Monday, December 31, 2007 |
|
The 2000 NH Exit Poll |
|
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 |
|
Huck Vs. Russert |
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
3:19 PM |
|
On MEET THE PRESS on NBC on Sunday, Mike Huckabee received an appropriately aggressive grilling from Tim Russert --- and showed, once again, why those who write him off as a country-bumpkin/religious zealot/political-flash-in-the-pan utterly underestimate the guy and his appeal.
Yes, he couldn't defend his own stupid "plan" on immigration-- no one could -- but he was no more embarrassing on that issue than is Romney or Thompson (they're all pathetic -- and Rudy isn't much better. Only McCain speaks with anything like credibility on immigration).
Meanwhile, I've attached some of the excerpts of the transcript where Huckabee is hit hard-- and hits right back, effectively it seems to me. The selections begin with his response to Romney criticism about his foreign policy...
-----------------------------------------------------
And it's interesting to me that while a few weeks ago on this program Mitt Romney was very critical of me for making that statement, a few months earlier on MEET THE--rather, on "60 Minutes," he himself had talked about the major mistakes that had been made by the administration. He demanded of me an apology, but he did not demand of himself an apology for also being critical, as have most Republicans. Now, I think Republicans are big enough and maybe wise enough that we can be in disagreement with certain policies and still be behind our president and behind this administration in many of the things which they have done right. And I've been very complimentary of the president on the issues where I think he's been right. I stood by him in the war, I stood by him in the surge. I wasn't a latecomer like Mitt Romney was to believing that the surge was effective. And we've seen 76 percent decline in civilian deaths, 62 percent decline in military casualties since the surge began. It is working. We are finally beginning to see those signs of victory in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: You're suggesting that Mitt Romney's not running an honorable campaign.
GOV. HUCKABEE: I've been very clear about it. Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign. He's attacked me, and, and yesterday--or Friday, I guess it was, he launched then just a broadside attack against Senator McCain. Now, Senator McCain and I are rivals for the presidency, but I've said on many occasions, I'll say it again here today, Senator McCain is an honorable man, and I believe he's an honest man. I believe he's a man of conviction. And I felt like that, when Mitt Romney went after the integrity of John McCain, he stepped across a line. John McCain's a hero in this country. He's a hero to me.
And I just felt like that when Mitt Romney gets on your show and says that he had the NRA endorsement when he didn't; when he comes on and says he's pro-life and yet he signed a bill that gives a $50 co-pay for an elective abortion in his state's health care plan; when he claims that he's really for the Second Amendment, but he--on this show he talked about how he supported limitations and restrictions on lawful, law-abiding citizens having gun ownership rights, those are not the marks of a person who's pro-life and pro-Second Amendment. And then the things where he's made up these visions that he's had of marching with Martin Luther King and his dad marching with him. You know, Tim, what I've said, and I've been pretty blunt about it, if you aren't being honest in obtaining a job, can we trust you to be honest if you get the job?.....
------------------
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think some of the commercials that have been on the air talking about your record have hurt?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, they may have. I mean, people in Iowa have been bombarded. I mean, bombarded. Not only on commercials, but in the mail, at a time when most people were kind of looking forward to going out to the mailbox and picking up some nice Christmas cards, instead they were finding out what a bum Mike Huckabee is. And I don't know what kind of effect it has. People of Iowa, I think, like a positive campaign. But the relentless attacks--and they have been relentless. And when you're outspent 20-to-1, as I have been here in Iowa, you know, I think it's pretty amazing that I'm where I am.
MR. RUSSERT: But has Mitt Romney said anything that's untrue about you?
GOV. HUCKABEE: How long do we have on the program today? He's said many things that are untrue. He said that I reduced methamphetamine sentences in Arkansas. Truth is I signed a bill in 1999 that doubled those sentences. We did not reduce them. Our sentences were four times harsher than they were in Massachusetts. He said that I supported special breaks for illegal aliens. That's not true, Tim. We supported simply giving children who had earned a scholarship the same--it never happened, it didn't make the legislature. He made allegations that our increased spending by ridiculous amounts, and The New York Times came back and defended that, and said that's just simply not true. And they took him apart and showed that the increases in spending were, frankly, the same if not a little better than his if you took into consideration the accounting methods we changed in Arkansas, very modest gains in spending.
He made claims about things like tax increases, but he failed to mention that some of those were either court ordered or they were voted on by the people and approved by the people for things as roads. And I left my roads in great shape, took them from the worst in the country to what Truckers magazine said were the most improved. He left his roads in a mess in Massachusetts, with huge problems in the infrastructure. He claimed that he didn't raise taxes, but, in fact, he did raise taxes by half a billion dollars.
MR. RUSSERT: Fees.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Fees. It's a tax. If you're a small business person and you pay more money than you paid last year to the government, you can call it a fee, call it a tax, it's a three letter word that means the same.
..
--------------------------
On faith as central to America...
MR. RUSSERT: But where does this leave non-Christians?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Oh, it leaves them right in the middle of America. I think the Judeo-Christian background of this country is one that respects people not only of faith, but it respects people who don't have faith. The, the key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict. I think the First Amendment, Tim, is explicitly clear. Government should be restricted, not faith, government. And government's restriction is on two fronts: one, it's not to prefer one faith over another; and the second, it's not to prohibit the practice of somebody's religion, period.
MR. RUSSERT: So you'd have no problem appointing atheists to your Cabinet?
GOV. HUCKABEE: No, I wouldn't have any problem at all appointing atheists. I probably had some working for me as governor. You know, I think you got to realize if people want--say, "Well, you were a pastor," but I was a governor 10 1/2 years. I have more executive experience running a government. I was actually in a government position longer than I was a pastor. And if people want to know how I would blend these issues, the best way to look at it is how I served as a governor. I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple. You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the capitol. But my faith is important to me. I try to be more descriptive of it. I just don't want to run from it and act like it's not important. It drives my views on everything from the environment to poverty to disease to hunger. Issues, frankly, I think the Republicans need to take a greater leadership role in. And as a Republican, but as a Christian, I would want to make sure that we're speaking out on some of these issues that I think we've been lacking in as a party and as, as a nation.
-----------------------------------------------
on homosexuality....
MR. RUSSERT: But this is what concerns people. This, this is what you did say about homosexuality: "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle." That's millions of Americans.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Tim, understand, when a Christian speaks of sin, a Christian says all of us are sinners. I'm a sinner, everybody's a sinner. What one's sin is, means it's missing the mark. It's missing the bull's eye, the perfect point. I miss it every day; we all do. The perfection of God is seen in a marriage in which one man, one woman live together as a couple committed to each other as life partners. Now, even married couples don't do that perfectly, so sin is not some act of equating people with being murderers or rapists...
MR. RUSSERT: But when you say aberrant or unnatural, do you believe you're born gay or you choose to be gay?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I don't know whether people are born that way. People who are gay say that they're born that way. But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice. We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior--but the important issue that I want to address, because I think when you bring up the faith question, Tim, I've been asked more about my faith than any person running for president. I'm OK with that. I hope I've answered these questions very candidly and very honestly. I think it's important for us to talk about it. But the most important thing is to find out, does our faith influence our public policy and how? I've never tried to rewrite science textbooks. I've never tried to come out with some way of imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution. I've never done that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said you would ban all abortions.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, that's not just because I'm a Christian, that's because I'm an American. Our founding fathers said that we're all created equal. I think every person has intrinsic worth and value...
MR. RUSSERT: But many Americans believe that that would be, that would be you imposing your faith belief...
GOV. HUCKABEE: But, no. It's not a faith belief. It's deeper than that. It's a human belief. It goes to the heart of who we are as a civilization. If I believe that your intrinsic worth is not changed by your ancestry, your last name, by your IQ, by your abilities or disabilities, if I value your life and respect it with dignity and worth because it is human, then that's what draws me to the inescapable conclusion that I should be for the sanctity of every and each human life. That's why we go after that 12-year-old boy in the woods of North Carolina when he's lost, not because he has greater worth than someone else, but because we believe he has equal worth as everyone else. I like it that in this country we treat each other--at least we should--with that sense of equality. Our founding fathers penned that in the Declaration of Independence when they declared...
MR. RUSSERT: Some Americans believe that life does not begin at conception, and that it's...
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, scientifically I think that's almost...
MR. RUSSERT: But...
GOV. HUCKABEE: ...a point that you couldn't argue. How, how could you say that life doesn't begin at conception...
MR. RUSSERT: Right. Do you respect that view?
GOV. HUCKABEE: ...biologically?
MR. RUSSERT: Do you respect that view?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I respect it as a view, but I don't think it has biological credibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I hope that Huckabee does well on Thursday. A strong showing in Iowa for the former Arkansas governor would constitute an appropriate rebuke to the negativity and saturation advertising by the Romney campaign. Even if Romney goes on to win the nomination (still a very real possibility) he will help himself, the party and the country if he turns away from the idea of spending millions of dollars to distort the records of his opponents. Surely, the Mittster has a more positive message to offer the nation about his own vision and leadership abilities (both of which command respect) than concentrating all his resources on sliming Huckabee and McCain.
Meanwhile, good luck to all our candidates and heaven protect us from the Democrats.....
|
|
|
Monday, December 31, 2007 |
|
McCain Would Vote Against the Bush Tax Cuts All Over Again |
|
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 |
|
Huckabee's Positively Going Negative ... |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
2:28 PM |
Jonathan Martin reports this from the trail:
In a surprise move, Mike Huckabee said today that he won't air negative ads against Mitt Romney.
Claiming that he changed this mind this morning, Huckabee told reporters gathered in anticipation of seeing the spots that he would no longer attack Romney off the air, either, and would run a positive campaign in the final days before the caucuses. This, of course, is a political move made for one of two reasons:
1. A campaign doesn't have enough money to run their ads, so they hope the media will run the ads for them -- if they are controversial enough.
2. A candidate wants to be able to advance a negative narrative about his opponent without "going negative" himself.
|
|
|
Monday, December 31, 2007 |
|
Is Wicker the Trippi of '08? |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
1:52 PM |
A couple weeks ago, I noticed that one thing missing from the political reporting this cycle was the emergence (and promotion) of a celebrity consultant.
According to the Wall Street Journal, this year's "celebrity consultant" might just be Huckabee ad man, Bob Wicker:
Every presidential election makes stars out of a few political consultants. In 2004, Joe Trippi won a reputation for harnessing the Internet to help his candidate, Democrat Howard Dean. In 2000, Karl Rove's reputation as a political master was sealed with the election of George W. Bush. Should Mr. Huckabee continue his climb, Mr. Wickers and his team would earn similar reviews.
|
|
|
Monday, December 31, 2007 |
|
Romney's Iowa Operation |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:49 AM |

It's easy to forget, but not long ago, Mitt Romney's front-runner status was anything but a foregone conclusion. Over time, though, he met -- and surpassed -- many goals, thus elevating his campaign into the top-tier. Some of this was the result of good fortune, some of it was his disciplined and organized campaign, and some of it was his ability to bank-roll his campaign.
In four days, Mitt Romney faces his first real test, the Iowa caucuses. Heretofore, he has met every challenge, and exceeded every metric. He is undefeated in pre-season, but now the real season begins...
So how will he do in Iowa? Anyone who pretends to know the answer to that is pulling your leg. But if I were a betting man, I would put my money on Mitt Romney to prevail on Thursday. Here's why: For one thing, Mike Huckabee seems to have peaked about a week too soon. And because Huckabee was not terribly well known to begin with, Romney's campaign ads were able to define Huckabee, and introduce many caucus-goers to the negative side of Mike Huckabee.
But the key to Mitt Romney in Iowa is his organization. People don't just go to caucuses. A well-run turn-out operation can increase a candidate's votes by 3-5 percent. My guess is that Romney will be able to make up a 5 point deficit in the polls because of his turnout operation.
Luck also has something to do with it, too. Forecasters are calling for it to be unseasonably warm weather (if 17 degrees is unseasonably warm). Huckabee, whose supporters are die-hard Christian activists and hunters, would benefit from bad weather, and low voter turnout.
Assuming Mitt Romney does prevail in Iowa, he will ironically owe Mike Huckabee for having made Iowa a worthwhile victory. Remember, candidates like Giuliani and McCain were hoping to render Iowa irrelevant by ignoring the state.
A close victory over a tough challenger would demonstrate Mitt Romney is a tested candidate who has overcome difficult obstacles.
To continue over-extending football metaphors, Mitt Romney is playing a series of "road games": He's playing Huckabee on his Iowa turf, McCain on his "home turf "of New Hampshire, and arguably, Rudy on his "home turf" of Florida.
Winning these road games would give him the credibility and confidence to unite the Republican Party behind him.
Again, anything could happen. It's hard to quantify Mike Huckabee's support. Some of his voters may be first-time caucus-goers. No doubt, Huckabee's supporters have intensity on their side.
Still, if you're playing the percentages, the person who has run the smartest campaign -- based on using history to guide his strategy -- is Mitt Romney.
|
|
|
Sunday, December 30, 2007 |
|
The Kite Runner And The Candidates |
|
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 |
|
Flashback: The Real John McCain |
|
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 |
|
Some Very Necessary Reading |
|
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 |
|
"Leader of Christian Iowa Group Gives Romney His Vote" |
|
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 |
|
| | |