Biden kicks off his presidential campaign
By Steven Thomma and Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware found the first day of his bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination overshadowed Wednesday by his remarks describing presidential candidate Barack Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Biden made the comments in an interview with the New York Observer published hours before he declared his candidacy.
Biden said Wednesday that he meant no insult to the Illinois senator or to other black politicians who might've been slighted by comparison as inarticulate or unclean. Among those who've run for president are the late Shirley Chisholm in 1972, Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, Alan Keyes in 1996 and 2000, and Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun in 2004.
Biden, who was first elected to the Senate in 1972, on Wednesday called Obama "probably the most exciting candidate the Democratic or Republican parties have produced since I've been around. He's fresh, new, smart, insightful. Lightning in a jar."
He added in a conference call: "I really regret some have taken totally out of context my use of the word `clean.'
"My mother has a saying, `clean as a whistle, sharp as a tack.' That is the context. He is crisp and clear."
Biden said he called Obama to assure him he meant no insult.
"I took no offense," Obama said later. "I think Joe was just making news, being Joe. Joe, I think, certainly didn't intend to offend and I'll leave it at that. He called me. I told him it wasn't necessary. We have more important things to think about. We've got Iraq. We've got health care. We've got energy. This is low on the list. He was very gracious and I have no problems with Joe Biden."
Some other prominent African-Americans were less forgiving.
"It's certainly highly suggestive," Jackson told CNN.
"It came across as a very insensitive thing to say," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who ran Al Gore's campaign and advised Jesse Jackson's.
"I take him at his word that he meant no harm. But if he didn't have a 100 percent record on civil rights, it would be easy to infer something different. It was almost as though he were thinking of another era, when people thought of smart, articulate African-Americans as different from other African-Americans."
The statement drowned out Biden's hope to launch his long-shot campaign with a focus on his experience in the Senate and familiarity with foreign policy. He's chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is trying to use that position to grab the spotlight away from such rivals as Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and to remind voters that he's got more government experience than they do.
Yet Biden's Obama comment also served as a reminder of his tendency to talk too much and get himself in trouble - such as the time he was forced to drop his bid for the 1988 nomination after he was caught plagiarizing British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. Last year he said his that "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, dismissed Biden's comment - and candidacy - with a thinly veiled slap at his forced withdrawal from his last presidential campaign.
"I didn't even know he was a candidate, so I don't see how he could have hurt himself," Rangel deadpanned. "It probably was something someone else said and he picked it up and used it himself," he said, adding with emphasis, "by mistake."
Freshman Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., a white lawmaker who represents a largely black district, said Biden "was trying to pay Obama a compliment," but that his word choice was all wrong.
"Shirley Chisholm was obviously clean; Jesse Jackson was clean," Cohen said. But Cohen predicted that Biden's self-inflicted damage would be small because he doesn't have the standing among black voters to lose. "I think in my community, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton will be out in front," he said.
Ronald Wilson Reagan
America's 40th President
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Fox News: Biden takes on rest of Democratic field
Biden minces no words taking on the other major announced Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
"As for Hillary Clinton, Biden said the New York senator's position on Iraq "baffles" him.
“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’" Biden tells the Observer. "We’re not going to equip them? OK. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”
Biden, whose ideas include dividing Iraq into three autonomous republics divided by ethnic group -- Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite, reportedly said Clinton's policy on Iraq would result in “nothing but disaster,” and he goes on to question the former first lady's electability.
“Everyone in the world knows her,” Biden, 64, told the Observer. “Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can’t break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats?"
He also called former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards — along with 2004 running mate Sen. John Kerry — "perfect blow-dried candidates," adding that on Iraq, "I don't think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about."
Biden described Edwards' position on Iraq as "like so much Fluffernutter out there."
"So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it — they are just smart enough not to enunciate it."
Biden conducted a less contentious interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer, saying he learned his lessons from his 1988 run at the White House — namely "words matter" and "to lose one's temper is not a good thing."
Biden appeared to have his sense of humor intact Wednesday while listening to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. In it, Kissinger, denied a quote attributed to him in Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial." In it, Kissinger supposedly told then-White House speechwriter Michael Gerson that the United States needed to "humiliate" radical Islam in Iraq.
Kissinger said he "never said anything like that" and expressed disdain for "a kind of journalism" that takes "an alleged quote" and "spins a theory around it." To that response, Biden, the panel's chairman, quipped: "Last time you help him write a speech."
In his announcement of a presidential bid, which appears on his campaign Web site, Biden took a serious tone: "The next president of the United States is going to have to be prepared to immediately step in and act without hesitation to end our involvement in Iraq without further destabilizing the Middle East and the rhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248942,00.htmlest of the world. Our safety is at stake."
"As for Hillary Clinton, Biden said the New York senator's position on Iraq "baffles" him.
“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’" Biden tells the Observer. "We’re not going to equip them? OK. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”
Biden, whose ideas include dividing Iraq into three autonomous republics divided by ethnic group -- Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite, reportedly said Clinton's policy on Iraq would result in “nothing but disaster,” and he goes on to question the former first lady's electability.
“Everyone in the world knows her,” Biden, 64, told the Observer. “Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can’t break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats?"
He also called former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards — along with 2004 running mate Sen. John Kerry — "perfect blow-dried candidates," adding that on Iraq, "I don't think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about."
Biden described Edwards' position on Iraq as "like so much Fluffernutter out there."
"So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it — they are just smart enough not to enunciate it."
Biden conducted a less contentious interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer, saying he learned his lessons from his 1988 run at the White House — namely "words matter" and "to lose one's temper is not a good thing."
Biden appeared to have his sense of humor intact Wednesday while listening to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. In it, Kissinger, denied a quote attributed to him in Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial." In it, Kissinger supposedly told then-White House speechwriter Michael Gerson that the United States needed to "humiliate" radical Islam in Iraq.
Kissinger said he "never said anything like that" and expressed disdain for "a kind of journalism" that takes "an alleged quote" and "spins a theory around it." To that response, Biden, the panel's chairman, quipped: "Last time you help him write a speech."
In his announcement of a presidential bid, which appears on his campaign Web site, Biden took a serious tone: "The next president of the United States is going to have to be prepared to immediately step in and act without hesitation to end our involvement in Iraq without further destabilizing the Middle East and the rhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248942,00.htmlest of the world. Our safety is at stake."
Fox News: "Biden Stumbles Out of the Gate With Backfiring Shots at Dem Rivals"
Biden Stumbles Out of the Gate With Backfiring Shots at Dem Rivals
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said he meant no harm nor racist foul when he cracked wise about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, one of several fellow Democrats seeking the party's 2008 presidential nomination.
"I believe I was quoted accurately, but they weren't meant to be shots," Biden said of a story published in The New York Observer Wednesday. In it, he is quoted saying of Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
"My mother has an expression: Clean as a whistle, sharp as a tack. That's the context. He's crisp and clear," Biden said, explaining his comment.
"The idea was very straightforward and simple. This guy is brand new and something no one has seen before. ... Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that either party has produced since I've been around," Biden said.
Asked whether he wanted to throw down the gauntlet and respond to Biden's quoted remarks, Obama refused to be drawn into the fight.
"I am not going parse his words that carefully. ... You'd have to ask Senator Biden what he was thinking," Obama said.
"I don't spend too much time worrying about what folks are talking about during a campaign season," he added.
In an afternoon conference call to discuss his presidency, Biden said he's sure the African-American community isn't taking offense at his description of Obama as "articulate," a no-no that can be traced back at least to the 1996 effort to draft Colin Powell for a run for the president. At the time, comedian Chris Rock slammed the description of Powell as articulate in a riotous stand-up routine that forever put the expression in the trash bin of backhanded compliments.
"I have no doubt Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest know exactly what I meant," Biden said of African-American leaders. "They know what I was saying. That this is a special guy. It's like catching lightning in a jar... I really regret that some have taken my words out of context. I've spoken to Barack about it."
Biden also yielded to his colleague to say whether he was offended or not.
"Ask Obama what I thought. He knows what I meant by it," Biden said.
Obama's office later put out an official statement.
"I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate," he said.
Biden, who's never been shy to speak his mind, wasn't entirely generous in his appraisal of Obama. In the article, which had plenty of less-than-flattering comments about other 2008 Democratic presidential wannabes, Biden questioned Obama's electability, calling him "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate."
Biden added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic” on Iraq.
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said he meant no harm nor racist foul when he cracked wise about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, one of several fellow Democrats seeking the party's 2008 presidential nomination.
"I believe I was quoted accurately, but they weren't meant to be shots," Biden said of a story published in The New York Observer Wednesday. In it, he is quoted saying of Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
"My mother has an expression: Clean as a whistle, sharp as a tack. That's the context. He's crisp and clear," Biden said, explaining his comment.
"The idea was very straightforward and simple. This guy is brand new and something no one has seen before. ... Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that either party has produced since I've been around," Biden said.
Asked whether he wanted to throw down the gauntlet and respond to Biden's quoted remarks, Obama refused to be drawn into the fight.
"I am not going parse his words that carefully. ... You'd have to ask Senator Biden what he was thinking," Obama said.
"I don't spend too much time worrying about what folks are talking about during a campaign season," he added.
In an afternoon conference call to discuss his presidency, Biden said he's sure the African-American community isn't taking offense at his description of Obama as "articulate," a no-no that can be traced back at least to the 1996 effort to draft Colin Powell for a run for the president. At the time, comedian Chris Rock slammed the description of Powell as articulate in a riotous stand-up routine that forever put the expression in the trash bin of backhanded compliments.
"I have no doubt Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest know exactly what I meant," Biden said of African-American leaders. "They know what I was saying. That this is a special guy. It's like catching lightning in a jar... I really regret that some have taken my words out of context. I've spoken to Barack about it."
Biden also yielded to his colleague to say whether he was offended or not.
"Ask Obama what I thought. He knows what I meant by it," Biden said.
Obama's office later put out an official statement.
"I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate," he said.
Biden, who's never been shy to speak his mind, wasn't entirely generous in his appraisal of Obama. In the article, which had plenty of less-than-flattering comments about other 2008 Democratic presidential wannabes, Biden questioned Obama's electability, calling him "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate."
Biden added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic” on Iraq.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Former NH State Party Chair joins Giuliani's team
Semprini joins Giuliani's team
He will lead efforts in New Hampshire
By PHILIP ELLIOTT The Associated Press
Jan 30, 2007
Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has recruited veteran New Hampshire Republican activist Wayne Semprini to lead his state operations.
Giuliani, who is considering a White House run, announced the appointment yesterday, following his weekend visit to the first-in-the-nation primary state.
"We picked up a lot of supporters this weekend," Semprini said. "We're in the process of putting together a master schedule. (Giuliani) is very interested in coming back. At least I don't have to make a strong case for him to come back."
Semprini, who until Saturday was the state Republican Party chairman, has been involved in New Hampshire politics since 1972. In November's midterm elections, Democrats won control of both chambers of the Legislature, both U.S. House seats and a majority on the Executive Council. They also retained the governorship.
Semprini had cited health problems as his reason not to seek another term leading the state GOP, but he said surgery earlier this month appears to have resolved complications from a hip replacement. "My rehab is going phenomenally well," Semprini said. "At this stage, I should be up to fighting speed by the first of March. . . . I'll still be involved but from a different angle now."
Giuliani has formed an exploratory committee, the first step toward a full presidential campaign. During his visit this weekend, he would not say when he would make a final decision, although his speeches at Bretton Woods and Manchester were campaign-style addresses.
"It appears to me that mayor Giuliani is not a guy who does anything part way. He's someone who is very, very thorough," Semprini said. "I don't think he'll make his total announcement until he's had an opportunity to look at all those angles and share all those angles with his wife, Judith."
Judith Giuliani accompanied her husband to New Hampshire, his first trip to the state since forming his exploratory committee.
The former New York mayor has hired other key staff in New Hampshire, including Semprini's son. Jeff Semprini is Giuliani's regional field director and youth and college outreach coordinator.
Giuliani also has hired veteran GOP activist David Tille as his political director. Chris Wood, a veteran of Steve Forbes' and Pat Buchanan's campaigns, will lead coalition-building. Giuliani headlined the state GOP meeting in Manchester on Saturday.
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
He will lead efforts in New Hampshire
By PHILIP ELLIOTT The Associated Press
Jan 30, 2007
Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has recruited veteran New Hampshire Republican activist Wayne Semprini to lead his state operations.
Giuliani, who is considering a White House run, announced the appointment yesterday, following his weekend visit to the first-in-the-nation primary state.
"We picked up a lot of supporters this weekend," Semprini said. "We're in the process of putting together a master schedule. (Giuliani) is very interested in coming back. At least I don't have to make a strong case for him to come back."
Semprini, who until Saturday was the state Republican Party chairman, has been involved in New Hampshire politics since 1972. In November's midterm elections, Democrats won control of both chambers of the Legislature, both U.S. House seats and a majority on the Executive Council. They also retained the governorship.
Semprini had cited health problems as his reason not to seek another term leading the state GOP, but he said surgery earlier this month appears to have resolved complications from a hip replacement. "My rehab is going phenomenally well," Semprini said. "At this stage, I should be up to fighting speed by the first of March. . . . I'll still be involved but from a different angle now."
Giuliani has formed an exploratory committee, the first step toward a full presidential campaign. During his visit this weekend, he would not say when he would make a final decision, although his speeches at Bretton Woods and Manchester were campaign-style addresses.
"It appears to me that mayor Giuliani is not a guy who does anything part way. He's someone who is very, very thorough," Semprini said. "I don't think he'll make his total announcement until he's had an opportunity to look at all those angles and share all those angles with his wife, Judith."
Judith Giuliani accompanied her husband to New Hampshire, his first trip to the state since forming his exploratory committee.
The former New York mayor has hired other key staff in New Hampshire, including Semprini's son. Jeff Semprini is Giuliani's regional field director and youth and college outreach coordinator.
Giuliani also has hired veteran GOP activist David Tille as his political director. Chris Wood, a veteran of Steve Forbes' and Pat Buchanan's campaigns, will lead coalition-building. Giuliani headlined the state GOP meeting in Manchester on Saturday.
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Gingrich Backers Launch Campaign to Draft Him
Gingrich Backers Launch Campaign to Draft Him
By Aleena Shakeel
CNSNews.com Correspondent
January 30, 2007(CNSNews.com) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said he will not announce his decision to compete in the 2008 presidential election until after Labor Day, but an online grassroots political campaign was launched nationally on Monday in an effort to convince him to run. David W. Kralik, a former Gingrich aide and founder of the DraftNewt.org campaign, said Monday that following a "quiet phase," organizers were now launching a campaign and modeling it after earlier campaigns to draft Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
"Our primary goal is to get Newt to run. He really is the best conservative option for our party and for what we need," said Kralik, who worked in Gingrich's press office in 1998."I really believe he has all the right ideas and the proven experience. I really believe in his desire for solutions," Kralik told Cybercast News Service.
The "Draft Newt" effort will use its website as the main tool to collect contributions for the campaign, which will try to persuade Gingrich to "seek and win the Republican nomination."Contributions will be used for website hosting, banner advertising, organizing town hall meetings in different communities, and television advertisements." In 2004, both Senator Kerry and President Bush each spent over $300 million dollars," the website says. "This amounts to approximately $1 million a day to be raised. Our goal, in [the] effort to encourage Speaker Gingrich [to] decide to run for president, is to raise $7 million, equivalent to the first week's worth of fundraising. "
At a conference in Washington on Saturday, Gingrich promised conservatives that he would make a decision in September."I'm sure he's flattered by the effort. However, he has been clear that he is not even going to make a decision until after the summer," Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler told Cybercast News Service Monday.Kralik said in a statement that Gingrich's entry into the race "will set him aside as the conservative alternative to those [Republicans] currently running. His bold ideas and energy will raise the standards for all presidential aspirants and help the Republican Party work to regain America's trust."America offers great hope for those who believe rightly that the world is a very dangerous place," he added. "We have real challenges.
We have a wonderful country that can solve these challenges. Gingrich has the experience and solutions that our country needs right now."
Republicans who have already indicated their intention to vie for the 2008 nomination are former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, California Rep. Duncan Hunter, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo
By Aleena Shakeel
CNSNews.com Correspondent
January 30, 2007(CNSNews.com) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said he will not announce his decision to compete in the 2008 presidential election until after Labor Day, but an online grassroots political campaign was launched nationally on Monday in an effort to convince him to run. David W. Kralik, a former Gingrich aide and founder of the DraftNewt.org campaign, said Monday that following a "quiet phase," organizers were now launching a campaign and modeling it after earlier campaigns to draft Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
"Our primary goal is to get Newt to run. He really is the best conservative option for our party and for what we need," said Kralik, who worked in Gingrich's press office in 1998."I really believe he has all the right ideas and the proven experience. I really believe in his desire for solutions," Kralik told Cybercast News Service.
The "Draft Newt" effort will use its website as the main tool to collect contributions for the campaign, which will try to persuade Gingrich to "seek and win the Republican nomination."Contributions will be used for website hosting, banner advertising, organizing town hall meetings in different communities, and television advertisements." In 2004, both Senator Kerry and President Bush each spent over $300 million dollars," the website says. "This amounts to approximately $1 million a day to be raised. Our goal, in [the] effort to encourage Speaker Gingrich [to] decide to run for president, is to raise $7 million, equivalent to the first week's worth of fundraising. "
At a conference in Washington on Saturday, Gingrich promised conservatives that he would make a decision in September."I'm sure he's flattered by the effort. However, he has been clear that he is not even going to make a decision until after the summer," Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler told Cybercast News Service Monday.Kralik said in a statement that Gingrich's entry into the race "will set him aside as the conservative alternative to those [Republicans] currently running. His bold ideas and energy will raise the standards for all presidential aspirants and help the Republican Party work to regain America's trust."America offers great hope for those who believe rightly that the world is a very dangerous place," he added. "We have real challenges.
We have a wonderful country that can solve these challenges. Gingrich has the experience and solutions that our country needs right now."
Republicans who have already indicated their intention to vie for the 2008 nomination are former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, California Rep. Duncan Hunter, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo
Monday, January 29, 2007
The Death of Barbaro
Rest in peace Barbaro- you showed heart and guts- you were and are a champion.
The Death of Barbaro
Equine Beauty Meets Harsh Reality
By PAT FORDE
Jan. 29, 2007— - At Churchill Downs they post the name of every Kentucky Derby winner on the white walls of the place, literally encircling the paddock area in 132 years of rich racing history. From Aristides in 1875 to Citation in 1948 to Secretariat in 1973, you read the names and channel the majesty.
But for as long as the place stands, everyone who experienced the bittersweet racing summer of 2006 will look at the sign saying "Barbaro" and feel a spasm of sadness. No Derby story ever took such a sharp turn toward tragedy.
Two minutes of glory, followed by two weeks of adulation.
An instant of horror, followed by weeks of worry.
Then weeks of cautious, growing optimism.
Then sudden, dire concern.
Now a final moment of sorrow.
That was Barbaro's vivid streak across our consciousness. From a stirring sprint down the stretch in Louisville on the first Saturday in May to a horrible afternoon two weeks later in Baltimore to a somber announcement from a Pennsylvania animal hospital in January, he left his mark on us.
It is a testament to his athletic prowess and equine beauty that we cared this much. It is a testament to the will and skill of many humans that he lived this long. Yet ultimately it is a testament to the brutal realities of thoroughbred racing as it exists today: Despite every effort of man and medicine, this magnificent colt could not be saved from injuries that are far too common in the sport of kings.
Given the fragility of the breed and the amount of stress inflicted upon these animals at the young age of 3, we're probably lucky these catastrophic breakdowns don't happen more often. And in the case of Barbaro, we're absolutely lucky there was ever any hope of survival at all.
From the moment the colt's shattered right hind leg torqued out at a gruesome angle just 200 yards into the Preakness last May 20, it took a heroic effort from everyone involved to give Barbaro a chance to live as long as he did.
Jockey Edgar Prado brought the surging and scared colt to a rapid halt, giving the track vets a chance to treat him on the Pimlico front stretch. Emergency personnel quickly vanned Barbaro from Baltimore to the New Bolton Center in Kennett Square, Pa. Once there, Dr. Dean Richardson performed a surgery described as both intricate and exquisite to stabilize the colt's fractured leg.
Richardson warned everyone it would take months to heal the horse, with many pitfalls along the way. Despite the efforts of the doctor and his staff, and the unwavering dedication of owners Roy and Gretchen Jackson, Richardson's prediction proved depressingly accurate.
Laminitis, a debilitating and often fatal hoof disease, set in on Barbaro's left hind leg during early July. But even after surgery to remove most of the hoof, the colt showed remarkable progress -- to the point that in December, Barbaro's release to the rolling bluegrass hills of a Kentucky horse farm seemed imminent.
It never happened. Laminitis intensified, and an abcess developed in the hoof of the damaged right hind leg. The combination became too much to overcome. Monday, 254 days after the injury and 268 days after he became a racing hero, Barbaro was put down.
The Death of Barbaro
Equine Beauty Meets Harsh Reality
By PAT FORDE
Jan. 29, 2007— - At Churchill Downs they post the name of every Kentucky Derby winner on the white walls of the place, literally encircling the paddock area in 132 years of rich racing history. From Aristides in 1875 to Citation in 1948 to Secretariat in 1973, you read the names and channel the majesty.
But for as long as the place stands, everyone who experienced the bittersweet racing summer of 2006 will look at the sign saying "Barbaro" and feel a spasm of sadness. No Derby story ever took such a sharp turn toward tragedy.
Two minutes of glory, followed by two weeks of adulation.
An instant of horror, followed by weeks of worry.
Then weeks of cautious, growing optimism.
Then sudden, dire concern.
Now a final moment of sorrow.
That was Barbaro's vivid streak across our consciousness. From a stirring sprint down the stretch in Louisville on the first Saturday in May to a horrible afternoon two weeks later in Baltimore to a somber announcement from a Pennsylvania animal hospital in January, he left his mark on us.
It is a testament to his athletic prowess and equine beauty that we cared this much. It is a testament to the will and skill of many humans that he lived this long. Yet ultimately it is a testament to the brutal realities of thoroughbred racing as it exists today: Despite every effort of man and medicine, this magnificent colt could not be saved from injuries that are far too common in the sport of kings.
Given the fragility of the breed and the amount of stress inflicted upon these animals at the young age of 3, we're probably lucky these catastrophic breakdowns don't happen more often. And in the case of Barbaro, we're absolutely lucky there was ever any hope of survival at all.
From the moment the colt's shattered right hind leg torqued out at a gruesome angle just 200 yards into the Preakness last May 20, it took a heroic effort from everyone involved to give Barbaro a chance to live as long as he did.
Jockey Edgar Prado brought the surging and scared colt to a rapid halt, giving the track vets a chance to treat him on the Pimlico front stretch. Emergency personnel quickly vanned Barbaro from Baltimore to the New Bolton Center in Kennett Square, Pa. Once there, Dr. Dean Richardson performed a surgery described as both intricate and exquisite to stabilize the colt's fractured leg.
Richardson warned everyone it would take months to heal the horse, with many pitfalls along the way. Despite the efforts of the doctor and his staff, and the unwavering dedication of owners Roy and Gretchen Jackson, Richardson's prediction proved depressingly accurate.
Laminitis, a debilitating and often fatal hoof disease, set in on Barbaro's left hind leg during early July. But even after surgery to remove most of the hoof, the colt showed remarkable progress -- to the point that in December, Barbaro's release to the rolling bluegrass hills of a Kentucky horse farm seemed imminent.
It never happened. Laminitis intensified, and an abcess developed in the hoof of the damaged right hind leg. The combination became too much to overcome. Monday, 254 days after the injury and 268 days after he became a racing hero, Barbaro was put down.
Salute to Barbaro
National Thoroughbred Racing Association Statement on Barbaro
Jan. 29, 2007— - On behalf of the Thoroughbred racing industry, we send our condolences to Roy and Gretchen Jackson, Michael Matz, Edgar Prado, and to everyone involved with Barbaro. We are deeply grateful to Dr. Dean Richardson and the team at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine for all they did to try to save him.
I would also like to express condolences -- and thanks -- to the millions of fans whose hearts were touched by Barbaro during his brilliant racing career and throughout his gallant struggle to recover. His memory will live forever. America's compassion and love for Barbaro speak to the incredible bond that people share with Thoroughbreds and our sport. There have been significant advances in recent years in our ability to ensure the health and safety of our equine athletes. The industry remains focused on this issue, and we will continue to work with owners, horsemen, tracks, veterinarians and researchers, as well as the foundations that support them.
Alex Waldrop
CEO, National Thoroughbred Racing Association
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
Jan. 29, 2007— - On behalf of the Thoroughbred racing industry, we send our condolences to Roy and Gretchen Jackson, Michael Matz, Edgar Prado, and to everyone involved with Barbaro. We are deeply grateful to Dr. Dean Richardson and the team at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine for all they did to try to save him.
I would also like to express condolences -- and thanks -- to the millions of fans whose hearts were touched by Barbaro during his brilliant racing career and throughout his gallant struggle to recover. His memory will live forever. America's compassion and love for Barbaro speak to the incredible bond that people share with Thoroughbreds and our sport. There have been significant advances in recent years in our ability to ensure the health and safety of our equine athletes. The industry remains focused on this issue, and we will continue to work with owners, horsemen, tracks, veterinarians and researchers, as well as the foundations that support them.
Alex Waldrop
CEO, National Thoroughbred Racing Association
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
Barone: Bush v. Clinton: America's War of the Roses?
CAMPAIGN 2008
Battle Royal
Bush, Clinton, Bush--Clinton? It sounds like the War of the Roses.
BY MICHAEL BARONE Monday, January 29, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. It sounds like the Wars of the Roses: Lancaster, York, Lancaster, York.
To compare our political struggles to the conflicts between rival dynasties may be carrying it too far. But we have become, I think, a nation that is less small-r republican and more royalist than it used to be. Viscerally, this strikes me as a bad thing. But as I've thought about it, I've decided that something can be said for the increasing royalism of our politics. And whether you like it or not, you can't deny it's there. Not when the wife of the 42nd president is a leading candidate to succeed the 43rd president who in turn is the son of the 41st president. The two George Bushes are referred to in their family, we are told, as 41 and 43. If Hillary Clinton wins, will she and her husband call each other 42 and 44?
Evidence for my case comes from the recent set-to in the White House press room after reporters had learned that Laura Bush had made no public announcement when she had a skin cancer routinely removed. When Press Secretary Tony Snow said it was a private matter, reporters spun out theories why Mrs. Bush had a duty to disclose this minor surgery to the American public--even though she is not a public official and even though the operation had no impact on the operation of government. But reporters instinctively sense that the doings of Mrs. Bush are as newsworthy as their British counterparts regard those of the royal family. And they have some reason to. Her husband started just about every campaign speech by praising his decision to "marry up." Her high approval ratings take some of the edge off his low ones.
"Royalty," wrote Walter Bagehot in his 1867 book "The English Constitution," "is a government in which the attention of the nation is concentrated in one person doing interesting actions. A Republic is a government in which attention is divided between many, who are all doing uninteresting things." He went on to note that the Monarchy (his capitals) was not just one person but several. "A family on the throne is an interesting idea also. It also brings down the pride of sovereignty to the level of petty life." So we have columnists writing that the current president's policies are a sort of oedipal rebellion against his father. And we have endless speculations on the dynamics of the Clintons' relationship. The personal has become the political. In Bagehot's England they were separate: The Monarchy was personal, the Palmerstons and Gladstones and Disraelis political. Now political reporters are getting ready to grind out pieces about the families of the 2008 presidential candidates.
There was always a risk of royalism under our Constitution, with the president both head of government and head of state. But for a long time politicians struggled against it. George Washington turned down a crown. John Adams did not make public the scintillating intellect of his wife Abigail. For half the time in the first 40 years of the 19th century there was no first lady at all: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren were widowers when they took office. After the Civil War, politics revolved so much around parties rather than presidents--can you name all the presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt?--that in the 1880s the future President Woodrow Wilson wrote a book called "Congressional Government."
The drift toward royalism is a 20th-century phenomenon. At first it was concealed. Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft had strong-willed, intelligent wives and broods of children who went on to impressive achievements. But they didn't make much of this public. Woodrow Wilson's first wife, a Southerner who died early in his presidency, reportedly pushed for racial segregation in federal building cafeterias, while his second wife effectively ran the White House while he was incapacitated by a stroke--neither something you'd want to talk about even now. Lou Henry Hoover, an engineering school classmate of her husband, directed her public energies to promoting the Girl Scouts. With Eleanor Roosevelt, we come to the first first lady with a political identity of her own. But she was just one of many courtiers in her husband's White House, and not necessarily the most influential.
Harry Truman did not bring Bess Truman to Potsdam; she spent much of his presidency at home in Independence with her elderly mother. Mamie Eisenhower said that "Ike runs the country and I turn the pork chops." But ever since John Kennedy made a point of bringing his French-speaking wife to Paris, where she charmed the seemingly uncharmable Charles de Gaulle, most presidents and presidential candidates have made a habit of showcasing their wives. And most of their wives have made a point of taking up some public cause or other, some of them controversial. First ladies increasingly became public figures and, given the considerable talents and charm of presidential wives since that time, political assets.
Now we have our first first lady to run for president. She brings to the race a formidable asset that few presidential candidates can claim: a first-hand knowledge of the operations of the White House. But then Queen Elizabeth II, who has had weekly audiences for 55 years with 10 prime ministers from Winston Churchill to Tony Blair, would probably be a pretty good prime minister were she eligible for the office. (She's not: By law, she can't set foot in the House of Commons.)
Sen. Clinton was more involved in making public policy than any other first lady except possibly Sarah Childress Polk, who was her husband's chief secretary and worked alongside him in his office. But there is something bizarre--something royal--about the vision of the wife of a former president becoming president herself, although those of us who voted for George W. Bush are poorly positioned to complain about it.
And perhaps we shouldn't. Because the royalism of republican politics is not just an American phenomenon. You see it in other very large republics. India for 37 of the 42 years after independence had members of one family as head of government--Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, grandfather and daughter, mother and son. Rajiv Gandhi's widow is now head of the governing party. Indonesia elected as president the daughter of a former president.
So did the Philippines. Maybe there is a reason for this. It's hard in a very large democracy for voters to judge a potential leader. They can gather some information on his or her positions on issues, but they rely on an inevitably imperfect (and often biased) media. If they are strongly on the side of one party, they can vote for that party's candidate; but in the United States at least they have some voice (at least if they live in Iowa or New Hampshire) in determining who that candidate is. They have a hard time ascertaining the ability and character of candidates. But in making judgments about those things, it helps if you know the family.
Not that anyone assumes that family members are all alike. It would not do for candidate Bush in 2000 and for candidate Clinton today to claim to be clones of his father and her husband. Rather, candidate Bush made comments about his mother's fearsomeness, and candidate Clinton's "let's chat" suggests that she is more of a listener and less of a nonstop talker than her husband. So the trend to royalism may not be all bad. It does give some candidates an unfair advantage over others. But let's face it: Only four of the 300 million living Americans has been president and probably only 10 or 12 more ever will be. We need as much knowledge of our presidential candidates as we can get and, if we get some of it by knowing their families as closely as we know the families of recent occupants of the White House, so be it. As Bagehot put it, "The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other."
In any case, it's no sure thing that a Clinton will follow a Bush who followed a Clinton who followed a Bush. But keep the following in the back of your mind. George P. Bush will be eligible to run for president in 2012. Chelsea Clinton will be eligible to run for president in 2016. So will Jenna and Barbara Bush, who will turn 35 several days after the election. And Jeb Bush, who had a fine record in eight years as governor of Florida, will be younger in 2024 than John McCain will be in 2008 or Ronald Reagan was in 1984. Royalism may be here to stay.
Mr. Barone is a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report and coauthor of "The Almanac of American Politics" (National Journal Group).
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Battle Royal
Bush, Clinton, Bush--Clinton? It sounds like the War of the Roses.
BY MICHAEL BARONE Monday, January 29, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. It sounds like the Wars of the Roses: Lancaster, York, Lancaster, York.
To compare our political struggles to the conflicts between rival dynasties may be carrying it too far. But we have become, I think, a nation that is less small-r republican and more royalist than it used to be. Viscerally, this strikes me as a bad thing. But as I've thought about it, I've decided that something can be said for the increasing royalism of our politics. And whether you like it or not, you can't deny it's there. Not when the wife of the 42nd president is a leading candidate to succeed the 43rd president who in turn is the son of the 41st president. The two George Bushes are referred to in their family, we are told, as 41 and 43. If Hillary Clinton wins, will she and her husband call each other 42 and 44?
Evidence for my case comes from the recent set-to in the White House press room after reporters had learned that Laura Bush had made no public announcement when she had a skin cancer routinely removed. When Press Secretary Tony Snow said it was a private matter, reporters spun out theories why Mrs. Bush had a duty to disclose this minor surgery to the American public--even though she is not a public official and even though the operation had no impact on the operation of government. But reporters instinctively sense that the doings of Mrs. Bush are as newsworthy as their British counterparts regard those of the royal family. And they have some reason to. Her husband started just about every campaign speech by praising his decision to "marry up." Her high approval ratings take some of the edge off his low ones.
"Royalty," wrote Walter Bagehot in his 1867 book "The English Constitution," "is a government in which the attention of the nation is concentrated in one person doing interesting actions. A Republic is a government in which attention is divided between many, who are all doing uninteresting things." He went on to note that the Monarchy (his capitals) was not just one person but several. "A family on the throne is an interesting idea also. It also brings down the pride of sovereignty to the level of petty life." So we have columnists writing that the current president's policies are a sort of oedipal rebellion against his father. And we have endless speculations on the dynamics of the Clintons' relationship. The personal has become the political. In Bagehot's England they were separate: The Monarchy was personal, the Palmerstons and Gladstones and Disraelis political. Now political reporters are getting ready to grind out pieces about the families of the 2008 presidential candidates.
There was always a risk of royalism under our Constitution, with the president both head of government and head of state. But for a long time politicians struggled against it. George Washington turned down a crown. John Adams did not make public the scintillating intellect of his wife Abigail. For half the time in the first 40 years of the 19th century there was no first lady at all: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren were widowers when they took office. After the Civil War, politics revolved so much around parties rather than presidents--can you name all the presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt?--that in the 1880s the future President Woodrow Wilson wrote a book called "Congressional Government."
The drift toward royalism is a 20th-century phenomenon. At first it was concealed. Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft had strong-willed, intelligent wives and broods of children who went on to impressive achievements. But they didn't make much of this public. Woodrow Wilson's first wife, a Southerner who died early in his presidency, reportedly pushed for racial segregation in federal building cafeterias, while his second wife effectively ran the White House while he was incapacitated by a stroke--neither something you'd want to talk about even now. Lou Henry Hoover, an engineering school classmate of her husband, directed her public energies to promoting the Girl Scouts. With Eleanor Roosevelt, we come to the first first lady with a political identity of her own. But she was just one of many courtiers in her husband's White House, and not necessarily the most influential.
Harry Truman did not bring Bess Truman to Potsdam; she spent much of his presidency at home in Independence with her elderly mother. Mamie Eisenhower said that "Ike runs the country and I turn the pork chops." But ever since John Kennedy made a point of bringing his French-speaking wife to Paris, where she charmed the seemingly uncharmable Charles de Gaulle, most presidents and presidential candidates have made a habit of showcasing their wives. And most of their wives have made a point of taking up some public cause or other, some of them controversial. First ladies increasingly became public figures and, given the considerable talents and charm of presidential wives since that time, political assets.
Now we have our first first lady to run for president. She brings to the race a formidable asset that few presidential candidates can claim: a first-hand knowledge of the operations of the White House. But then Queen Elizabeth II, who has had weekly audiences for 55 years with 10 prime ministers from Winston Churchill to Tony Blair, would probably be a pretty good prime minister were she eligible for the office. (She's not: By law, she can't set foot in the House of Commons.)
Sen. Clinton was more involved in making public policy than any other first lady except possibly Sarah Childress Polk, who was her husband's chief secretary and worked alongside him in his office. But there is something bizarre--something royal--about the vision of the wife of a former president becoming president herself, although those of us who voted for George W. Bush are poorly positioned to complain about it.
And perhaps we shouldn't. Because the royalism of republican politics is not just an American phenomenon. You see it in other very large republics. India for 37 of the 42 years after independence had members of one family as head of government--Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, grandfather and daughter, mother and son. Rajiv Gandhi's widow is now head of the governing party. Indonesia elected as president the daughter of a former president.
So did the Philippines. Maybe there is a reason for this. It's hard in a very large democracy for voters to judge a potential leader. They can gather some information on his or her positions on issues, but they rely on an inevitably imperfect (and often biased) media. If they are strongly on the side of one party, they can vote for that party's candidate; but in the United States at least they have some voice (at least if they live in Iowa or New Hampshire) in determining who that candidate is. They have a hard time ascertaining the ability and character of candidates. But in making judgments about those things, it helps if you know the family.
Not that anyone assumes that family members are all alike. It would not do for candidate Bush in 2000 and for candidate Clinton today to claim to be clones of his father and her husband. Rather, candidate Bush made comments about his mother's fearsomeness, and candidate Clinton's "let's chat" suggests that she is more of a listener and less of a nonstop talker than her husband. So the trend to royalism may not be all bad. It does give some candidates an unfair advantage over others. But let's face it: Only four of the 300 million living Americans has been president and probably only 10 or 12 more ever will be. We need as much knowledge of our presidential candidates as we can get and, if we get some of it by knowing their families as closely as we know the families of recent occupants of the White House, so be it. As Bagehot put it, "The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other."
In any case, it's no sure thing that a Clinton will follow a Bush who followed a Clinton who followed a Bush. But keep the following in the back of your mind. George P. Bush will be eligible to run for president in 2012. Chelsea Clinton will be eligible to run for president in 2016. So will Jenna and Barbara Bush, who will turn 35 several days after the election. And Jeb Bush, who had a fine record in eight years as governor of Florida, will be younger in 2024 than John McCain will be in 2008 or Ronald Reagan was in 1984. Royalism may be here to stay.
Mr. Barone is a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report and coauthor of "The Almanac of American Politics" (National Journal Group).
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Rothenberg: West turning blue? Not so fast...
January 29, 2007
Are Democrats Surging Out West? Numbers Say No
By Stuart Rothenberg
More than a few journalists and political pontificators have noted recent Democratic gains in the Mountain West, which includes Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Some see those gains in 2004 and 2006 as shattering a reliable Republican region, while others argue recent wins are only the beginning of a Democratic rally that will continue in 2008 and beyond.
After one of the best newspapers on the planet screamed "West Is Going Democrats' Direction" and "Political Shift in Mountain States" in headlines, I figured I'd look at the numbers myself to see how much of an opportunity Democrats have to turn the Mountain West blue, or at least purple.
After dissecting the historical data over the past 25 years and comparing it to election results from the past few cycles, it's very clear that not much is going on. I'm certainly not ruling out changes in 2008 or 2010, and I'm not saying that there have been no changes. But so far, the hype about a shift has overwhelmed the reality.
First, a bit of history. Democratic candidates have done pretty well in the Mountain West in the past couple of election cycles, but that's nothing new. Democrats have had significant successes in the region for many years, so portraying recent results as some sort of breakthrough is flat-out wrong.
Election returns since 1980 show that the Mountain West is really two or even three regions, not one. Utah, Wyoming and Idaho are reliably Republican in most cases, while New Mexico and Nevada are politically competitive. Arizona and Colorado definitely lean Republican in presidential politics but are much more competitive in other respects.
Former President Bill Clinton carried four Mountain States -- Colorado, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico -- in his 1992 election victory over then-President George H.W. Bush, and he won three states four years later: Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. It's true that in the two elections since Clinton, Democratic presidential candidates have carried only a single state, New Mexico (very narrowly, in 2000), but that's more a statement about the party and its nominees than about the region's inherent competitiveness.
New Mexico and Nevada definitely are competitive in presidential contests, but only Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are beyond the Democrats' reach in those elections.
Much of the hype about Democrats in the Mountain West stems from the party's victories in gubernatorial races. Democrats retained three governorships last year and added a new one (in Colorado). Democratic governors now sit in Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Wyoming -- five of the region's eight states.
But that's nothing new in the region. I went back to 1980 and found that Democrats won five of the past seven gubernatorial elections in Colorado and Wyoming (yes, that's right, Wyoming), four of the past seven in both New Mexico and Nevada and three of the past seven in Montana and Arizona.
In attempting to drive home the point of a realignment, one journalist noted, "In 2000, all eight mountain states had Republican governors; now five governors are Democrats." But why use 2000 as the baseline? In 1984, seven of the eight states had Democratic governors. Using 1984 as the baseline, you could even say the region is moving toward the GOP!
Anyway, if gubernatorial results reflected fundamental partisan strength and the potential of carrying the state in 2008, then Wyoming would seem to be a reliably Democratic state in 2008.
Obviously, it isn't.
How about Senate races? Democrats won a Senate race in Montana, as well as holding onto a seat in New Mexico. But again, winning Senate races in the region is nothing new for Democrats.
In three of the eight Mountain West states, Democrats have won a majority of all Senate elections since 1980. That's right, a majority. They've won six of nine in Montana, six of 10 in Nevada and five of nine in New Mexico. In Colorado, they have won a considerable four of the past nine. Even Arizona has elected Democrats to the Senate in two of the past nine elections.
Forget about that history. If you think Democrats' ability to knock off a politically damaged Republican in the worst Republican environment in 30 years tells you something about a state's or region's political trend, you are free to. Of course, you would be terribly wrong.
But what about Congress? Didn't Democrats make gains in the House in the Mountain West?
Sure, but what kind of gains?
Democrats netted three House seats in November, one in Colorado and two in Arizona. The Colorado district was drawn to be politically competitive, but it was also referred to as the "Perlmutter district," after the Democratic legislator who was expected to run -- and win -- in 2002. Ed Perlmutter passed then, but he won the open seat last year.
One of the Arizona districts already was competitive, but became hard for the GOP when an anti-immigration bomb-thrower won the party's primary. In other words, if you focus only on the numbers, you will miss the story.
How about state legislatures in the region? Democrats made small gains in the Idaho, Colorado and Arizona state Houses. No chambers in the region switched control, however, except the Montana House, which went from a 50-50 tie to a one-seat GOP majority. Again, if there was a Democratic surge in 2006, you'll have to look under the rug to find it.
There were, of course, some Democratic gains in 2006. Much of the hype, I suspect, came from stronger than usual (though unsuccessful) Democratic efforts in House races in Idaho, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming, as well as a lot of buzz about the Idaho gubernatorial race. But those showings occurred in a landslide year for Democrats, making the results more likely to be an aberration rather than a trend.
The Mountain West is not the South. It's less reliable than Dixie for Republicans, and it's less conservative on social/religious issues. Moreover, Democrats have had considerable success in the region over the past three decades, and the party's nominee could carry a few Mountain West states in the '08 presidential race, particularly if there is a nationwide trend toward their party. But the evidence strongly demonstrates that there has been no Democratic surge in the region, even if the hyperbole makes for a better news story.
Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper. © 2007 Roll Call, Inc.
Are Democrats Surging Out West? Numbers Say No
By Stuart Rothenberg
More than a few journalists and political pontificators have noted recent Democratic gains in the Mountain West, which includes Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Some see those gains in 2004 and 2006 as shattering a reliable Republican region, while others argue recent wins are only the beginning of a Democratic rally that will continue in 2008 and beyond.
After one of the best newspapers on the planet screamed "West Is Going Democrats' Direction" and "Political Shift in Mountain States" in headlines, I figured I'd look at the numbers myself to see how much of an opportunity Democrats have to turn the Mountain West blue, or at least purple.
After dissecting the historical data over the past 25 years and comparing it to election results from the past few cycles, it's very clear that not much is going on. I'm certainly not ruling out changes in 2008 or 2010, and I'm not saying that there have been no changes. But so far, the hype about a shift has overwhelmed the reality.
First, a bit of history. Democratic candidates have done pretty well in the Mountain West in the past couple of election cycles, but that's nothing new. Democrats have had significant successes in the region for many years, so portraying recent results as some sort of breakthrough is flat-out wrong.
Election returns since 1980 show that the Mountain West is really two or even three regions, not one. Utah, Wyoming and Idaho are reliably Republican in most cases, while New Mexico and Nevada are politically competitive. Arizona and Colorado definitely lean Republican in presidential politics but are much more competitive in other respects.
Former President Bill Clinton carried four Mountain States -- Colorado, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico -- in his 1992 election victory over then-President George H.W. Bush, and he won three states four years later: Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. It's true that in the two elections since Clinton, Democratic presidential candidates have carried only a single state, New Mexico (very narrowly, in 2000), but that's more a statement about the party and its nominees than about the region's inherent competitiveness.
New Mexico and Nevada definitely are competitive in presidential contests, but only Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are beyond the Democrats' reach in those elections.
Much of the hype about Democrats in the Mountain West stems from the party's victories in gubernatorial races. Democrats retained three governorships last year and added a new one (in Colorado). Democratic governors now sit in Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Wyoming -- five of the region's eight states.
But that's nothing new in the region. I went back to 1980 and found that Democrats won five of the past seven gubernatorial elections in Colorado and Wyoming (yes, that's right, Wyoming), four of the past seven in both New Mexico and Nevada and three of the past seven in Montana and Arizona.
In attempting to drive home the point of a realignment, one journalist noted, "In 2000, all eight mountain states had Republican governors; now five governors are Democrats." But why use 2000 as the baseline? In 1984, seven of the eight states had Democratic governors. Using 1984 as the baseline, you could even say the region is moving toward the GOP!
Anyway, if gubernatorial results reflected fundamental partisan strength and the potential of carrying the state in 2008, then Wyoming would seem to be a reliably Democratic state in 2008.
Obviously, it isn't.
How about Senate races? Democrats won a Senate race in Montana, as well as holding onto a seat in New Mexico. But again, winning Senate races in the region is nothing new for Democrats.
In three of the eight Mountain West states, Democrats have won a majority of all Senate elections since 1980. That's right, a majority. They've won six of nine in Montana, six of 10 in Nevada and five of nine in New Mexico. In Colorado, they have won a considerable four of the past nine. Even Arizona has elected Democrats to the Senate in two of the past nine elections.
Forget about that history. If you think Democrats' ability to knock off a politically damaged Republican in the worst Republican environment in 30 years tells you something about a state's or region's political trend, you are free to. Of course, you would be terribly wrong.
But what about Congress? Didn't Democrats make gains in the House in the Mountain West?
Sure, but what kind of gains?
Democrats netted three House seats in November, one in Colorado and two in Arizona. The Colorado district was drawn to be politically competitive, but it was also referred to as the "Perlmutter district," after the Democratic legislator who was expected to run -- and win -- in 2002. Ed Perlmutter passed then, but he won the open seat last year.
One of the Arizona districts already was competitive, but became hard for the GOP when an anti-immigration bomb-thrower won the party's primary. In other words, if you focus only on the numbers, you will miss the story.
How about state legislatures in the region? Democrats made small gains in the Idaho, Colorado and Arizona state Houses. No chambers in the region switched control, however, except the Montana House, which went from a 50-50 tie to a one-seat GOP majority. Again, if there was a Democratic surge in 2006, you'll have to look under the rug to find it.
There were, of course, some Democratic gains in 2006. Much of the hype, I suspect, came from stronger than usual (though unsuccessful) Democratic efforts in House races in Idaho, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming, as well as a lot of buzz about the Idaho gubernatorial race. But those showings occurred in a landslide year for Democrats, making the results more likely to be an aberration rather than a trend.
The Mountain West is not the South. It's less reliable than Dixie for Republicans, and it's less conservative on social/religious issues. Moreover, Democrats have had considerable success in the region over the past three decades, and the party's nominee could carry a few Mountain West states in the '08 presidential race, particularly if there is a nationwide trend toward their party. But the evidence strongly demonstrates that there has been no Democratic surge in the region, even if the hyperbole makes for a better news story.
Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper. © 2007 Roll Call, Inc.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
AP: "Lieberman may back Republican in 2008"
Lieberman may back Republican in 2008
WASHINGTON - Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000 who won re-election as an independent last year, says he is open to supporting any party's White House nominee in 2008.
"I'm going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country," Lieberman said Sunday.
"So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned," said the three-term lawmaker who caucuses with Senate Democrats.
Lieberman is an ally of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a 2008 hopeful, and supports President Bush's Iraq strategy. Lieberman won re-election as an independent last fall when Democrats backed an anti-war candidate who won the party primary.
Speaking of which politician he may support in 2008, Lieberman said, "Obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."
He added, "I am genuinely an independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy."
The senator said he wanted to select someone "I believe is best for the future of our country. ... Party is important, but more important is the national interest.
And that's the basis that I will decide whom to support for president."
Lieberman spoke on "Fox News Sunday."
WASHINGTON - Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000 who won re-election as an independent last year, says he is open to supporting any party's White House nominee in 2008.
"I'm going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country," Lieberman said Sunday.
"So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned," said the three-term lawmaker who caucuses with Senate Democrats.
Lieberman is an ally of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a 2008 hopeful, and supports President Bush's Iraq strategy. Lieberman won re-election as an independent last fall when Democrats backed an anti-war candidate who won the party primary.
Speaking of which politician he may support in 2008, Lieberman said, "Obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."
He added, "I am genuinely an independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy."
The senator said he wanted to select someone "I believe is best for the future of our country. ... Party is important, but more important is the national interest.
And that's the basis that I will decide whom to support for president."
Lieberman spoke on "Fox News Sunday."
NY Times: "Giuliani Is Sounding More Like a Candidate"
January 28, 2007
Giuliani Is Sounding More Like a Candidate
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
MANCHESTER, N. H., Jan. 27 — Rudolph W. Giuliani sounded nearer than ever to being a presidential candidate on Saturday, repeatedly talking about the prospect of running, and inviting voters to judge him by his record as mayor of New York City.
Though he has long been thought to be a presidential contender, he has fallen behind other candidates in declaring his intention, and the language he used on Saturday, while suggesting a run, also contained built-in escape hatches. Speaking to a convention of the New Hampshire Republican Party, he advised the delegates on “what you should look for in whatever decision you make in presidential primaries,” and added, “when I promise you things, if I do, when I do, as I do, I’ll promise them because I’ve done them before.”
He returned to that theme moments later, and as he has done in recent days, drew a direct analogy between fighting crime in his home city and establishing peace in Iraq.
“When I say to you that we should reduce taxes to stimulate the economy, I’ll say it to you because I did it and I saw it work,” he said. “When I say we have to bring peace and security as sort of the beginning of anything, whether it’s in Baghdad or in other parts of the world or here at home, I’ll say that to you because I saw that happen in New York, and I made it happen. I did it.”
In his first trip since last fall to the state that holds the earliest presidential primary, Mr. Giuliani stepped closer than he has before to suggesting that he will run.
“Government has got to work in order to allow people to have confidence in it,” he said. “And as I look at this, I believe there is something I can do about that.”
Whether or not he is serious about a campaign, he may need to send such a signal to keep his options open. He has raised money, traveled extensively and put together a more robust organization in recent weeks, but as other candidates enter the race, many Republicans — and some publications — have questioned whether he will go through with it.
On this trip, he met privately with several elected officials, including the mayor of Manchester, Frank Guinta — the kind of personal courting people here expect, and that other top contenders have done more than Mr. Giuliani has.
“He’s going to have to spend a lot more with these people,” said Senator John E. Sununu.
When he speaks, Mr. Giuliani normally walks around the stage and does not refer to notes, joking and making matter-of-fact arguments. But Saturday’s speech, at the old Palace Theater, was unusually formal for him — he stayed behind the lectern and worked from notes — and also more overtly boastful and partisan, and more designed to rouse his audience.
Mr. Giuliani has taken the politically risky position of supporting President Bush’s unpopular decision to send more troops to Iraq, as have the other Republicans who rank highest in early polls, Senator John S. McCain and Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. But for the second time in as many days, Mr. Giuliani cautioned Saturday that the strategy might not work, and that it should not be viewed as the last word in the war.
“We hope and we root for and we pray for a successful outcome in Iraq,” he said. “But our ultimate victory is not going to be a military victory. Our ultimate victory against terrorism is going to be a victory of ideas.”
But he stayed away from the divisive social issues that put him at odds with much of his party, like his support of abortion rights and gay civil unions. Some delegates here said they had hoped Mr. Giuliani would explain support his past support for gun controls in New York that would be unpopular here.
Still, Republican officials here take him very seriously as a presidential contender, based primarily on his reputation for leadership in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“I would say his chances are excellent,” said State Representative John Reagan. “Everyone knows he has been severely tested.”
Giuliani Is Sounding More Like a Candidate
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
MANCHESTER, N. H., Jan. 27 — Rudolph W. Giuliani sounded nearer than ever to being a presidential candidate on Saturday, repeatedly talking about the prospect of running, and inviting voters to judge him by his record as mayor of New York City.
Though he has long been thought to be a presidential contender, he has fallen behind other candidates in declaring his intention, and the language he used on Saturday, while suggesting a run, also contained built-in escape hatches. Speaking to a convention of the New Hampshire Republican Party, he advised the delegates on “what you should look for in whatever decision you make in presidential primaries,” and added, “when I promise you things, if I do, when I do, as I do, I’ll promise them because I’ve done them before.”
He returned to that theme moments later, and as he has done in recent days, drew a direct analogy between fighting crime in his home city and establishing peace in Iraq.
“When I say to you that we should reduce taxes to stimulate the economy, I’ll say it to you because I did it and I saw it work,” he said. “When I say we have to bring peace and security as sort of the beginning of anything, whether it’s in Baghdad or in other parts of the world or here at home, I’ll say that to you because I saw that happen in New York, and I made it happen. I did it.”
In his first trip since last fall to the state that holds the earliest presidential primary, Mr. Giuliani stepped closer than he has before to suggesting that he will run.
“Government has got to work in order to allow people to have confidence in it,” he said. “And as I look at this, I believe there is something I can do about that.”
Whether or not he is serious about a campaign, he may need to send such a signal to keep his options open. He has raised money, traveled extensively and put together a more robust organization in recent weeks, but as other candidates enter the race, many Republicans — and some publications — have questioned whether he will go through with it.
On this trip, he met privately with several elected officials, including the mayor of Manchester, Frank Guinta — the kind of personal courting people here expect, and that other top contenders have done more than Mr. Giuliani has.
“He’s going to have to spend a lot more with these people,” said Senator John E. Sununu.
When he speaks, Mr. Giuliani normally walks around the stage and does not refer to notes, joking and making matter-of-fact arguments. But Saturday’s speech, at the old Palace Theater, was unusually formal for him — he stayed behind the lectern and worked from notes — and also more overtly boastful and partisan, and more designed to rouse his audience.
Mr. Giuliani has taken the politically risky position of supporting President Bush’s unpopular decision to send more troops to Iraq, as have the other Republicans who rank highest in early polls, Senator John S. McCain and Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. But for the second time in as many days, Mr. Giuliani cautioned Saturday that the strategy might not work, and that it should not be viewed as the last word in the war.
“We hope and we root for and we pray for a successful outcome in Iraq,” he said. “But our ultimate victory is not going to be a military victory. Our ultimate victory against terrorism is going to be a victory of ideas.”
But he stayed away from the divisive social issues that put him at odds with much of his party, like his support of abortion rights and gay civil unions. Some delegates here said they had hoped Mr. Giuliani would explain support his past support for gun controls in New York that would be unpopular here.
Still, Republican officials here take him very seriously as a presidential contender, based primarily on his reputation for leadership in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“I would say his chances are excellent,” said State Representative John Reagan. “Everyone knows he has been severely tested.”
Sammon: "Huckabee Rising"
Politics
Meet the Next President: Huckabee Rising
Bill Sammon, The Examiner
Sep 13, 2006 5:00 AM
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Gov. Mike Huckabee says his prospects for winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 might actually improve if his own party takes a beating in the 2006 midterm elections.“Will it be a wake-up call to our party, that we’re going to have to retool the message — not the principles — but the message?” Huckabee muses in an interview with The Examiner. “And will the party start looking for new voices, the ones that aren’t so already established?
“If so, then a guy like me may have a moment,” he adds. “If they say, ‘Well, it’s just McCain’s turn,’ well OK. But I don’t think we’re going to go there.”
Although some polls suggest Sen. John McCain is the early front-runner in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, Huckabee says the Arizona maverick should not start measuring the Oval Office for drapes just yet.
“I have a hard time seeing him being elected president, just because I think, at times, some of his views have alienated very important segments of the Republican Party,” Huckabee says. “I’m not sure he can mend the fences with the evangelical wing of the party, the pro-life part of the party.”
But Huckabee himself risks alienating a significant segment of the Republican Party with his support for President Bush’s controversial guest-worker program, which would grant legal status to illegal aliens.
“Yeah, I know, and I think it’s one of those things where if people are going to make a decision based on the emotion of that one issue, my attitude is then go ahead and write me off now,” he says. “Because if you don’t write me off on this one, you’ll find something else later on you’re just as mad about.”
Take taxes, for example. While Huckabee has cut some taxes as governor, he has raised others, earning the ire of fiscally conservative groups such as the Club for Growth.
“Just because you’ve cut taxes a couple of times, that doesn’t justify raising taxes,” says Andrew Roth, the club’s director of government affairs. “One of the biggest components of the Republican Party platform is low taxes — and Mike Huckabee does not espouse that view.”
Huckabee says he supported the Bush’s tax cuts and wants to make them permanent. But he also says he wants to further “raise the threshold for paying income tax,” which would shift a greater tax burden onto middle- and upper-income earners — something Bush has been doing for years.
“The Club for Growth, for some reason, is all on my back, and I think, in part, because I had the audacity to challenge some of them — they don’t like that,” Huckabee says. “They like for you to just sort of bow and kiss their ring. And, you know, I’m not going to do that. I don’t care who they are.”
Huckabee’s willingness to cross certain members of his own party makes him something of a maverick in his own right.
“One of my complaints with Republicans in my own party is that, true or not, we’re perceived as the people whose tax policies do tilt toward the people at the top end of the economic scale, with disregard to the people who are barely making it.
“And I think it’s in many ways a legitimate criticism,” he says. “Certainly we communicate very poorly how our tax policies are going to help the family out there who are barely struggling to pay rent.”
When Huckabee was growing up, his parents rented a home because they could not afford to purchase one in the small town of Hope, Ark., where former President Bill Clinton was also born. If Huckabee succeeds in his White House bid, he would be the second Hope native and Arkansas governor to become president.
“There may be some Republicans who try to say, ‘We’ve had one other guy from Hope, we don’t need another one,’” Huckabee says. “But I think the average person is much smarter than that.”
Huckabee has an unusually keen understanding of the political threat posed to the GOP by Clinton’s wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is widely regarded as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. He says the New York Democrat, who spent years in Arkansas, has a “rock-star quality that she brings just by walking into a room and sucking the oxygen out of it.”
“If the Republicans go around licking their chops, hoping that Hillary’s the nominee because that will be an easy mark, they’re going to be making a huge mistake,” he says. “They underestimate her at their own peril.”
To a lesser degree, some Democrats are quietly saying the same thing about Huckabee, a dark horse candidate whose humble roots could blunt any Democratic attempt at decrying class warfare. Although he is not yet widely known outside of Arkansas, Huckabee has been an inspiration to many overweight Americans with his recent book, “Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork.”
In folksy, self-deprecating language, Huckabee tells readers of his lifelong battle with obesity and recent loss of more than 100 pounds after he began exercising and eating healthy foods. He now runs marathons.
“It certainly humanizes me to many people,” he says. “They understand that the struggle they’ve had — which is the struggle of so many Americans — is something I can honestly relate to.”
Huckabee has made obesity a major public policy issue because he believes the attendant health care costs are unsustainable.
“Too many politicians are talking about health care, not enough are talking about health,” he says. “The focus needs to be on health, not health care.”
Huckabee devotes so much energy to the health issue that he sometimes sounds like he’s running for surgeon general, not president. This has caused some critics to write him off as a sort of political novelty act.
“They want to ghettoize me as a single-issue candidate, but I’m not,” he says. “I would describe myself as a conservative who got there out of conviction, not out of birth, nor out of convenience.”
He adds: “I sort of am the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican. I didn’t grow up privileged; I didn’t grow up going to an Ivy League school; I didn’t grow up in a political family that was wired and connected.”
In fact, Huckabee began his career in communications and eventually founded several religious TV stations, an experience that made him both comfortable and articulate on camera. He also spent a dozen years as a Baptist pastor before deciding to get into politics in the early 1990s.
“I felt there were so many people making decisions in public policy who were sincere and well-meaning, but they didn’t have a clue as to what the real hurts of humanity were,” he says. “They thought they understood, but they really had never walked into a home where there was no heat. They’d never, ever set down with a family who had just had a complete loss to fire — with no insurance.
“They didn’t really know anyone like that. They’d read news stories. But it’s a different thing when you literally know those people.”
He adds: “For every social pathology there is, I can put a name and face to it. It’s not abstract to me. If someone talks about a 14-year-old girl who is pregnant and hasn’t told her parents, I’ve talked to her.”
Michael Huckabee
1955 » Born in Hope, Ark., son of a fireman
1973 » Graduates from Hope High School
1974 » Marries Janet McCain. The couple eventually will have three children.
1975 » Graduates from Ouachita Baptist University at Arkadelphia, Ark.
1976-77 » Attends Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
1980-86 » Pastor, Immanuel Baptist Church, Pine Bluff, Ark.
1986-92 » Pastor, Beech Street First Baptist Church, Texarkana, Ark.
1987 » President, KBSC, a religious TV station in Texarkana
1989 » President, Arkansas Baptist State Convention
1992 » Loses first political race, a bid to unseat Sen. Dale Bumpers
1993 » Wins special election to become lieutenant governor
1994 » Re-elected
1996 » Succeeds Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who resigns after felony conviction
1998 » Elected to another term as governor
2002 » Re-elected (term-limited to leave office in January 2007)
2003 » Diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, loses 100 pounds
2005 » Chairman, National Governors Association
Huckabees’ positions on the issues
Abortion
Pro-life. Would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
Evolution
Wants creationism taught in schools alongside evolution. Once said, “I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory.”
Health Care
Preaches exercise and healthy eating to counter obesity and attendant diseases, which he believes are creating unsustainable health care costs.
Immigration
Supports President Bush’s call for a guest-worker program that would grant legal status to illegal aliens.
Iraq
Supported the invasion; opposes a withdrawal timetable; critiques shortcomings in President Bush’s post-Saddam plans.
Taxes
Has cut some taxes in Arkansas, while raising others. Wants to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent, but increase the number of lower-income earners who pay no income tax.
What observers are saying
David Yepsen
Political columnist
Des Moines Register
PRO » “He slides from sort of being a preacher to a politician and back — with a combination of good conservative message and a lot of good humor.”
CON » “The question is can he raise the money? I just don’t know about Huckabee. You’ve got to have a pretty good grub steak.”
Charlie Cook
Editor
Cook Political Report
PRO » “He does not project that harshness, that edge, that a lot of conservatives, particularly on some of the social and cultural issues, oftentimes do.”
CON » “I can’t imagine how somebody wins the party nomination with, say, anything less than $150 million. And I don’t know where he’d get the first 10.”
Larry Sabato
Political scientist, University of Virginia
PRO » “His weight-loss crusade has just the right nonpolitical touch for independents.”
CON » “Dominant conservatives have some doubts about Huckabee, finding him to be too moderate on social issues and too willing to compromise on fiscal issues. And it might be tough for the GOP to swallow a nominee from Bill Clinton’s Arkansas.”
Meet the Next President: Huckabee Rising
Bill Sammon, The Examiner
Sep 13, 2006 5:00 AM
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Gov. Mike Huckabee says his prospects for winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 might actually improve if his own party takes a beating in the 2006 midterm elections.“Will it be a wake-up call to our party, that we’re going to have to retool the message — not the principles — but the message?” Huckabee muses in an interview with The Examiner. “And will the party start looking for new voices, the ones that aren’t so already established?
“If so, then a guy like me may have a moment,” he adds. “If they say, ‘Well, it’s just McCain’s turn,’ well OK. But I don’t think we’re going to go there.”
Although some polls suggest Sen. John McCain is the early front-runner in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, Huckabee says the Arizona maverick should not start measuring the Oval Office for drapes just yet.
“I have a hard time seeing him being elected president, just because I think, at times, some of his views have alienated very important segments of the Republican Party,” Huckabee says. “I’m not sure he can mend the fences with the evangelical wing of the party, the pro-life part of the party.”
But Huckabee himself risks alienating a significant segment of the Republican Party with his support for President Bush’s controversial guest-worker program, which would grant legal status to illegal aliens.
“Yeah, I know, and I think it’s one of those things where if people are going to make a decision based on the emotion of that one issue, my attitude is then go ahead and write me off now,” he says. “Because if you don’t write me off on this one, you’ll find something else later on you’re just as mad about.”
Take taxes, for example. While Huckabee has cut some taxes as governor, he has raised others, earning the ire of fiscally conservative groups such as the Club for Growth.
“Just because you’ve cut taxes a couple of times, that doesn’t justify raising taxes,” says Andrew Roth, the club’s director of government affairs. “One of the biggest components of the Republican Party platform is low taxes — and Mike Huckabee does not espouse that view.”
Huckabee says he supported the Bush’s tax cuts and wants to make them permanent. But he also says he wants to further “raise the threshold for paying income tax,” which would shift a greater tax burden onto middle- and upper-income earners — something Bush has been doing for years.
“The Club for Growth, for some reason, is all on my back, and I think, in part, because I had the audacity to challenge some of them — they don’t like that,” Huckabee says. “They like for you to just sort of bow and kiss their ring. And, you know, I’m not going to do that. I don’t care who they are.”
Huckabee’s willingness to cross certain members of his own party makes him something of a maverick in his own right.
“One of my complaints with Republicans in my own party is that, true or not, we’re perceived as the people whose tax policies do tilt toward the people at the top end of the economic scale, with disregard to the people who are barely making it.
“And I think it’s in many ways a legitimate criticism,” he says. “Certainly we communicate very poorly how our tax policies are going to help the family out there who are barely struggling to pay rent.”
When Huckabee was growing up, his parents rented a home because they could not afford to purchase one in the small town of Hope, Ark., where former President Bill Clinton was also born. If Huckabee succeeds in his White House bid, he would be the second Hope native and Arkansas governor to become president.
“There may be some Republicans who try to say, ‘We’ve had one other guy from Hope, we don’t need another one,’” Huckabee says. “But I think the average person is much smarter than that.”
Huckabee has an unusually keen understanding of the political threat posed to the GOP by Clinton’s wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is widely regarded as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. He says the New York Democrat, who spent years in Arkansas, has a “rock-star quality that she brings just by walking into a room and sucking the oxygen out of it.”
“If the Republicans go around licking their chops, hoping that Hillary’s the nominee because that will be an easy mark, they’re going to be making a huge mistake,” he says. “They underestimate her at their own peril.”
To a lesser degree, some Democrats are quietly saying the same thing about Huckabee, a dark horse candidate whose humble roots could blunt any Democratic attempt at decrying class warfare. Although he is not yet widely known outside of Arkansas, Huckabee has been an inspiration to many overweight Americans with his recent book, “Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork.”
In folksy, self-deprecating language, Huckabee tells readers of his lifelong battle with obesity and recent loss of more than 100 pounds after he began exercising and eating healthy foods. He now runs marathons.
“It certainly humanizes me to many people,” he says. “They understand that the struggle they’ve had — which is the struggle of so many Americans — is something I can honestly relate to.”
Huckabee has made obesity a major public policy issue because he believes the attendant health care costs are unsustainable.
“Too many politicians are talking about health care, not enough are talking about health,” he says. “The focus needs to be on health, not health care.”
Huckabee devotes so much energy to the health issue that he sometimes sounds like he’s running for surgeon general, not president. This has caused some critics to write him off as a sort of political novelty act.
“They want to ghettoize me as a single-issue candidate, but I’m not,” he says. “I would describe myself as a conservative who got there out of conviction, not out of birth, nor out of convenience.”
He adds: “I sort of am the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican. I didn’t grow up privileged; I didn’t grow up going to an Ivy League school; I didn’t grow up in a political family that was wired and connected.”
In fact, Huckabee began his career in communications and eventually founded several religious TV stations, an experience that made him both comfortable and articulate on camera. He also spent a dozen years as a Baptist pastor before deciding to get into politics in the early 1990s.
“I felt there were so many people making decisions in public policy who were sincere and well-meaning, but they didn’t have a clue as to what the real hurts of humanity were,” he says. “They thought they understood, but they really had never walked into a home where there was no heat. They’d never, ever set down with a family who had just had a complete loss to fire — with no insurance.
“They didn’t really know anyone like that. They’d read news stories. But it’s a different thing when you literally know those people.”
He adds: “For every social pathology there is, I can put a name and face to it. It’s not abstract to me. If someone talks about a 14-year-old girl who is pregnant and hasn’t told her parents, I’ve talked to her.”
Michael Huckabee
1955 » Born in Hope, Ark., son of a fireman
1973 » Graduates from Hope High School
1974 » Marries Janet McCain. The couple eventually will have three children.
1975 » Graduates from Ouachita Baptist University at Arkadelphia, Ark.
1976-77 » Attends Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
1980-86 » Pastor, Immanuel Baptist Church, Pine Bluff, Ark.
1986-92 » Pastor, Beech Street First Baptist Church, Texarkana, Ark.
1987 » President, KBSC, a religious TV station in Texarkana
1989 » President, Arkansas Baptist State Convention
1992 » Loses first political race, a bid to unseat Sen. Dale Bumpers
1993 » Wins special election to become lieutenant governor
1994 » Re-elected
1996 » Succeeds Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who resigns after felony conviction
1998 » Elected to another term as governor
2002 » Re-elected (term-limited to leave office in January 2007)
2003 » Diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, loses 100 pounds
2005 » Chairman, National Governors Association
Huckabees’ positions on the issues
Abortion
Pro-life. Would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
Evolution
Wants creationism taught in schools alongside evolution. Once said, “I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory.”
Health Care
Preaches exercise and healthy eating to counter obesity and attendant diseases, which he believes are creating unsustainable health care costs.
Immigration
Supports President Bush’s call for a guest-worker program that would grant legal status to illegal aliens.
Iraq
Supported the invasion; opposes a withdrawal timetable; critiques shortcomings in President Bush’s post-Saddam plans.
Taxes
Has cut some taxes in Arkansas, while raising others. Wants to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent, but increase the number of lower-income earners who pay no income tax.
What observers are saying
David Yepsen
Political columnist
Des Moines Register
PRO » “He slides from sort of being a preacher to a politician and back — with a combination of good conservative message and a lot of good humor.”
CON » “The question is can he raise the money? I just don’t know about Huckabee. You’ve got to have a pretty good grub steak.”
Charlie Cook
Editor
Cook Political Report
PRO » “He does not project that harshness, that edge, that a lot of conservatives, particularly on some of the social and cultural issues, oftentimes do.”
CON » “I can’t imagine how somebody wins the party nomination with, say, anything less than $150 million. And I don’t know where he’d get the first 10.”
Larry Sabato
Political scientist, University of Virginia
PRO » “His weight-loss crusade has just the right nonpolitical touch for independents.”
CON » “Dominant conservatives have some doubts about Huckabee, finding him to be too moderate on social issues and too willing to compromise on fiscal issues. And it might be tough for the GOP to swallow a nominee from Bill Clinton’s Arkansas.”
Saturday, January 27, 2007
AP: Huckabee to Set Up '08 Exploratory Panel
Jan 27, 5:44 AM (ET)
By ANDREW DeMILLO
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Republican Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a favorite of conservatives, will take the first step in a 2008 presidential bid, an official told The Associated Press on Friday.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Republican Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a favorite of conservatives, will take the first step in a 2008 presidential bid, an official told The Associated Press on Friday.
Huckabee, 51, plans to file papers on Monday establishing an exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money and hire campaign staff, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement.
Huckabee faces difficult odds as he enters a crowded Republican field topped by better-known, better-funded candidates such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
All three have spent the last few months building their national campaign organizations, courting fundraisers and lining up grass-roots supporters in primary and caucus states. However, they also have records or positions on social or fiscal issues that don't sit well with conservative voters - and that could give Huckabee an opening.
"My brand of conservatism is not an angry hostile brand. It's one that says 'conservative' means we want to conserve the best of our culture, society, principles and values and pass them on," the former Southern Baptist minister said last month.
Huckabee, a fierce foe of abortion rights and gay marriage, isn't the only conservative in the field and he faces a tough fight for the support of the GOP's right flank, a crucial voting bloc in the nominating contests.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a favorite son of the religious right, is already in the race and other conservatives, such as California Rep. Duncan Hunter and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, will be battling for their share of the vote.
Still, Huckabee is hoping history can repeat itself. He was born in Hope, Ark., and was chief executive for a small state for many years. It was a story line that worked for Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992.
Huckabee left office Jan. 9 after serving 10 1/2 years as governor of a Democratic-leaning state; he was ineligible to seek re-election because of term limits. During his tenure, he repeatedly had to defend against slips of the tongue and ethics controversies.
Arkansas' Ethics Commission has admonished Huckabee for violations five times in 14 years, once for taking money from an organization whose donors have never been listed. He jokingly attributed his weight loss to a "concentration camp" diet and once called his state a "banana republic."
In November, he lashed out at reporters who questioned wedding-gift registries set up to furnish Huckabee's new $525,000 home in North Little Rock. Friends had set up the accounts for Huckabee and his wife Janet, who have been married since 1974.
Despite Arkansas being a predominantly Democratic state, Huckabee won two full terms in landslides. He championed tax increases for public schools, expanded state insurance programs for the children of the working poor and opposed banning state services for illegal immigrants.
Nationally, Huckabee is perhaps best known for his dramatic weight loss and his emphasis on healthy lifestyles. He shed 110 pounds after being diagnosed with diabetes. He also saw his political profile rise when he headed the National Governors Association for one term.
Since he left office, Huckabee has been on a nationwide tour to tout his book, "From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 Stops to Restoring America's Greatness." With chapters on taxes and foreign policy, Huckabee's book lays out his potential talking points for a presidential campaign.
---
Associated Press Writer Kelly P. Kissel in Little Rock, Ark., contributed to this report.
Associated Press Writer Kelly P. Kissel in Little Rock, Ark., contributed to this report.
U.S. News: Huckabee's In...
January 26, 2007
Get Ready for Huckabee
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will appear on Meet the Press Sunday to "talk about 2008," he tells Whispers in what is very likely his first foray into the 2008 presidential race.
While the GOP conservative–a dark horse on the list of most political junkies–won't reveal his plans, sources tell our Suzi Parker that he will start the process and signal that during the interview. A clue? He travels to Iowa, the first presidential caucus state, Tuesday and Wednesday. While there, Huckabee is expected to make some waves by naming a high-profile GOP activist his Iowa chairman.
Last year, Huckabee hired Eric Woolson, George W. Bush's chief Iowa spokesman in 1999–2000, to coordinate his legislative, grass-roots, and public-relations efforts in Iowa and a handful of other states for his "Hope for America" PAC. Huckabee also speaks Sunday morning at a forum hosted by National Review. Over the past couple of weeks, Huckabee has been on a book-signing tour to tout his new effort, From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 Stops to Restoring America's Greatness, and the ex-guv seems pleased with the reviews.
"Response has been surprisingly positive with a typical response being that it's a thorough treatment of the major issues but from a common-sense, practical perspective rather than from a rigid, ideological one," Huckabee says. "Those who read the book are somewhat surprised to find a conservative Republican talking about the environment, music and the arts, alternative domestic energy sources, health, and the urgency of addressing the nation's infrastructure."
Get Ready for Huckabee
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will appear on Meet the Press Sunday to "talk about 2008," he tells Whispers in what is very likely his first foray into the 2008 presidential race.
While the GOP conservative–a dark horse on the list of most political junkies–won't reveal his plans, sources tell our Suzi Parker that he will start the process and signal that during the interview. A clue? He travels to Iowa, the first presidential caucus state, Tuesday and Wednesday. While there, Huckabee is expected to make some waves by naming a high-profile GOP activist his Iowa chairman.
Last year, Huckabee hired Eric Woolson, George W. Bush's chief Iowa spokesman in 1999–2000, to coordinate his legislative, grass-roots, and public-relations efforts in Iowa and a handful of other states for his "Hope for America" PAC. Huckabee also speaks Sunday morning at a forum hosted by National Review. Over the past couple of weeks, Huckabee has been on a book-signing tour to tout his new effort, From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 Stops to Restoring America's Greatness, and the ex-guv seems pleased with the reviews.
"Response has been surprisingly positive with a typical response being that it's a thorough treatment of the major issues but from a common-sense, practical perspective rather than from a rigid, ideological one," Huckabee says. "Those who read the book are somewhat surprised to find a conservative Republican talking about the environment, music and the arts, alternative domestic energy sources, health, and the urgency of addressing the nation's infrastructure."
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Jim Webb's Response: Pro
January 25, 2007
Jim Webb: Reagan Democrat
By E. J. Dionne
WASHINGTON -- Like him or not, Ronald ("Tear Down This Wall'') Reagan spoke in a clean, clear prose that almost always left listeners with a sense that he stood for something.
It may thus be no accident that Jim Webb, Virginia's new Democratic senator, was once a Reaganite.
In his reply to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Webb defined the two central moral issues that animate most of the
Democratic Party's rank and file: the mess in Iraq and the fact that the fruits of a growing economy are not being shared by all Americans.
Then Webb did something rather astonishing: He didn't fudge on his language or try to take the hard edge off his impatience with the status quo.
Giving the speech in response to a president's State of the Union address may be the hardest assignment in politics. Even the best of the genre reek of focus-grouped and poll-tested sentences. You have the feeling the words are dictated by some party pooh-bah who believes the speech will fail if it does not touch all the issues on every strategist's list.
Gee, say the consultants to the poor politician who has to carry the party's torch, you just have to mention health care and child care and the environment and union rights and stem cell research -- and every other issue that energizes some base voter in some corner of the party.
And, oh yes, Mr. Politician, you can't forget that your real targets are those critical moderate independent swing voters in the Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states, and here's a list of key phrases we've polled to death that they respond to. You have to throw them in somewhere.
Ever wonder why politicians are so often accused of offering mush?
There was no mush from Webb. On the contrary, he tried only to make his two points, on Iraq and inequality, and showed what he was upset about.
Many Democrats tremble that they will be accused by some right-wing Web site or presidential spokesman of waging class warfare. Webb made clear that there is a class war going on, and that the wrong side is winning it.
"When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did,'' Webb said. "Today, it's nearly 400 times.''
OK, that's a standard sort of line from your standard progressive speech. But then came this arresting sentence: "In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.''
Examine that closely. How many politicians out there raising campaign contributions from rich people are willing to use "boss,'' instead of a more respectful locution?
And by talking about the time it takes someone to earn a buck, Webb makes it impossible for anyone to forget how vast the inequalities in our society have become.
Webb knows who he is fighting for. "We're working,'' he said, "to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.''
On Iraq, Webb did not mince his words about Bush's responsibility. "The president took us into this war recklessly,'' he declared.
Instead of qualifying this strong statement, Webb backed it up: "He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the Army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command. ...'' The list more than supported Webb's next thought, that "we are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.''
OK, even Webb held back on a couple of politically sensitive points. He offered workers an all-purpose promise on the trade issue that so divides his party. "Government," he said, "has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.''
And, yes, he simultaneously came out against "a precipitous withdrawal'' from Iraq and in favor of "a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.'' Philosophers and lexicographers might debate the difference between the words "precipitous'' and "short order.''
But Webb's performance was a salutary sign that Democrats just might be getting over the battered party syndrome that has left so many of them terrified of saying exactly what's on their mind. Then again, maybe Webb was just speaking for himself. Having lived on the Republican side of politics during the Democrats' most traumatic years, he may have escaped the traumas associated with defeat.
postchat@aol.com
(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
Jim Webb: Reagan Democrat
By E. J. Dionne
WASHINGTON -- Like him or not, Ronald ("Tear Down This Wall'') Reagan spoke in a clean, clear prose that almost always left listeners with a sense that he stood for something.
It may thus be no accident that Jim Webb, Virginia's new Democratic senator, was once a Reaganite.
In his reply to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Webb defined the two central moral issues that animate most of the
Democratic Party's rank and file: the mess in Iraq and the fact that the fruits of a growing economy are not being shared by all Americans.
Then Webb did something rather astonishing: He didn't fudge on his language or try to take the hard edge off his impatience with the status quo.
Giving the speech in response to a president's State of the Union address may be the hardest assignment in politics. Even the best of the genre reek of focus-grouped and poll-tested sentences. You have the feeling the words are dictated by some party pooh-bah who believes the speech will fail if it does not touch all the issues on every strategist's list.
Gee, say the consultants to the poor politician who has to carry the party's torch, you just have to mention health care and child care and the environment and union rights and stem cell research -- and every other issue that energizes some base voter in some corner of the party.
And, oh yes, Mr. Politician, you can't forget that your real targets are those critical moderate independent swing voters in the Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states, and here's a list of key phrases we've polled to death that they respond to. You have to throw them in somewhere.
Ever wonder why politicians are so often accused of offering mush?
There was no mush from Webb. On the contrary, he tried only to make his two points, on Iraq and inequality, and showed what he was upset about.
Many Democrats tremble that they will be accused by some right-wing Web site or presidential spokesman of waging class warfare. Webb made clear that there is a class war going on, and that the wrong side is winning it.
"When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did,'' Webb said. "Today, it's nearly 400 times.''
OK, that's a standard sort of line from your standard progressive speech. But then came this arresting sentence: "In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.''
Examine that closely. How many politicians out there raising campaign contributions from rich people are willing to use "boss,'' instead of a more respectful locution?
And by talking about the time it takes someone to earn a buck, Webb makes it impossible for anyone to forget how vast the inequalities in our society have become.
Webb knows who he is fighting for. "We're working,'' he said, "to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.''
On Iraq, Webb did not mince his words about Bush's responsibility. "The president took us into this war recklessly,'' he declared.
Instead of qualifying this strong statement, Webb backed it up: "He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the Army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command. ...'' The list more than supported Webb's next thought, that "we are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.''
OK, even Webb held back on a couple of politically sensitive points. He offered workers an all-purpose promise on the trade issue that so divides his party. "Government," he said, "has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.''
And, yes, he simultaneously came out against "a precipitous withdrawal'' from Iraq and in favor of "a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.'' Philosophers and lexicographers might debate the difference between the words "precipitous'' and "short order.''
But Webb's performance was a salutary sign that Democrats just might be getting over the battered party syndrome that has left so many of them terrified of saying exactly what's on their mind. Then again, maybe Webb was just speaking for himself. Having lived on the Republican side of politics during the Democrats' most traumatic years, he may have escaped the traumas associated with defeat.
postchat@aol.com
(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
Jim Webb's Response: Con
OnPoint:
Sen. James Webb is the toast of Democrats and their allies this week for his impressive response to the State of the Union speech - impressive in terms of rhetoric and delivery, if not always content.
Webb was eloquent in denouncing Bush's policy in Iraq, although his perspective is now the distilled consensus of most Democrats and many other Americans. More curious was his take on the economy, which amounted to another version of presidential candidate John Edwards' "two Americas" theme.
Webb's America is a portrait from Upton Sinclair - a place with a fantastically wealthy overclass lording it over the struggling masses, who are steadily ground down to despair. The middle class, "our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table," Webb maintained, while promising to address the "economic imbalance in our country."
Factually, the idea of a vanishing middle class is rubbish - populist folklore and little more. By any reasonable standard, most Americans are easily better off than they were 30 years ago - and the economy continues to hum. Yes, there is a fantastically wealthy elite - not just in corporate board rooms but in entertainment, sports, the media, and several other nooks of the economy - but they are not cashing their checks at the expense of the rest of us.
For the sake of argument, though, let's say Webb is right. Let's say the middle class is endangered, as he claims, by globalization - by upstart Chinese, Indians and greedy capitalists. What is to be done about it?
At this point even huge Webb fans such as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter detect a flaw in the angry posturing. "The problem with the populist theme," Alter admits, "is that Democrats have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class."
But this is not just a "problem" for liberal populism. It's the Achilles' heel.
Sen. James Webb is the toast of Democrats and their allies this week for his impressive response to the State of the Union speech - impressive in terms of rhetoric and delivery, if not always content.
Webb was eloquent in denouncing Bush's policy in Iraq, although his perspective is now the distilled consensus of most Democrats and many other Americans. More curious was his take on the economy, which amounted to another version of presidential candidate John Edwards' "two Americas" theme.
Webb's America is a portrait from Upton Sinclair - a place with a fantastically wealthy overclass lording it over the struggling masses, who are steadily ground down to despair. The middle class, "our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table," Webb maintained, while promising to address the "economic imbalance in our country."
Factually, the idea of a vanishing middle class is rubbish - populist folklore and little more. By any reasonable standard, most Americans are easily better off than they were 30 years ago - and the economy continues to hum. Yes, there is a fantastically wealthy elite - not just in corporate board rooms but in entertainment, sports, the media, and several other nooks of the economy - but they are not cashing their checks at the expense of the rest of us.
For the sake of argument, though, let's say Webb is right. Let's say the middle class is endangered, as he claims, by globalization - by upstart Chinese, Indians and greedy capitalists. What is to be done about it?
At this point even huge Webb fans such as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter detect a flaw in the angry posturing. "The problem with the populist theme," Alter admits, "is that Democrats have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class."
But this is not just a "problem" for liberal populism. It's the Achilles' heel.
Boston Globe: "McCain's Mitt strategy"
McCain's Mitt strategy
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist
January 25, 2007
WHAT'S JOHN McCain thinking?
"He has Mitt on the mind," said a Romney campaign consultant who requested anonymity.
"Mitt on the mind" is code for worrying that conservatives will ultimately desert Senator McCain for Romney in New Hampshire and across the country.
"Mitt on the mind" also explains why Rob Gray is now on board McCain's presidential exploratory committee as New England political strategist. Gray worked on Romney's 2002 gubernatorial campaign and knows well his record of conversion from moderate to hard-core conservative. Gray also relishes political hardball, although his latest effort amounted to an embarrassing whiff.
Gray played a critical role in Kerry Healey's losing 2006 campaign to become governor of Massachusetts. In that case, Gray took a moderate Republican with potential appeal to female and independent voters and turned her into a candidate with little appeal beyond a narrow conservative base.
The Healey campaign infamously blitzed the air waves with an ad featuring a woman walking alone in a dark parking garage while a narrator attacked Deval Patrick's efforts to try to free a convicted rapist. It was supposed to nail the woman's vote, by scaring women away from Patrick. Instead, women fled from Healey. The ad came out of the shop of media consultant Stuart Stevens, one of three strategists from President Bush's advertising team recently hired by McCain.
Can this recipe for political disaster in Massachusetts become a blueprint for winning a presidential primary in New Hampshire?
Turning McCain into a candidate with appeal to a narrow conservative base would be a plus in a GOP primary. However, it is also hard to accomplish on its own, given McCain's long, unhappy history with conservatives.
The next best option is to make conservatives as suspicious of Romney as they are of McCain.
Surprise! Someone is trying to do just that. A YouTube.com clip, posted anonymously this month, forced Romney to explain liberal positions he took in a 1994 debate when he ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The Romney consultant quoted above believes -- without offering any evidence -- that the McCain campaign did it "without fingerprints."
If so, it represents a smart departure from typical political attack ads. The YouTube.com clip simply showcased Romney's own words. It left it to viewers to draw their own conclusions about the larger political meaning. Romney is still dealing with the political fallout.
Polls put McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ahead in New Hampshire right now, but Romney is well positioned to overtake them in a contest that is still a year away. McCain definitely needs a Granite State win. His stunning victory there in 2000 launched the "Straight Talk Express" on an exciting, but ultimately losing effort to win the GOP nomination.
Back in 2000, McCain was the victim of political hardball at its ugliest. After defeating George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, the campaign headed to South Carolina for a bitter showdown.
In an opinion piece published in the Globe in 2004 under the headline, "The anatomy of a smear," McCain's campaign manager Richard H. Davis recounted what happened next: The McCains have an adopted daughter who was born in Bangladesh. Anonymous opponents suggested that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. "In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge," Davis wrote, calling it "the perfect smear campaign." The attacks badly hurt McCain's presidential prospects, as well as the McCain-Bush relationship. The two men have since repaired it, to McCain's political disadvantage.
Today, McCain has big political problems with independents who don't like his support for Bush's policy in Iraq. He is belatedly beginning to reframe it. In an interview with Politico.com, he blamed Vice President Cheney for a "witch's brew" of a "terribly mishandled" war. He also criticized former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying he "will go down in history . . . as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."
Refighting the 2000 presidential campaign isn't the path to victory for McCain in 2008. But learning from his mistakes can help. In 2000, he wasn't prepared to fight back. This time, McCain looks like he is preparing to play some hardball of his own in 2008.
He has nothing to lose, except whatever is left of his image as an unconventional outsider who stands for something other than politics as usual.
That's something else for McCain to think about.
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist
January 25, 2007
WHAT'S JOHN McCain thinking?
"He has Mitt on the mind," said a Romney campaign consultant who requested anonymity.
"Mitt on the mind" is code for worrying that conservatives will ultimately desert Senator McCain for Romney in New Hampshire and across the country.
"Mitt on the mind" also explains why Rob Gray is now on board McCain's presidential exploratory committee as New England political strategist. Gray worked on Romney's 2002 gubernatorial campaign and knows well his record of conversion from moderate to hard-core conservative. Gray also relishes political hardball, although his latest effort amounted to an embarrassing whiff.
Gray played a critical role in Kerry Healey's losing 2006 campaign to become governor of Massachusetts. In that case, Gray took a moderate Republican with potential appeal to female and independent voters and turned her into a candidate with little appeal beyond a narrow conservative base.
The Healey campaign infamously blitzed the air waves with an ad featuring a woman walking alone in a dark parking garage while a narrator attacked Deval Patrick's efforts to try to free a convicted rapist. It was supposed to nail the woman's vote, by scaring women away from Patrick. Instead, women fled from Healey. The ad came out of the shop of media consultant Stuart Stevens, one of three strategists from President Bush's advertising team recently hired by McCain.
Can this recipe for political disaster in Massachusetts become a blueprint for winning a presidential primary in New Hampshire?
Turning McCain into a candidate with appeal to a narrow conservative base would be a plus in a GOP primary. However, it is also hard to accomplish on its own, given McCain's long, unhappy history with conservatives.
The next best option is to make conservatives as suspicious of Romney as they are of McCain.
Surprise! Someone is trying to do just that. A YouTube.com clip, posted anonymously this month, forced Romney to explain liberal positions he took in a 1994 debate when he ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The Romney consultant quoted above believes -- without offering any evidence -- that the McCain campaign did it "without fingerprints."
If so, it represents a smart departure from typical political attack ads. The YouTube.com clip simply showcased Romney's own words. It left it to viewers to draw their own conclusions about the larger political meaning. Romney is still dealing with the political fallout.
Polls put McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ahead in New Hampshire right now, but Romney is well positioned to overtake them in a contest that is still a year away. McCain definitely needs a Granite State win. His stunning victory there in 2000 launched the "Straight Talk Express" on an exciting, but ultimately losing effort to win the GOP nomination.
Back in 2000, McCain was the victim of political hardball at its ugliest. After defeating George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, the campaign headed to South Carolina for a bitter showdown.
In an opinion piece published in the Globe in 2004 under the headline, "The anatomy of a smear," McCain's campaign manager Richard H. Davis recounted what happened next: The McCains have an adopted daughter who was born in Bangladesh. Anonymous opponents suggested that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. "In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge," Davis wrote, calling it "the perfect smear campaign." The attacks badly hurt McCain's presidential prospects, as well as the McCain-Bush relationship. The two men have since repaired it, to McCain's political disadvantage.
Today, McCain has big political problems with independents who don't like his support for Bush's policy in Iraq. He is belatedly beginning to reframe it. In an interview with Politico.com, he blamed Vice President Cheney for a "witch's brew" of a "terribly mishandled" war. He also criticized former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying he "will go down in history . . . as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."
Refighting the 2000 presidential campaign isn't the path to victory for McCain in 2008. But learning from his mistakes can help. In 2000, he wasn't prepared to fight back. This time, McCain looks like he is preparing to play some hardball of his own in 2008.
He has nothing to lose, except whatever is left of his image as an unconventional outsider who stands for something other than politics as usual.
That's something else for McCain to think about.
TIME Mag Poll: Clinton, McCain tops among voters
The skinny: Hillary over Obama 40%-21%, McCain over Rudy 30%-26%
"Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner to win the Democratic Party's nomination for President in 2008, but the Republican race will be a close contest between Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani — with McCain edging Giuliani by a three- to four-point margin.
And a presidential face-off between Clinton and McCain, right now, would be close to a dead heat. Those are some of the key findings of a new TIME poll earlier this week that canvassed a random sample of 1,064 registered voters by phone.
Despite the buzz generated by Senator Barack Obama entering the race, the survey found that Senator Clinton would beat him for the Democratic nomination by a margin of 40% to 21%. Senator John Edwards is a distant third with 11%. Obama clearly suffers a disadvantage in profile among likely voters, with only 51% indicating that they knew enough about him to form an opinion, compared with 94% saying the same of Hillary Clinton.
In Obama's favor, however, is his far lower negative ratings. While 58% of voters familiar with Hillary Clinton have a positive view of her, 41% give her negative marks, for a net favorability score of +17. By contrast, Obama's net favorability score is +47. On the Republican side, Giuliani has a net favorability rating of +68, with only 14% having a negative view of him. McCain's net favorability score is +45.
McCain, however, holds a narrow lead of 30% to 26% over Giuliani for the G.O.P. nomination. A race between McCain and Clinton would be a virtual tie (47%-47%), according to the poll, while McCain would beat either Obama or Senator John Edwards by a 7-point margin.
Clinton's popularity within her party does not translate as easily across party lines as Obama's does, or indeed as Giuliani's and McCain's. Only 58% of the total sample of respondents had a very or somewhat favorable impression of her, compared with 82% for Giuliani (including 7 out of 10 Democratic voters), and 70% each for Obama and McCain — both of whom showed strongly among independents. These figures must be read against the fact that 94% of respondents said they knew "a great deal" or "some" about Clinton, while 73% said the same of Giuliani and 66% of John McCain. Only 51% knew "a great deal" or "some" about Obama.
If the election were held now, Rudy Giuliani appears to have the support of the greatest number of respondents of both parties, with 56% indicating they would "definitely" or "probably" support him — followed by Hillary Clinton (51%) John McCain (50%) and Barack Obama (50%). But Clinton has a strong edge when the question is which presidential candidate people would most like to have over to their homes for dinner. The former First Lady led the dinner-invitation field with 26%, while Obama and McCain tied for second place at 15%.
But with the New Hampshire primaries a year away, the the four leading contenders all have some work to do: Obama in making himself better known, Clinton in making herself better liked, McCain in matching Giuliani's appeal to Democratic voters, and Giuliani in landing more invitations to dinner."
"Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner to win the Democratic Party's nomination for President in 2008, but the Republican race will be a close contest between Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani — with McCain edging Giuliani by a three- to four-point margin.
And a presidential face-off between Clinton and McCain, right now, would be close to a dead heat. Those are some of the key findings of a new TIME poll earlier this week that canvassed a random sample of 1,064 registered voters by phone.
Despite the buzz generated by Senator Barack Obama entering the race, the survey found that Senator Clinton would beat him for the Democratic nomination by a margin of 40% to 21%. Senator John Edwards is a distant third with 11%. Obama clearly suffers a disadvantage in profile among likely voters, with only 51% indicating that they knew enough about him to form an opinion, compared with 94% saying the same of Hillary Clinton.
In Obama's favor, however, is his far lower negative ratings. While 58% of voters familiar with Hillary Clinton have a positive view of her, 41% give her negative marks, for a net favorability score of +17. By contrast, Obama's net favorability score is +47. On the Republican side, Giuliani has a net favorability rating of +68, with only 14% having a negative view of him. McCain's net favorability score is +45.
McCain, however, holds a narrow lead of 30% to 26% over Giuliani for the G.O.P. nomination. A race between McCain and Clinton would be a virtual tie (47%-47%), according to the poll, while McCain would beat either Obama or Senator John Edwards by a 7-point margin.
Clinton's popularity within her party does not translate as easily across party lines as Obama's does, or indeed as Giuliani's and McCain's. Only 58% of the total sample of respondents had a very or somewhat favorable impression of her, compared with 82% for Giuliani (including 7 out of 10 Democratic voters), and 70% each for Obama and McCain — both of whom showed strongly among independents. These figures must be read against the fact that 94% of respondents said they knew "a great deal" or "some" about Clinton, while 73% said the same of Giuliani and 66% of John McCain. Only 51% knew "a great deal" or "some" about Obama.
If the election were held now, Rudy Giuliani appears to have the support of the greatest number of respondents of both parties, with 56% indicating they would "definitely" or "probably" support him — followed by Hillary Clinton (51%) John McCain (50%) and Barack Obama (50%). But Clinton has a strong edge when the question is which presidential candidate people would most like to have over to their homes for dinner. The former First Lady led the dinner-invitation field with 26%, while Obama and McCain tied for second place at 15%.
But with the New Hampshire primaries a year away, the the four leading contenders all have some work to do: Obama in making himself better known, Clinton in making herself better liked, McCain in matching Giuliani's appeal to Democratic voters, and Giuliani in landing more invitations to dinner."
Politico.com: Rudy In or Out?
Interesting piece...could it even be possible that Giuliani will not run?
Failed 2000 N.Y. Campaign Casts Shadow Over Giuliani's 2008 Ambition
By: Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith January 25, 2007 05:21 AM EST
Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is finally scrambling to beat back a crippling perception that his bid for president isn't quite serious. But even as he begins to hire aides and consultants, many of his New York supporters and critics, as well as neutral observers, see a repeat of his half-hearted, unfinished 2000 campaign for Senate.
"At this moment in history I do not believe he's running for president; I just don't believe it," said Mike Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State. "I don't know of anyone who's gotten a call saying, 'I'm running, I need you to get behind me,' same as happened before."
"I'm having a real hard time believing the guy is taking it seriously," said a former Guiliani aide, who said that he would love to see him become president. "In 2000 there was this feeling that he didn't have to play by all the rules that little people have to play by, and I see that even more strongly now."
The question for this year's Republican primary is whether voters can expect the Giuliani of his first winning campaign in 1993 -- a studious, disciplined, hard-working candidate -- or the indecisive, disorganized, reluctant candidate of 2000, carried by spectacular public polling and national Republican hopes toward a confrontation with Hillary Rodham Clinton until he flamed out in May.
To many in New York, it's starting to look like 2000 all over again with Giuliani drawing the biggest headlines of late when an aide lost possession of a binder containing detailed fund-raising plans and worries that his personal and business life could scuttle his campaign; that 140-page dossier, first published in the New York Daily News, is available online today at Politico.com.
His aides declined to make him available for comment.
Giuliani's early apparent weaknesses -- lack of veteran Republican aides, organization and money -- are hardly fatal. However, they do have a domino effect affecting his ability to attract seasoned staff workers and recruit national donors, and that exacerbates the skepticism that he is serious.
"I doubt his ability to actually go through with it to the end," said Republican strategist Chris LaCivita, who is not working for any of the presidential hopefuls. "Here we are, it's the 17th of January, we've got straw polls around the corner, and they don't have a media consultant or a pollster yet? That's a tell-tale sign."
In 2000, Giuliani allowed his messy personal life -- a public separation, a public girlfriend -- to spill into the headlines. He dropped out of the race after being diagnosed with prostate cancer, but many people around him saw the illness as just one of many factors ending the campaign.This year, it's his sprawling, lucrative private business that has consumed his attention and produced unflattering stories, while his rivals charm their way through the local potentates of the early presidential primary states.
"He makes millions ... because he is revered among a large section of America due to what he did on 9/11," said one neutral GOP consultant. "Why give that up and go into a national political campaign to have all your dirty laundry aired and be gutted like a fish? Then how many companies want to affiliate with that?"
His businesses include a law firm, a security consultancy, a lucrative motivational speaking practice and an investment bank that he's planning to sell. But his political operation is thin. Giuliani has no employees who have worked in the senior ranks of a presidential campaign, though he tried and failed to hire former GOP chairman Ken Mehlman, Republican sources said.
He has hardly made a dent in the early primary states and is badly lagging behind Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in doing the critical spadework of reaching out to the key activists and operatives needed to win in places like Spartanburg County, South Carolina.
"He hasn't called," said Rick Beltram, GOP chairman of the upstate county that is a must-win for any Republican primary hopeful. By contrast, Beltram -- who has not endorsed in the race -- said he and Romney are on a first-name basis and that Romney and McCain have been to the county multiple times in recent years.
That failure to build a national organization echoes 2000, in which Giuliani paid little attention to Upstate New York and ditched appearances in Rochester and Buffalo for a Yankees game. "He couldn't put together a statewide campaign in New York," scoffed on Democratic strategist active in the 2000 race. "Why would anyone think he could do so in the entire country?"
Despite the prevalence of the worries in Giuliani's own camp, a senior aide to the former mayor blamed the chatter in part on folks from other campaigns.
In early January, Giuliani began to hire staff and to push back publicly against the notion that he's not running a serious campaign, announcing with much fanfare the hiring of three young Republican staffers and a prominent Iowa Republican, former representative Jim Nussle, with promises of more personnel moves on the way.
"By early to mid-February, you'll see 20 significant hires in terms of finance, political and communications," the aide said. "And you're going to see some ramping up in Iowa."
With the beginning of a New Hampshire operation in place, he said Giuliani would add a regional political director early next month with Iowa experience.
In South Carolina, Giuliani plans to announce that Karen Floyd, a public relations consultant who lost a bid last year for state office, has joined to help raise money and navigate Palmetto State politics.
For national fund-raising, he's also hired Benedetti & Farris, based in Richmond, Va. According to a recent e-mail obtained by The Politico that the firm sent to an undisclosed list of potential donors, the campaign is "currently in the process of planning a few D.C. events in the Mayor's honor." Indeed, with the help of a group of regional finance chairs to be named, there will be a series of fund-raisers in the weeks and months ahead culminating in a major event in New York City in March, the aide said.
"The first real measuring stick is the first filing deadline," the aide said in reference to the campaign finance period that ends March 31. The infamous lost dossier put Giuliani's goal for that period at $25 million to $30 million.
Despite the hires, some of Giuliani's supporters are not convinced.
"There are two campaigns: the internal campaign of Rudy's core team and the external campaign of the people he's hiring for the Potemkin village in order to have the perception of a viable campaign," said one Giuliani loyalist. The decision has yet to be made, this person said, and when it is, it will take place "between Rudy and a few people in a room at one o'clock in the morning."
Even the doubters, though, acknowledge a key difference between this year and 2000. After Giuliani dropped out on May 19 of that year, the New York Post ran the definitive analysis of the race under the headline: "Bottom line: He didn't really want the job."
It's a conclusion shared by Fred Siegel, the author of a recent study of Giuliani's mayoralty called "the Prince of the City."
"He never wanted to be senator," said Siegel, who said he thinks Giuliani is studying policy and laying plans for a serious, if unconventional, presidential campaign. "He wants the job. That's the first difference."
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
Failed 2000 N.Y. Campaign Casts Shadow Over Giuliani's 2008 Ambition
By: Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith January 25, 2007 05:21 AM EST
Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is finally scrambling to beat back a crippling perception that his bid for president isn't quite serious. But even as he begins to hire aides and consultants, many of his New York supporters and critics, as well as neutral observers, see a repeat of his half-hearted, unfinished 2000 campaign for Senate.
"At this moment in history I do not believe he's running for president; I just don't believe it," said Mike Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State. "I don't know of anyone who's gotten a call saying, 'I'm running, I need you to get behind me,' same as happened before."
"I'm having a real hard time believing the guy is taking it seriously," said a former Guiliani aide, who said that he would love to see him become president. "In 2000 there was this feeling that he didn't have to play by all the rules that little people have to play by, and I see that even more strongly now."
The question for this year's Republican primary is whether voters can expect the Giuliani of his first winning campaign in 1993 -- a studious, disciplined, hard-working candidate -- or the indecisive, disorganized, reluctant candidate of 2000, carried by spectacular public polling and national Republican hopes toward a confrontation with Hillary Rodham Clinton until he flamed out in May.
To many in New York, it's starting to look like 2000 all over again with Giuliani drawing the biggest headlines of late when an aide lost possession of a binder containing detailed fund-raising plans and worries that his personal and business life could scuttle his campaign; that 140-page dossier, first published in the New York Daily News, is available online today at Politico.com.
His aides declined to make him available for comment.
Giuliani's early apparent weaknesses -- lack of veteran Republican aides, organization and money -- are hardly fatal. However, they do have a domino effect affecting his ability to attract seasoned staff workers and recruit national donors, and that exacerbates the skepticism that he is serious.
"I doubt his ability to actually go through with it to the end," said Republican strategist Chris LaCivita, who is not working for any of the presidential hopefuls. "Here we are, it's the 17th of January, we've got straw polls around the corner, and they don't have a media consultant or a pollster yet? That's a tell-tale sign."
In 2000, Giuliani allowed his messy personal life -- a public separation, a public girlfriend -- to spill into the headlines. He dropped out of the race after being diagnosed with prostate cancer, but many people around him saw the illness as just one of many factors ending the campaign.This year, it's his sprawling, lucrative private business that has consumed his attention and produced unflattering stories, while his rivals charm their way through the local potentates of the early presidential primary states.
"He makes millions ... because he is revered among a large section of America due to what he did on 9/11," said one neutral GOP consultant. "Why give that up and go into a national political campaign to have all your dirty laundry aired and be gutted like a fish? Then how many companies want to affiliate with that?"
His businesses include a law firm, a security consultancy, a lucrative motivational speaking practice and an investment bank that he's planning to sell. But his political operation is thin. Giuliani has no employees who have worked in the senior ranks of a presidential campaign, though he tried and failed to hire former GOP chairman Ken Mehlman, Republican sources said.
He has hardly made a dent in the early primary states and is badly lagging behind Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in doing the critical spadework of reaching out to the key activists and operatives needed to win in places like Spartanburg County, South Carolina.
"He hasn't called," said Rick Beltram, GOP chairman of the upstate county that is a must-win for any Republican primary hopeful. By contrast, Beltram -- who has not endorsed in the race -- said he and Romney are on a first-name basis and that Romney and McCain have been to the county multiple times in recent years.
That failure to build a national organization echoes 2000, in which Giuliani paid little attention to Upstate New York and ditched appearances in Rochester and Buffalo for a Yankees game. "He couldn't put together a statewide campaign in New York," scoffed on Democratic strategist active in the 2000 race. "Why would anyone think he could do so in the entire country?"
Despite the prevalence of the worries in Giuliani's own camp, a senior aide to the former mayor blamed the chatter in part on folks from other campaigns.
In early January, Giuliani began to hire staff and to push back publicly against the notion that he's not running a serious campaign, announcing with much fanfare the hiring of three young Republican staffers and a prominent Iowa Republican, former representative Jim Nussle, with promises of more personnel moves on the way.
"By early to mid-February, you'll see 20 significant hires in terms of finance, political and communications," the aide said. "And you're going to see some ramping up in Iowa."
With the beginning of a New Hampshire operation in place, he said Giuliani would add a regional political director early next month with Iowa experience.
In South Carolina, Giuliani plans to announce that Karen Floyd, a public relations consultant who lost a bid last year for state office, has joined to help raise money and navigate Palmetto State politics.
For national fund-raising, he's also hired Benedetti & Farris, based in Richmond, Va. According to a recent e-mail obtained by The Politico that the firm sent to an undisclosed list of potential donors, the campaign is "currently in the process of planning a few D.C. events in the Mayor's honor." Indeed, with the help of a group of regional finance chairs to be named, there will be a series of fund-raisers in the weeks and months ahead culminating in a major event in New York City in March, the aide said.
"The first real measuring stick is the first filing deadline," the aide said in reference to the campaign finance period that ends March 31. The infamous lost dossier put Giuliani's goal for that period at $25 million to $30 million.
Despite the hires, some of Giuliani's supporters are not convinced.
"There are two campaigns: the internal campaign of Rudy's core team and the external campaign of the people he's hiring for the Potemkin village in order to have the perception of a viable campaign," said one Giuliani loyalist. The decision has yet to be made, this person said, and when it is, it will take place "between Rudy and a few people in a room at one o'clock in the morning."
Even the doubters, though, acknowledge a key difference between this year and 2000. After Giuliani dropped out on May 19 of that year, the New York Post ran the definitive analysis of the race under the headline: "Bottom line: He didn't really want the job."
It's a conclusion shared by Fred Siegel, the author of a recent study of Giuliani's mayoralty called "the Prince of the City."
"He never wanted to be senator," said Siegel, who said he thinks Giuliani is studying policy and laying plans for a serious, if unconventional, presidential campaign. "He wants the job. That's the first difference."
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
Hunter makes it official: He's a candidate
Hunter makes it official: He's a candidate
By Finlay Lewis
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
10:38 a.m. January 25, 2007
SPARTANBURG, S.C. – U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, hoping to become the first San Diegan to occupy the White House, became an official candidate for president Thursday morning with a forceful pledge to carry forward Ronald Reagan's policy of “peace through strength.”
Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, best known for his advocacy on behalf of the military, launched a longshot bid for the presidency Thursday in this early voting state.Speaking at a breakfast rally in a ballroom filled with about 250 enthusiastic supporters, Hunter offered a staunchly conservative message that attacked unfair trade deals, warned about China's mounting military might and voiced support for President Bush's troop surge in Iraq. He also said he would toughen border security and to appoint judges opposed to abortion to the federal bench.
Hunter's announcement propels him into the 2008 race for the GOP nomination as an extreme underdog – one who registers only 1 percent in most polls.
With the campaign sorting itself into a top tier of two front runners – former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain – with everybody else below, Hunter clearly begins his effort on the bottom rung.
Hunter made an earlier announcement of his campaign intentions in October in San Diego. He billed his appearance Thursday in South Carolina as his formal announcement. South Carolina is an early primary state with a strongly conservative, protectionist, anti-abortion, pro-military tradition.
The 58-year-old Alpine Republican presented himself as a Vietnam combat veteran and as the son of one Marine and the father of another. He cited his service on the House Armed Services Committee – including a four-year stint as chairman that ended three weeks ago – as having helped to reverse the policies of the Clinton Administration. He said those policies caused the deterioration of the armed services.
He listed some of the winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor for valor in combat and the estimated 600,000 Americans who died in 20th Century wars and then declared, “Our obligation is to stay strong. That's what they want us to do.”
He listed security threats now being posed by North Korea, Iran and China, and said, “We have lots of problems. We're going to have to work on those. We're going to have to look over the horizon.
“But, you know something? We can do it. We can do it with a policy of peace through strength. And, ladies and gentlemen, I want to lead that policy of peace through strength.”
Afterward, Roger Milliken, 91, a wealthy textile magnate, applauded Hunter, in particular his stance against trade agreements he and others have blamed for the loss of U.S. manufacturing and its factory jobs to lower-cost rivals overseas.
“What's happened is that we've lost three million manufacturing jobs over the last six years. That's a disaster,” said Milliken, a prominent bankroller of conservative Republican causes. “Nobody is worried about how we defend our manufacturing strength and our middle class, Duncan Hunter understands that.”
Hunter also won the support of Carole Wells, 63, a Spartanburg resident who recently left a position as South Carolina's Commissioner for Employment Security.
“I believe he carried my thoughts and how I feel about the situation,” said Wells, an unsuccessful candidate for Congress two years ago. “It's very important to be strong on immigration, and I'm pro-life. That's my two defining issues.”
Hunter mentioned his support for legislation to build a border fence along San Diego County's that he credited with halting the “smuggling of hundreds of thousands of people” and of “tons of illegal narcotics.” And he mocked Washington bureaucrats he said are blocking efforts to fence off an additional 700 border miles in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
He said border security has now become a national security as well as an immigration issue and urged swifter action, saying, “Let's do it.
“We have just one message: . . . When you want to come to the United States, come knock on the front door, because the fence is gonna be up and the back door is gonna be closed.”
Hunter definitively sides with the president on Iraq at a time when a number of prominent Republicans, including another presidential candidate, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, are opposing Bush's determination to bolster U.S. forces in Baghdad by 21,500 additional troops. “In Iraq, freedom hangs in the balance,” Hunter said.
“Any political party that tries to cut off reinforcements or supplies in shooting war will never be forgiven by our troops and will never be forgiven by the American people,” Hunter said.
But Hunter also had harsh words for the administration on China. He said it had failed to confront the Chinese government over currency policies and cheating on trade deals that he said have made Beijing billions of dollars it could use to build up its military to a point from which it could threaten America's national security.
He referred to a recent delegation to China, led by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, that he said flinched at pressing the issue with high-ranking Chinese officials.
“I thought that Republicans didn't appease Communists, and that's what we did,” Hunter declared.
“Today starts the time for choosing, for every American manufacturer and laborer,” Hunter said. “You can either choose to give into China's cheating, or you can choose to join me to enforce fair trade.”
Many of those attending paid $250 into the coffers of the fledgling campaign, but others were invited as guests, and campaign officials did not have a final figure on how much the event grossed.
Hunter's official entry into the race – following the formation of an exploratory committee about three weeks earlier – was recorded by a bank of television cameras representing most of the local broadcast media outlets.
Later in the day, Hunter was to appear on CNN and Fox News before heading to Charleston, S.C., for events there on Friday and in Myrtle Beach, S.C. on Saturday. Hunter is then scheduled to campaign in New Hampshire before heading back to Washington.
Find this article at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070125-1048-bn25duncanhunter1.html
By Finlay Lewis
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
10:38 a.m. January 25, 2007
SPARTANBURG, S.C. – U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, hoping to become the first San Diegan to occupy the White House, became an official candidate for president Thursday morning with a forceful pledge to carry forward Ronald Reagan's policy of “peace through strength.”
Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, best known for his advocacy on behalf of the military, launched a longshot bid for the presidency Thursday in this early voting state.Speaking at a breakfast rally in a ballroom filled with about 250 enthusiastic supporters, Hunter offered a staunchly conservative message that attacked unfair trade deals, warned about China's mounting military might and voiced support for President Bush's troop surge in Iraq. He also said he would toughen border security and to appoint judges opposed to abortion to the federal bench.
Hunter's announcement propels him into the 2008 race for the GOP nomination as an extreme underdog – one who registers only 1 percent in most polls.
With the campaign sorting itself into a top tier of two front runners – former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain – with everybody else below, Hunter clearly begins his effort on the bottom rung.
Hunter made an earlier announcement of his campaign intentions in October in San Diego. He billed his appearance Thursday in South Carolina as his formal announcement. South Carolina is an early primary state with a strongly conservative, protectionist, anti-abortion, pro-military tradition.
The 58-year-old Alpine Republican presented himself as a Vietnam combat veteran and as the son of one Marine and the father of another. He cited his service on the House Armed Services Committee – including a four-year stint as chairman that ended three weeks ago – as having helped to reverse the policies of the Clinton Administration. He said those policies caused the deterioration of the armed services.
He listed some of the winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor for valor in combat and the estimated 600,000 Americans who died in 20th Century wars and then declared, “Our obligation is to stay strong. That's what they want us to do.”
He listed security threats now being posed by North Korea, Iran and China, and said, “We have lots of problems. We're going to have to work on those. We're going to have to look over the horizon.
“But, you know something? We can do it. We can do it with a policy of peace through strength. And, ladies and gentlemen, I want to lead that policy of peace through strength.”
Afterward, Roger Milliken, 91, a wealthy textile magnate, applauded Hunter, in particular his stance against trade agreements he and others have blamed for the loss of U.S. manufacturing and its factory jobs to lower-cost rivals overseas.
“What's happened is that we've lost three million manufacturing jobs over the last six years. That's a disaster,” said Milliken, a prominent bankroller of conservative Republican causes. “Nobody is worried about how we defend our manufacturing strength and our middle class, Duncan Hunter understands that.”
Hunter also won the support of Carole Wells, 63, a Spartanburg resident who recently left a position as South Carolina's Commissioner for Employment Security.
“I believe he carried my thoughts and how I feel about the situation,” said Wells, an unsuccessful candidate for Congress two years ago. “It's very important to be strong on immigration, and I'm pro-life. That's my two defining issues.”
Hunter mentioned his support for legislation to build a border fence along San Diego County's that he credited with halting the “smuggling of hundreds of thousands of people” and of “tons of illegal narcotics.” And he mocked Washington bureaucrats he said are blocking efforts to fence off an additional 700 border miles in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
He said border security has now become a national security as well as an immigration issue and urged swifter action, saying, “Let's do it.
“We have just one message: . . . When you want to come to the United States, come knock on the front door, because the fence is gonna be up and the back door is gonna be closed.”
Hunter definitively sides with the president on Iraq at a time when a number of prominent Republicans, including another presidential candidate, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, are opposing Bush's determination to bolster U.S. forces in Baghdad by 21,500 additional troops. “In Iraq, freedom hangs in the balance,” Hunter said.
“Any political party that tries to cut off reinforcements or supplies in shooting war will never be forgiven by our troops and will never be forgiven by the American people,” Hunter said.
But Hunter also had harsh words for the administration on China. He said it had failed to confront the Chinese government over currency policies and cheating on trade deals that he said have made Beijing billions of dollars it could use to build up its military to a point from which it could threaten America's national security.
He referred to a recent delegation to China, led by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, that he said flinched at pressing the issue with high-ranking Chinese officials.
“I thought that Republicans didn't appease Communists, and that's what we did,” Hunter declared.
“Today starts the time for choosing, for every American manufacturer and laborer,” Hunter said. “You can either choose to give into China's cheating, or you can choose to join me to enforce fair trade.”
Many of those attending paid $250 into the coffers of the fledgling campaign, but others were invited as guests, and campaign officials did not have a final figure on how much the event grossed.
Hunter's official entry into the race – following the formation of an exploratory committee about three weeks earlier – was recorded by a bank of television cameras representing most of the local broadcast media outlets.
Later in the day, Hunter was to appear on CNN and Fox News before heading to Charleston, S.C., for events there on Friday and in Myrtle Beach, S.C. on Saturday. Hunter is then scheduled to campaign in New Hampshire before heading back to Washington.
Find this article at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070125-1048-bn25duncanhunter1.html
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
President Bush's State of the Union address
The text of President Bush's State of the Union Address can be found here.
Jim Webb's Democratic Response
Senator Jim Webb's response to President Bush's State of the Union address can be found here.
BREAKING: "Kerry to bow out of '08 presidential race"
Kerry to bow out of '08 presidential race
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff January 24, 2007
WASHINGTON --Senator John F. Kerry plans to announce today that he is bowing out of the 2008 presidential race, and will instead remain in Congress and seek reelection to his Senate seat next year, according to senior Democratic officials.
Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, plans to say he will remain in the Senate to recommit himself to efforts to extricate the United States from the war in Iraq. His decision to stay out of the presidential race reflects a realization that he would have had an uphill climb in capturing the Democratic nomination, given the other party heavyweights who are already in the race, according to the officials, who spoke to the Globe on condition of anonymity.
Kerry plans to make his plans known with a speech on the Senate floor this afternoon, and is taping a message to e-mail his supporters to explain his decision.
Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, has been acting like a 2008 candidate virtually since he lost to President Bush -- traveling the country, spreading money to other Democratic candidates, and keeping in place a campaign infrastructure that was ready for another presidential bid.
But according to Kerry associates, the senator's plans changed dramatically in the fallout of his election-eve ``botched joke" about the education levels of US troops. The harsh reaction to that incident -- from many Democrats as well as Republicans -- displayed to Kerry the extreme skepticism within his own party about whether he should mount another run.
And, with polls giving front-runner status to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Kerry realized that he would face formidable adversaries in the quest for the Democratic nomination. Clinton, Obama, and a host of other candidates have been busily hiring campaign operatives and signing up key fund-raisers in recent weeks.
On Iraq, Kerry has emerged as a fierce war critic after initially supporting the invasion of Iraq. He has spoken of his war opposition in a similar vein to his efforts to bring the Vietnam War to a conclusion in the early 1970s.
Kerry's announcement freezes in place the various Democratic aspirants to his Senate seat.
Massachusetts hasn't had a vacant Senate seat since 1984 -- when Kerry himself won his first six-year-term -- and several members of the state's all-Democratic congressional delegation have expressed interest in running for the Senate if Kerry retired.
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff January 24, 2007
WASHINGTON --Senator John F. Kerry plans to announce today that he is bowing out of the 2008 presidential race, and will instead remain in Congress and seek reelection to his Senate seat next year, according to senior Democratic officials.
Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, plans to say he will remain in the Senate to recommit himself to efforts to extricate the United States from the war in Iraq. His decision to stay out of the presidential race reflects a realization that he would have had an uphill climb in capturing the Democratic nomination, given the other party heavyweights who are already in the race, according to the officials, who spoke to the Globe on condition of anonymity.
Kerry plans to make his plans known with a speech on the Senate floor this afternoon, and is taping a message to e-mail his supporters to explain his decision.
Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, has been acting like a 2008 candidate virtually since he lost to President Bush -- traveling the country, spreading money to other Democratic candidates, and keeping in place a campaign infrastructure that was ready for another presidential bid.
But according to Kerry associates, the senator's plans changed dramatically in the fallout of his election-eve ``botched joke" about the education levels of US troops. The harsh reaction to that incident -- from many Democrats as well as Republicans -- displayed to Kerry the extreme skepticism within his own party about whether he should mount another run.
And, with polls giving front-runner status to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Kerry realized that he would face formidable adversaries in the quest for the Democratic nomination. Clinton, Obama, and a host of other candidates have been busily hiring campaign operatives and signing up key fund-raisers in recent weeks.
On Iraq, Kerry has emerged as a fierce war critic after initially supporting the invasion of Iraq. He has spoken of his war opposition in a similar vein to his efforts to bring the Vietnam War to a conclusion in the early 1970s.
Kerry's announcement freezes in place the various Democratic aspirants to his Senate seat.
Massachusetts hasn't had a vacant Senate seat since 1984 -- when Kerry himself won his first six-year-term -- and several members of the state's all-Democratic congressional delegation have expressed interest in running for the Senate if Kerry retired.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Barone: The Presidential Picking Process
January 22, 2007
The Presidential Picking Process
By Michael Barone
The single most glaring defect in our mostly admirable political system is the presidential selection process. You can point to other defects -- the equal representation of the states in the Senate, judicial usurpation of decision-making on sensitive issues -- but the downside risks are greater in the selection of the one official who is far more powerful than any other. So what's wrong with it?
It starts too early, takes too long and ends too abruptly. Thirteen months from today -- and 10 months before the general election -- we will probably know the nominees of both parties. Some candidates have been busy running most of last year, and now they're busy announcing their exploratory committees. So anyone who doesn't want to devote two or three years to nonstop fund raising and campaigning is ruled out. That would have eliminated past candidates like Dwight Eisenhower.
Then the races for the nominations tend to end abruptly. Iowa caucus-goers and New Hampshire primary voters -- fewer than 350,000 people in a nation of 300,000,000 -- effectively chose the Democratic nominee last time, a choice many Democrats now regret. In 2000, 573,000 South Carolina primary voters effectively chose George W. Bush over John McCain.
It excludes many serious candidates. There's an assumption that anyone who hasn't held elective office is ineligible, which means that almost no one with actual working experience in the White House runs. The exceptions for 2008 are Hillary Rodham Clinton and, if he runs, Al Gore. Talented White House veterans like Hamilton Jordan or James Baker aren't considered presidential timber. The exception to the rule was Colin Powell, but he didn't run.
Instead, there's an assumption that just about any U.S. senator, no matter how bereft of managerial experience, is eligible. John Edwards used the proceeds from a $25 million lawsuit to win a Senate seat and has spent most of his time since running for president. Barack Obama won a Senate seat over weak opponents and delivered a stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and now he is off and running, too.
Edwards and Obama are, in different ways, mesmerizing speakers and may turn out to be good managers, as well. But we have little way of knowing whether they will.
The process gives too much power to Iowa and New Hampshire. For years, I've thumbed through the Constitution, looking for the provision that says that Iowa and New Hampshire come first. I haven't found it yet. Neither state, as Michigan Sen. Carl Levin has pointed out, is remotely typical of the nation. For this cycle, Democrats are adding early contests in Nevada and South Carolina. They're not typical, either: The Las Vegas unions are the big power bloc in Nevada, and about half of South Carolina's Democratic voters are black. A better system would be the Delaware plan, which Republicans considered briefly but rejected.
It had four rounds of primaries, with the smallest states voting first, so that no one could clinch a nomination till the last round. But no politician with any thought of ever running for president (i.e., almost no politician) will risk dissing Iowa and New Hampshire.
The present system also gives one person the power to determine who is vice president. We take it for granted that the presidential nominee, and he or she alone, selects his or her running mate. But that's crazy. Ever since Jimmy Carter delegated real work to Walter Mondale, the vice presidency has been a serious office. A vice president can become president anytime and usually becomes a serious presidential candidate. We devote all manner of time and trouble to selecting presidential nominees, then toss the choice of their possible successor to one person.
So what can we do? The best answer I come up with is: Muddle through. We are not going to have a national primary or the Delaware plan or an open convention. Voters should keep in mind that character as well as issue positions is important. They should study all available clues about the managerial abilities of candidates like Mitt Romney, whom they haven't seen in action (as they have seen Rudy Giuliani).
This is the first election in 80 years in which it's clear that the incumbent president and vice president are not running. The system, for all its defects, has mostly given us pretty good presidents. Let's hope America's luck holds.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate
The Presidential Picking Process
By Michael Barone
The single most glaring defect in our mostly admirable political system is the presidential selection process. You can point to other defects -- the equal representation of the states in the Senate, judicial usurpation of decision-making on sensitive issues -- but the downside risks are greater in the selection of the one official who is far more powerful than any other. So what's wrong with it?
It starts too early, takes too long and ends too abruptly. Thirteen months from today -- and 10 months before the general election -- we will probably know the nominees of both parties. Some candidates have been busy running most of last year, and now they're busy announcing their exploratory committees. So anyone who doesn't want to devote two or three years to nonstop fund raising and campaigning is ruled out. That would have eliminated past candidates like Dwight Eisenhower.
Then the races for the nominations tend to end abruptly. Iowa caucus-goers and New Hampshire primary voters -- fewer than 350,000 people in a nation of 300,000,000 -- effectively chose the Democratic nominee last time, a choice many Democrats now regret. In 2000, 573,000 South Carolina primary voters effectively chose George W. Bush over John McCain.
It excludes many serious candidates. There's an assumption that anyone who hasn't held elective office is ineligible, which means that almost no one with actual working experience in the White House runs. The exceptions for 2008 are Hillary Rodham Clinton and, if he runs, Al Gore. Talented White House veterans like Hamilton Jordan or James Baker aren't considered presidential timber. The exception to the rule was Colin Powell, but he didn't run.
Instead, there's an assumption that just about any U.S. senator, no matter how bereft of managerial experience, is eligible. John Edwards used the proceeds from a $25 million lawsuit to win a Senate seat and has spent most of his time since running for president. Barack Obama won a Senate seat over weak opponents and delivered a stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and now he is off and running, too.
Edwards and Obama are, in different ways, mesmerizing speakers and may turn out to be good managers, as well. But we have little way of knowing whether they will.
The process gives too much power to Iowa and New Hampshire. For years, I've thumbed through the Constitution, looking for the provision that says that Iowa and New Hampshire come first. I haven't found it yet. Neither state, as Michigan Sen. Carl Levin has pointed out, is remotely typical of the nation. For this cycle, Democrats are adding early contests in Nevada and South Carolina. They're not typical, either: The Las Vegas unions are the big power bloc in Nevada, and about half of South Carolina's Democratic voters are black. A better system would be the Delaware plan, which Republicans considered briefly but rejected.
It had four rounds of primaries, with the smallest states voting first, so that no one could clinch a nomination till the last round. But no politician with any thought of ever running for president (i.e., almost no politician) will risk dissing Iowa and New Hampshire.
The present system also gives one person the power to determine who is vice president. We take it for granted that the presidential nominee, and he or she alone, selects his or her running mate. But that's crazy. Ever since Jimmy Carter delegated real work to Walter Mondale, the vice presidency has been a serious office. A vice president can become president anytime and usually becomes a serious presidential candidate. We devote all manner of time and trouble to selecting presidential nominees, then toss the choice of their possible successor to one person.
So what can we do? The best answer I come up with is: Muddle through. We are not going to have a national primary or the Delaware plan or an open convention. Voters should keep in mind that character as well as issue positions is important. They should study all available clues about the managerial abilities of candidates like Mitt Romney, whom they haven't seen in action (as they have seen Rudy Giuliani).
This is the first election in 80 years in which it's clear that the incumbent president and vice president are not running. The system, for all its defects, has mostly given us pretty good presidents. Let's hope America's luck holds.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)