind, I want to ask you a domestic policy question, a straight talk question, if you will. In retrospect, was it a mistake for you to vote against the Bush tax cuts?" SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: "No, because I had significant tax cuts, and there was restraint of spending included in my proposal." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 12/28/07)
…But Now Says The Tax Cuts Need To Be Made Permanent…
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: "So these tax cuts need to be made permanent. Otherwise, they would have the effect of tax increases." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 12/28/07)
…Yet Given The Chance To Do It Over Again, Sen. McCain Would Still Vote AGAINST The Bush Tax Cuts:
RICH LOWRY: "Senator, specifically on tax cuts, even those these tax cuts help the economy grow, the deficit, which you were concerned about at the time, has actually gone down. So if you had it to do over again, you still would still vote against the Bush tax cuts?" SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: "Well, actually the deficit is still significant, but spending is out of control. …" RICH LOWRY: "But you're saying you stick by your vote. It was the right thing to vote against the Bush tax cut?" SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: "Yes, Rich, perhaps I'm speaking in a different language to you…" RICH LOWRY: "I'm persistent, if nothing else." SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: "…as part of those tax cuts. As a part, I would have restrained spending. And if we would had restrained spending, as we should have, as part of that package, then we would be talking about further tax cuts today. And I want to add, these tax cuts must be made permanent. They must be made permanent." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 12/28/07)
| New Hampshire's independent voters may want McCain-Kennedy-style immigration "reform," and they resent the Bush tax cuts. But New Hampshire's Republican voters are not that out of step with the party's center.
|
The Latest on TownHall.com
|