So Long Suckers

January 31, 2008

Both Rudy Giuliani [NBC News] and John Edwards [Washingtonpost.com] dropped out of the race today. A year ago, I would have named each of these men as their respective party’s most electable candidate. Turns out, neither one campaigned as their party (or at least the voters) expected: Giuliani didn’t give a damn and Edwards gave too much of a damn.

I don’t think there’s much of a question around whose endorsement is worth more to the recipient - that would be Giuliani - but it will be more interesting to see who Edwards will endorse, if anyone. Meanwhile, I think a McCain endorsement out of Giuliani is a good bet.

Update: Turns out Giuliani endorsed McCain during his concessions speech [Financial Times]. And with Rudy out of the race, apparently McCain is the only “American hero” left and he’s got the former Mayor and even Arnie on his side to prove it:

After announcing his exit, Mr Giuliani said Mr McCain was “the most qualified candidate” to be president, describing him as someone who could be “trusted in times of crisis”.

Mr McCain said he was honoured to have won the support of an “American hero”, referring to Mr Giuliani’s leadership of New York after the September 11 attacks, and vowed to use him as a “strong right arm” in tackling terrorism.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, is expected on Thursday to endorse Mr McCain, aides to the Arizona senator were reported as saying, adding momentum to his campaign.

Mr Schwarzenegger recently told the Financial Times that Mr McCain was an “action hero” who had proved he could cope with the pressure of being ­president. “In the end, when people go in the voting booth, those are the things they carry with them in there. They don’t remember so much all the policies,” he said.


Spamming For Closed Borders and Closed Minds

January 29, 2008

Today’s Republican primary is big. Crucial for some [AP], life or death for others [Baltimore Sun]. Which would explain why some interest groups are turning to spam to get the dirtiest messages across:

Floridians  for  Immigration  Enforcement

AMNESTY Truth Express On the Move

FL East Coast Report:

Thanks to the folks who helped with the Florida East Coast AMNESTY Truth Express.  We were able to hand out many amnesty information flyers, show the “McCain=AMNESTY” sign on the van to many and provide live reports to three talk radio shows.

No, I was not in Jacksonville over the weekend protesting John McAmnesty, but apparently Floridians for Immigration Enforcement wanted to thank me with a spam-mail anyway. You know, in order to heighten the debate:

Senator McAMNESTY has appointed a former Mexican Cabinet official as a Director in his campaign!  And this is the new McCain who professes immigration enforcement#$%@?  McCain for President —- of Mexico!

More Multiculturalism:

Actually, this is more like transnationalism. A reader alerted me to the fact that McCain’s “Hispanic Outreach Director” is the same guy who held that job for Mexico’s President Vicente Fox!

…Demonstrators Needed for SW FL:

Sen. McCain and illegal immigration:

But this has not been the case with his disingenuous blustering on illegal immigration - particularly when his cosponsorship of mass-amnesty legislation with Sen. Edward Kennedy is raised.

Mel Martinez to endorse McCain!

Ah, nothing like a little last minute campaign-bigotry.


No Comment

January 10, 2008

About a year ago the Boston Globe appeared to be dead ink, but the Beantown flagship is proving vital in its election coverage, particularly the way it’s utilizing web tools. Coverage of its survey on the candidates’ views on executive privilege is the best example of this:

The study is the most comprehensive effort to date to get the candidates to declare in specific terms what checks and balances they would respect, and whether they would reverse the Bush administration’s legacy of expanded presidential powers.

“These are essential questions that all the candidates should answer,” said Illinois Senator Barack Obama in responding to the survey. “The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility - particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this administration.”

The last paragraph was part of Barack Obama’s answer to “Question 12,” which asked, in summary, if the other 11 questions were worth asking and answering. These were questions of presidential powers under the constitution, the validity of signing statements, presidential authority over interrogation techniques, the president’s authority to disregard international treaties, and many other salient issues. Other candidates thoughts on whether these are important questions to answer:

Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani declined to answer this question.

In fact, Mayor Giuliani, Governor Huckabee, and Senator Thompson declined to answer every question.


Celebri-Politicing

December 10, 2007

The campaign fodder this weekend will proabably provide more ink to US Weekly than it will the economist - and there’s already plenty of video of the latest camera-friendly endorsers of various candidates:

30,000 turn out to see Oprah pitch The Audacity of Hope in South Carolina.

The New York Times covers Chelsea Clinton’s turn on the campaign trail in response to Oprah/Obama theatrics.

Curt Schilling brings the heat for John McCain in a new campaign ad.

And Obama goes beyond Oprah and Hollywood - pursues critical Bollywood vote. (Thanks, CM)

Also, Rudy Giuliani got plenty of TV time this morning on Meet The Press:

The only guest on Russert’s “Meet the Press,” Giuliani endured the most exhaustive and at times withering examination of his personal character and business dealings of his campaign.

To the glee of fellow Presidential contenders who’ve grudgingly marvelled at his political staying power, the Republican frontrunner spent nearly all of an hour playing defense, attempting to deflect a flurry of questions about his relationship with indicted pal Bernard Kerik and Kerik’s mistress Judith Regan, controversial corporate clients and his own tangled personal life.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out in the press tomorrow and into next week - Russert did do his best to grill him, but personally I observed two things: 1. Russert isn’t that good at ‘grilling’ anymore and 2. Giuliani wasn’t squirming and did well to answer questions about tough subjects (as opposed to tough questions). My personal favorite was Giuliani straight-up laughing at Russert’s assertion that he ‘worked for Hugo Chavez’ simply because Citgo was a client of his law firm. Ridiculous. Giuliani should have countered that Russert worked for Donald Rumsfeld since NBC is owned by GE who also makes jet engines for the Department of Defense.


Why Giuliani is (or should be) Finished

November 29, 2007

The story summary: According to Politico, Giuliani expensed many trips to Southampton (where his then mistress was based) to City Hall using a security detail that cost tens(maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars. The kicker: the city auditors conducted an investigation right after Giuliani left office–not now–and was “unable to verify that these
expenses were legitimate”. The expenses were billed to obscure agencies that no one had heard about to cover it up. One obscure agency “the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office” was billed $400,000. The auditors kept asking for an explanation after America’s Mayor left office;  America’s Mayor denied citing security. P0liitco just got documents that reveal the auditor’s efforts…

Giulinai calls it a hit job, likely prompted by opposition research. But that doesn’t explain why city auditors right after he left office could not locate a legitimate reason for the expenses, and were puzzled by the fact that the expenses were charged to ridiculous sources.

 There are many reasons not to vote for Giuliani. His thuggish authoritarian narcissism is the principal one and we have ample proof of it–the way he decided to locate the WTC center, his attempts to censor the Met, his attempts to marginalize the 911 firefighters, etc. This is an incident that validates all of those characteristics and confirms what we already know: this man is not fit to be president.


Holiday State of Play: Rudy Giuliani

November 25, 2007

Rudy Giuliani

  •  Where He Stands Now: Way out in front on the national polls against Republicans and is fairing well when paired in hypothetical polls against Democrats. The Mayor of New York City during the crisis of September 11th, Rudy Giuliani also spearheaded the recovery effort for New York City after 9/11 and he was an instrumental leader of our nation’s largest city when terrorists attacked; he stands strong against the terror that threatens our borders as it did on September 11th, 2001…

  • Why He Stands a Chance: Because it’s actually possible to mention 9/11 exactly 911 times in a 30 second campaign-advertisement.

  • Who Stands Up For Him: The Wall Street Journal, The Federalist Society, Fox News, Pat Robertson, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes…

  • Lingering Questions: Will supporters remain blinded by glaring contradiction of their support?

Previously published by The Fletcher Ledger


It Doesn’t Matter What You’re Selling

November 12, 2007

The Sunday campaign chatter this week definitely settles around Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. This has commentators talking in circles because Rudy Giuliani is a pro-choice cross-dresser and every one knows conservative Christians don’t themselves cross-dress or let their daughters have abortions. Hmmm…so why on earth would Reverend Pat Robertson do Rudy?

Well, it’s not because there’s not a suitable candidate for Robertson and the folks he supposedly represents (notice all of these stereotypes and affiliations are media-driven) - on paper, Mike Huckabee would be a tough candidate to argue with. Not a likely winner you say? Well what about Mitt? As family values as they come and marginally better when it comes to abortion…but to answer Mitt’s own question: yes, apparently the Mormon thing is a big deal.

And to answer the question the media has been asking all weekend: the only value that matters is that of having a Republican in the White House. In 2000, Republicans realized the power of playing to family-values oriented Evangelicals, but in 2008, it appears as if the Evangelicals are looking to play to the homeland-security oriented moderates. Perhaps there’s a new driver behind the wheel and that’s what has everyone confused.

If that’s too much of a stretch, try this explanation from The Atlantic’s Hanna Rosin:

Forget about abortion and gay rights for a moment…it doesn’t matter what you’re selling; it matters who you are, and how you sell. It matters that people believe you, trust in you. Giuliani “is like Reagan, only more results- oriented,” says the Republican pollster Frank Luntz. “And people are willing to vote for people they don’t agree with if they see character. They are so desperate for someone to lift their spirits.”


“A Noun, a Verb, and 9/11″

November 3, 2007

Completely sunk in work this week, I missed the debate and a lot of the coverage. Trying to catch up today and most of what’s worth reading is coming out of London. The Financial Times [might need a subscription...] provides excellent commentary and is sure to throw in the above Biden gem:

…it is historically the case that candidates run to their party’s activist extremes to secure a nomination and then run back to the middle to win a general election, so the GOP establishment may be taking the long view that Mr Romney will come to his senses eventually, if he can find them.

Mr Giuliani’s affinity with the neocons makes more transparent sense. They talk the sort of tough game that is the basis of the candidacy of the man saved from political oblivion, the fate of most New York mayors, before the events of September 11 2001 transformed him into a national figure. As Mr Biden neatly put it in the Democratic debate this week, a Giuliani stump speech consists of three elements – a noun, a verb and 9/11.

I’ll post a longer chunck of that article below - an excellent look at how choosing advisers during the primaries is a lot like choosing a jacket for the debate. But first, more from Britain - The Economist has some numbers and says it will continue to poll thoughout the campaign [click to enlarge]:

economist-you-gov-poll.gif…and the commentary does well to pick-up on the real story from the Republican side:

This makes the race for the Republican nomination extremely hard to predict. As the primaries draw near, will voters learn more about Mr Giuliani and reject him?

And The Guardian delivers a nice scare for Democrats on Halloween:

The Christian right has shown that there is sufficient democratic space for movements to play a role in shaping the political narrative, regardless of who the electoral protagonists are, so long as those movements can prove their clout and exercise their independence.

“Some might compare the religious right to a snake,” a Wichita evangelist, Terry Fox, told the New York Times. “We may be in our hole right now, but we can come out and bite you at any time.” It’s time for progressives to get out of their hole and find some teeth.

As I type, an infomercial for Open the Eyes of My Heart blasts in the background…

Ok, with Halloween over, here’s hoping value voters won’t be scaring me again any time soon - and more from that great FT article:

On economic policy, Mr Giuliani is listening to the siren voices of another group whose time seemed to have passed. They are led by Steve Forbes, unable to parlay his advocacy of flat taxes into the Republican nomination back in 1996, and the like-minded Bill Simon, who lost a California governor’s race to an unpopular incumbent in 1998. At least he is more of a born populist than them.

Comfortably the best assessment of the old Giuliani was provided by Calvin Trillin in his wickedly funny novel, Tepper Isn’t Going Out, about a New Yorker whose avocation is to sit in his car in scarce legal parking spaces, thus driving the city bananas. This was due to be released in the autumn of 2001 but publication was delayed for a year because it was considered too irreverent for those traumatic times.

In it, the mayor of New York has an Italian name (Ducatelli) and very authoritarian tendencies. He wants to be known as Duke (after John Wayne) but the local media insists on christening him Il Duce (after Mussolini). I think the Trillin book should be reissued now as a political tract.

Other pretenders have also attracted some high-profile advisers. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who ran Jimmy Carter’s national security council and has been an effective critic of neo-conservatism, is in the Obama corner, though he is probably a bit long in the tooth to get back into government. An adviser of longer standing, the very smart Samantha Power, now at Harvard, would surely feature prominently in an Obama administration.

John McCain, by no means out of the Republican race, still marches mostly to his own drum, which serves him best. Mike Huckabee does not appear to have anybody notable on board but if he continues to move up in the field he will not lack for foreign policy tutors.

In ancient times, once a nominee was chosen the respective parties would impose policy advisers on him, squeezing out the primary gurus. But the parties themselves are now so sundered that it is up to the candidate to pick a team. Dick Holbrooke knows that better than anyone.


Values Voters in Compromising Positions

October 22, 2007

The weekend’s campaign trope: values voters, do they still matter? Of course, the media aren’t ready to say no, but the question should really be of whether values voters are willing to compromise and cast a vote for Giuliani, McCain, or Romney (in descending order of compromise?). If Mike Huckabee manages to survive the first couple weeks of the primaries then I may be eating my words, but I really don’t think 2008’s Republican candidate will be even close to the Bushian ideal for a values voter.

The Christian Science Monitor nicely approaches this more realistic frame of conservative compromise:

The bad news is that the strongest Republican in national polls, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, is not with them on those issues. And if religious conservatives fail to coalesce around one of the “anti-Giulianis,” his chances of getting the nomination rise dramatically – and their issues, they fear, will be off the table. With the next president likely to replace two or more Supreme Court justices, including some who support abortion rights, the opportunity of a generation to overturn the nationwide right to abortion, established in Roe v. Wade, could be lost.

The next dilemma comes if Mr. Giuliani does get the nomination. Do they vote for him or even help his campaign anyway?

And the dilemma for Mr. Giuliani? Perhaps it’s very similar: how much is he willing to compromise his more liberal social views? I think he answered ‘a little here, a little there’ with a surprisingly eloquent and unifying speech at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit:

And like many of you, I think that we’ve got to find a way to be more inclusive. Christians and Christianity is all about inclusiveness. It’s built around the most profound act of love in human history isn’t it? It grew from a persecuted few people in the Roman Empire to the most widespread religion in the world by spreading a message of love, of hope, of faith, profound optimism, and with its hands out to everyone. They followed Christ’s commandment to administer to the sick and the needy. They reached out to the doubters and the non-believers, to the sinners. It was the love those early Christians displayed that drew first thousands and then millions to Christianity. Non-believers saw the display of love of Christians and said I want to be part of that. It must be a miracle behind that that people can love each other so much and care about each other so much. They can love each other so much that they can even forgive the people who persecuted them. This is a religion of inclusion. They were always looking for people to bring into the fold. They were truly defined by what they were for, not what they were against.

It’s a very good speech. And according to the polls, it better be, because Giuliani is not doing well with these voters. Of course, there’s always the problematic of who values voters are and the fact that white evangelical Christians have a monopoly on American values should be debunked quickly. Giuliani’s speech actually manages to make inroads in these directions as well. He probably won’t make it to the ends of those roads, but that doesn’t really matter, because fortunately the values of those dubbed ‘values voters’ will have to be compromised in this election and for elections to come.


Romney: Competence and Extremism

October 21, 2007

Romney is probably the most competent technocrat in the 2008 race. This Post article does a good job of outlining his varied experience with Bain Capital which he founded in 1984, as well as his stewardship of the Salt Lake city olympics through scandal-prone waters. (And not the least, it is astounding to see how deep his links with Bain Capital go, and how these continue to inform and shape the financial and operational logisitics of his presidential run).

Now, I think many of his proposed policies and his rhetoric, particularly as they pertain to the war on terror, are not just unsound they are catastrophically dangerous. His website unsubtly reveals all–the home page’s tag line grandstands, ”Mitt Romney: True Strength of America’s Future.” Like Giuliani, Romeny seems to be doubling up on the notion of never ending war with nebulous enemies all blurring into each other. He jumped on Edwards well-considered renunciation, not of the very important fight against extremist fanatics, but against propagandist rhetoric designed to scare Americans into acqueiscence to unchecked executive power. With that said though, there really isn’t any doubt that on pure competence terms (measured by prior experience), Romney may well be the best candidate. Too bad his views on American and world politics are even more reactionary than Bush. A functionally competent Bush wedded to even more extreme domestic and foreign policies–now that is something to be really scared of.