How Gore's massive energy consumption saves the world (http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/281949,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article)
March 4, 2007
BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist
Stop me if you've heard this before, but the other day the Rev. Al Gore declared that "climate change" was "the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.'' Ever. I believe that was the same day it was revealed that George W. Bush's ranch in Texas is more environmentally friendly than the Gore mansion in Tennessee. According to the Nashville Electric Service, the Eco-Messiah's house uses 20 times more electricity than the average American home. The average household consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours. In 2006, the Gores wolfed down nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours.
Two hundred twenty-one thousand kilowatt-hours? What's he doing in there?
Clamping Tipper to the electrodes and zapping her across the rec room every night? No, no, don't worry. Al's massive energy consumption is due entirely to his concern about the way we're depleting the Earth's resources. When I say "we," I don't mean Al, of course. I mean you -- yes, you, Earl Schlub, in the basement apartment at 29 Elm St. You're irresponsibly depleting the Earth's resources by using that electric washer when you could be down by the river with the native women beating your loin cloth dry on the rock while singing traditional village work chants all morning long. But up at the Gore mansion -- the Nashville Electric Service's own personal gold mine, the shining Cathedral of St. Al, Tennessee's very own Palace of Versal -- the Reverend Al is being far more environmentally responsible. As his spokesperson attempted to argue, his high energy usage derives from his brave calls for low energy usage. He's burning up all that electricity by sending out faxes every couple of minutes urging you to use less electricity.
Also he buys -- and if you're a practicing Ecopalyptic please prostrate yourself before the Recycling Bin and make the sign of the HDPE -- Al buys "carbon offsets," or "carbon credits." Or, as his spokesperson Kalee Kreider put it (and, incidentally, speaking through a spokesperson is another way Al dramatically reduces his own emissions), the Gores "also do the carbon emissions offset."
They do the Carbon Emissions Offset? What is that -- a '60s dance craze? No, it's way hotter. I mean, cooler. All the movie stars are doing it. In fact, this year's Oscar goodie-bag that all the nominees get included a year's worth of carbon offsets. Totally free. So even the stars' offsets are offset. No wonder that, when they're off the set, they all do the offset. Look at Leonardo DiCaprio: He's loaded with 'em, and the chicks think he's totally eco-cool. Tall and tan and young and lovely, the boy with carbon offsets goes walking and when he passes each one he passes goes aaaiiieeeeeeeee!
How do "carbon offsets" work? Well, let's say you're a former vice president and you want to reduce your "carbon footprint," but the gorgeous go-go Gore gals are using the hair dryer every night. So you go to a carbon-credits firm and pay some money and they'll find a way of getting somebody on the other side of the planet to reduce his emissions and the net result will be "carbon neutral." It's like in Henry VIII's day. He'd be planning a big ox roast and piling on the calories but he'd give a groat to a starving peasant to carry on starving for another day and the result would be calorie-neutral.
So in the Reverend Al's case it doesn't matter that he's lit up like Times Square on V-E Day. Because he's paid for his extravagant emissions. He has a carbon-offset trader in an environmentally friendly carbon-credits office suite who buys "carbon offsets" for Al from, say, a terrorist mastermind in a cave in the Pakistani tribal lands who's dramatically reduced his energy usage mainly because every time he powers up his cell phone or laptop a light goes on in Washington and an unmanned drone starts heading his way. So, aside from a basic cable subscription to cheer himself up watching U.S. senators talking about "exit strategies" on CNN 24/7, the terrorist mastermind doesn't deplete a lot of resources. Which means Tipper can watch Al give a speech on a widescreen plasma TV, where Al looks almost as wide as in life, and she doesn't have to feel guilty because it all comes out . . . carbon-neutral!
And, in fact, in the Reverend Al's case it's even better than that. Al buys his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLP, which is "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.," that, for a fee, will invest your money in "high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns." Generation is a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3. And who's the chairman and founding partner? Al Gore.
So Al can buy his carbon offsets from himself. Better yet, he can buy them with the money he gets from his long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum. See how easy it is to be carbon-neutral? All you have do is own a gazillion stocks in Big Oil, start an eco-stockbroking firm to make eco-friendly investments, use a small portion of your oil company's profits to buy some tax-deductible carbon offsets from your own investment firm, and you too can save the planet while making money and leaving a carbon footprint roughly the size of Godzilla's at the start of the movie when they're all standing around in the little toe wondering what the strange depression in the landscape is.
A couple of days before the Oscars, the Reverend Al gave a sell-out performance at the University of Toronto. "From my perspective, it is a form of religion," said Bruce Crofts of the East Toronto Climate Action Group, who compared the former vice president to Jesus Christ, both men being (as the Globe And Mail put it) "great leaders who stepped forward when called upon by circumstance." Unlike Christ, the Eco-Messiah cannot yet walk on water, but then, neither can the polar bears. However, only Al can survey the melting ice caps and turn water into whine. One lady unable to land a ticket frantically begged the university for an audience with His Goriness. As the National Post reported, "Her daughter hadn't been able to sleep since seeing ''An Inconvenient Truth.'' She claimed that seeing Mr. Gore in person might make her daughter feel better." Well, it worked for Leonardo DiCaprio.
Are eco-celebrities buying ridiculousness-emissions credits from exhausted run-of-the-mill celebrities like Paris, Britney and Anna Nicole? Ah, well. The Eco-Messiah sternly talks up the old Nazi comparisons: What we're facing is an "ecological Holocaust, and "the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin." That 221,000 kilowatt-hours might suggest that, if this is the ecological Holocaust, Gore's pad is Auschwitz.
But, as his spokesperson would no doubt argue, when you're faced with ecological Holocausts and ecological Kristallnachts, sometimes the only way to bring it to an end is with an ecological Hiroshima. The Gore electric bill is the eco-atom bomb: You have to light up the world in order to save it.
©Mark Steyn 2007
Ronald Wilson Reagan
America's 40th President
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Wash Times: "Not in race, Gingrich still has right stuff"
Not in race, Gingrich still has right stuff
By Ralph Z. Hallow and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 4, 2007
Newt Gingrich received a hero's welcome at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, but it was Tom DeLay who gave the thousands of activists their marching orders: Unite conservative interest groups into a machine that can overpower the unity of their liberal counterparts. Mr. Gingrich, who won't decide whether he will run for president until after September, tied former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for second place in the conference's combined first- and second-choice straw poll with 30 percent each, trailing only former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who won with a combined 34 percent.
"We will not defeat the Clinton machine by being negative," Mr. Gingrich said, referring to Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. "We will defeat the Clinton machine by offering better solutions based on better values with a deeper reach into the American people's lives and psyche."
The former House speaker challenged all of the candidates to commit to a new way of conducting the last nine weeks of the presidential campaign: Forgo attack ads and meet once a week for 90-minute in-depth discussions, "no Mickey Mouse," with just a timekeeper, no moderator and no panel of questioners.
In the straw poll of 1,705 CPAC attendees who voted, Mr. Romney was the top choice of 21 percent, followed by Mr. Giuliani at 17 percent, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas at 15 percent, then Mr. Gingrich at 14 percent and Sen. John McCain of Arizona at 12 percent. But combined with second-choice ballots, Mr. Giuliani vaulted to the top -- followed by Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Brownback was fourth, Mr. McCain fifth, and Rep. Tom Tancredo sixth with 9 percent.
The combined choice is the most important yardstick because it measures depth of support, said J. William Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union, the conference's chief sponsor. "The Romney [second choice] number was markedly shallow at 9 percent," he said.
Mr. McCain was the only major candidate not to attend CPAC. He told Mort Kondracke of the Fox News Channel he didn't need to attend because CPAC was mostly Washington insiders. Conference organizers said yesterday that the 5,200 people who registered for CPAC, held at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Northwest, came from 49 states, and just 15 percent were from Maryland, Virginia and the District.
"Newt Gingrich is probably the only rock star in the conservative world right now," Georgia Republican activist Phil Kent said. "You saw the energy when he entered the ballroom. I didn't see that for any of the others."
Mr. DeLay, the former House majority leader, who left Congress under the cloud of an indictment in Texas, criticized CPAC and other conservative gatherings for never offering plans of action to defeat the left. He said he is forming a Coalition for a Conservative Majority that would unite the various conservative interest groups into a single message for the conservative cause.
"When I left Congress, I had two things to do: support the conservative cause and defend Israel," he said. Mr. DeLay said conservatives must overcome their independent streak and match liberal groups' willingness to take up each other's goals. "You'll get abortionists working on labor policy. You'll get unions working for abortionists," he said of the liberal machine. "We need to understand that all of these conservative groups out there need to come together and work together to maximize our resources."
But some conservatives are not yet ready to forgive Mr. DeLay for saying, during the spending spree after Hurricane Katrina, that the money should be added to the deficit because Republicans had pared the budget down so well already. "As a conservative activist, I'm still hoping he is going to retract his comments that there is not any more fat in the federal budget," said George Primbs, 44, a database marketing manager from Woodbridge, who was attending his 20th CPAC.
Speaking earlier in the day, former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III called himself "the real conservative" in the race. He cited Mr. Romney's admission he voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in 1992 and Mr. Giuliani's acknowledged vote for Democrat Mario Cuomo for New York governor in 1994 as evidence the others fall short. "What are we expected to do?" Mr. Gilmore asked. "There is not a person in this room who was so confused in those days they would have voted for Paul Tsongas and Mario Cuomo."
He also attacked Mr. McCain, saying he fits the label "maverick" more than "conservative" for having opposed President Bush's tax cuts and supporting "amnesty" for illegal aliens. "Gilmore had the best message, and he delivered it beautifully," said Donald J. Devine, who headed President Reagan's Office of Personnel Management.
The straw poll also made it clear that Mr. Bush is mostly irrelevant to the conservative movement. In the poll, 79 percent described themselves as a "Ronald Reagan Republican," but just 3 percent said they were a "George W. Bush Republican."
By Ralph Z. Hallow and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 4, 2007
Newt Gingrich received a hero's welcome at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, but it was Tom DeLay who gave the thousands of activists their marching orders: Unite conservative interest groups into a machine that can overpower the unity of their liberal counterparts. Mr. Gingrich, who won't decide whether he will run for president until after September, tied former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for second place in the conference's combined first- and second-choice straw poll with 30 percent each, trailing only former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who won with a combined 34 percent.
"We will not defeat the Clinton machine by being negative," Mr. Gingrich said, referring to Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. "We will defeat the Clinton machine by offering better solutions based on better values with a deeper reach into the American people's lives and psyche."
The former House speaker challenged all of the candidates to commit to a new way of conducting the last nine weeks of the presidential campaign: Forgo attack ads and meet once a week for 90-minute in-depth discussions, "no Mickey Mouse," with just a timekeeper, no moderator and no panel of questioners.
In the straw poll of 1,705 CPAC attendees who voted, Mr. Romney was the top choice of 21 percent, followed by Mr. Giuliani at 17 percent, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas at 15 percent, then Mr. Gingrich at 14 percent and Sen. John McCain of Arizona at 12 percent. But combined with second-choice ballots, Mr. Giuliani vaulted to the top -- followed by Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Brownback was fourth, Mr. McCain fifth, and Rep. Tom Tancredo sixth with 9 percent.
The combined choice is the most important yardstick because it measures depth of support, said J. William Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union, the conference's chief sponsor. "The Romney [second choice] number was markedly shallow at 9 percent," he said.
Mr. McCain was the only major candidate not to attend CPAC. He told Mort Kondracke of the Fox News Channel he didn't need to attend because CPAC was mostly Washington insiders. Conference organizers said yesterday that the 5,200 people who registered for CPAC, held at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Northwest, came from 49 states, and just 15 percent were from Maryland, Virginia and the District.
"Newt Gingrich is probably the only rock star in the conservative world right now," Georgia Republican activist Phil Kent said. "You saw the energy when he entered the ballroom. I didn't see that for any of the others."
Mr. DeLay, the former House majority leader, who left Congress under the cloud of an indictment in Texas, criticized CPAC and other conservative gatherings for never offering plans of action to defeat the left. He said he is forming a Coalition for a Conservative Majority that would unite the various conservative interest groups into a single message for the conservative cause.
"When I left Congress, I had two things to do: support the conservative cause and defend Israel," he said. Mr. DeLay said conservatives must overcome their independent streak and match liberal groups' willingness to take up each other's goals. "You'll get abortionists working on labor policy. You'll get unions working for abortionists," he said of the liberal machine. "We need to understand that all of these conservative groups out there need to come together and work together to maximize our resources."
But some conservatives are not yet ready to forgive Mr. DeLay for saying, during the spending spree after Hurricane Katrina, that the money should be added to the deficit because Republicans had pared the budget down so well already. "As a conservative activist, I'm still hoping he is going to retract his comments that there is not any more fat in the federal budget," said George Primbs, 44, a database marketing manager from Woodbridge, who was attending his 20th CPAC.
Speaking earlier in the day, former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III called himself "the real conservative" in the race. He cited Mr. Romney's admission he voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in 1992 and Mr. Giuliani's acknowledged vote for Democrat Mario Cuomo for New York governor in 1994 as evidence the others fall short. "What are we expected to do?" Mr. Gilmore asked. "There is not a person in this room who was so confused in those days they would have voted for Paul Tsongas and Mario Cuomo."
He also attacked Mr. McCain, saying he fits the label "maverick" more than "conservative" for having opposed President Bush's tax cuts and supporting "amnesty" for illegal aliens. "Gilmore had the best message, and he delivered it beautifully," said Donald J. Devine, who headed President Reagan's Office of Personnel Management.
The straw poll also made it clear that Mr. Bush is mostly irrelevant to the conservative movement. In the poll, 79 percent described themselves as a "Ronald Reagan Republican," but just 3 percent said they were a "George W. Bush Republican."
"Let's Make a Deal": On Rudy, Social Conservatives, and the litmus test
Let's Make a Deal
Social conservatives, Rudy Giuliani, and the end of the litmus test.
by Noemie Emery
03/12/2007, Volume 012, Issue 25
Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford. For the past 30 years of cultural warfare, there has been only one template for an aspiring president of either party with positions that cross those of its organized activists: Displeasure is voiced, reservations are uttered, and soon enough there is a "conversion of conscience" in which the miscreant--Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, George Bush the elder, even the hapless Dennis Kucinich--is brought to heel in a fairly undignified manner, and sees what his party sees as the light. The Giuliani campaign seems to be departing from this pattern. And this time, a pro-life party, faced with a pro-choice candidate it finds compelling on other grounds, is doing things differently. It is not carping or caving or seeking a convert. Instead, it is making a deal.
One has to wend one's way back through the litmus test saga to see just how big this could be. In 1980, the parties for the first time took radically opposed views, with a plank in the Republican platform calling for a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion, while the Democrats (over the protests of President Carter) insisted abortion should be not only legal, but funded by taxpayers. Four years later, these planks, and the lobbies that backed them, were fully entrenched. By 1988, top tier candidates in both parties had undergone forced conversions; and in the 1990s, both sides attacked their dissenters full bore. In 1992--The Year of the Woman--Democrats famously silenced pro-life Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey at their New York convention, parked him up in the bleachers where no one could see him, and gave his slot to a pro-choice Republican. Four years later, pro-life groups pulled Republican nominee Bob Dole through a knothole, torturing him for a week before denying his suggestion that an expression of "tolerance" for those who dissented be inserted into the plank. As late as 2003, the Democratic candidates began their campaign season with a joint appearance at a NARAL fiesta, all eight of them tugging their forelocks before the group's leader and pledging allegiance, while a repentant Gephardt begged her forgiveness for the pro-life views he had been so ill-advised as to utter two decades before.
With this in mind, it was no minor matter when a small number of conservatives began to float ideas about how Giuliani and the party's activists might all get along. As early as August 2004, from the Republican convention in New York, David Frum was dispensing helpful suggestions: "He should not try to deny or conceal his own views," he wrote of the mayor. "He should not invoke Lee Atwater's 'Big Tent' . . . nor should he spend minutes and minutes parsing his views. . . . His job is not to persuade pro-life Republicans to agree with him, but to assure them that they can live with him." The Powerline blog weighed in in June 2005. "Some pundits think [Giuliani's] views on the social issues will bar him from getting the nomination," wrote Paul Mirengoff. "I disagree. . . . There is a national, largely bipartisan consensus that issues like gay marriage and abortion should be decided democratically, and not by the courts. If Giuliani emphasizes the process issue, and says . . . the key question is whether such issues are to be decided democratically, by legislatures, or autocratically, by judges, he could forge a solid Republican majority." National Review recalled a precedent. "The late Sen. Paul Coverdell," its editorial stated, "supported legal abortion. But once he won his primary, pro-lifers supported him since he promised to vote to ban partial-birth abortion, oppose public funding of abortion, and support conservative nominees to the judiciary."
The 2006 midterms, aka "the bloodbath," brought more people over. Texas pollster David Hill, writing in the Hill, observed that "Giuliani might bargain with the right. He's a transactional politician who might welcome the entreaty, and concede even more than McCain." Actually, Giuliani had been dealing already, by taking the bloggers and pundits' advice. In 2006, he campaigned for many pro-life candidates, spoke out against judicial activism, and cited the likes of Samuel Alito and John Roberts as the kind of judges he wanted to see on the bench. There has been some resistance, but since the start of this year a sizable cadre of social conservatives have declared either their willingness to consider supporting the mayor, or their intention not to write him off. Since Giuliani emerged as a possible candidate, people have known he would have to deal with the base of his party, but everyone thought this would involve a supplicant bending of the knee and begging leave of the Republican voters he had dismayed. No one imagined that so much of that base would come looking for him, and then make it their business to hand him a strategy. But that is what they have done.
Why has this happened now, after decades of litmus-test dictates? Four reasons come to mind.
(1) The War, Stupid: There is the war, which overwhelms everything as the major issue in the eyes of the base. No group in the country backs the war on terror as fervently as social conservatives, whose main criticism of the president's policy is that it has not been aggressive enough. To them, Rudy is the ultimate warrior, a man who not only survived 9/11 and rallied the city, but whose success in routing the gangs of New York is a template for engaging the Islamic terrorists, and an indication that he has the resolve and the relentlessness to carry this bloody task off.
They see him as a more ruthless version of George W. Bush, someone who would not have consented to less-than-aggressive rules of engagement; who would have taken Falluja the first time, and not have had to come back later; who would not have let Sadr escape when he had him; who would not have been fazed by whining over Abu Ghraib and Club Gitmo, and would have treated critics of the armed forces and of the mission with the same impatience he showed critics of the police in New York. As nothing else, the terror war sits at a nexus of issues dear to the heart of the base: the need to use force when one's country is threatened; the need to make judgments between good and evil; the need to protect and assert the moral codes of the Judeo-Christian tradition; the need to defend the ideals of the West.
"For a majority of the GOP primary electorate, it is the war, the war, the war (and judges)," writes the influential radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt. "The war on terror hasn't just changed Giuliani's profile as a crisis-leader," writes columnist Jonah Goldberg. "It's changed the attitudes of many Americans, particularly conservatives, about the central crisis facing the country. It's not that pro-lifers are less pro-life. . . . It's that they really, really believe the war on terror is for real. At conservative conferences, on blogs, and on talk radio, pro-life issues have faded in their passion and intensity. . . . Taken together, terrorism, Iraq, and Islam have become the No. 1 social issue." And the earth surely moved on February 21, when the writer Maggie Gallagher, as tough and principled as they come on abortion and marriage, allowed in her syndicated column that she just might consider the mayor. "I never voted for Rudy when I lived in New York City for one simple reason: abortion. . . . Why would I even think of changing my mind? Two things: national security, and Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court appointments." Keep your eyes out for more of these eye-popping moments. This one will not be the last.
(2) Not Your Father's Pro-Choice Republican:
There were pro-choice Republicans before Giuliani, but they held no appeal for conservatives, and there was little desire to cut them a break. They were politicians like Christie Todd Whitman, Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee, and the ladies from Maine, from the near-extinct school of northern-tier liberal Republicans, regarded as "soft" on a wide range of issues. Or they were like Bill Weld, a fiscal conservative but a libertarian otherwise, whose watchword on most issues was "anything goes." A great many things do not "go" with Rudy, an enforcer by nature, seen as a Puritan scold by most of his liberal critics, who deplored his crackdowns on porn and on crime. As he told the conservative attendees at the CPAC conference in Washington last Friday, quoting Ronald Reagan, "anyone who is with you 80 percent of the time is your 80 percent friend--not your 20 percent enemy." Previous pro-choice Republicans tended to look down on the social conservatives, to agree with the press that they were cringe-making yahoos, and to accept the condolences of the media for the terrible people they had to put up with in their party.
To the press, Rudy was one of those terrible people--too quick to defend the police when they were attacked on brutality charges; a fascist, a bully, and a prude. With most pro-choice Republicans, their views on abortion are only one of a set of positions and attitudes that arouse the ire of the base. Giuliani is that very rare animal, a pro-choice Republican who is also the furthest thing possible from a liberal on a wide range of issues (law and order among them).
"In case after case, he refused to accept the veto of liberal public opinion," writes John Podhoretz in his New York Post column. "More than any other candidate in the race, Rudy Giuliani is a liberal slayer. When he rejects liberal orthodoxy, which he does often, he doesn't just oppose it. He goes to war with it--total, unconditional war." If you believe that the enemy of your enemy must be your friend, conservatives have no better friend than the mayor, bête noire and scourge of the limousine liberals, the race hustlers, the friends of identity politics, the opponents of capital punishment, the municipal unions, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the New York Times. Some will want him to be president, if only to annoy all these people--a temptation too big to resist.
(3) The Shape of the Field:
Strict conservatives are not all that enthralled by any of the three main contenders--Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. This is their weakness, but also their strength, as they all tend to give each other cover along with other conservative stars. Did Giuliani leave his first wife? So did McCain. Did he leave his second wife? So did Newt Gingrich. Is he pro-choice and gay-friendly? So was Mitt Romney a scant four years ago. McCain is the only one with a firm pro-life record, but the base doesn't like him for a number of reasons, among them tax cuts, immigration, campaign finance reform, and being used by the press to score points against conservatives on too many things to enumerate.
Some day their prince may come--the conservative who hits all the bases--pro-life, pro-supply side, pro-tax cuts, pro-deregulation, and hawkish in foreign policy--but this day is not it, and that day may never arrive. In this case, as the base will be forced to cut slack to someone on something--on his public stances or his private life, on his past or present positions--they may want to do it for someone who in many ways truly excites them, who bonds with them on many issues, and who, so far at least, leads Hillary Clinton and all other comers in the polls.
(4) Mugged by Reality:
After 30-plus years of fierce, intense arguments, much emotion, and many polls taken, both sides in the abortion wars have been mugged by reality, and realize that neither is likely to reach its major goals soon. Dreams of outlawing abortion on the one hand, or, on the other, of seeing it funded, legitimized, and enshrined as an unassailable civil right, have faded in the face of a large and so-far unswayable public opinion that is conflicted, ambivalent, and inclined to punish any political figure it sees as too rigid, too strident, or too eager to go to extremes. For this reason, no politician shrewd enough to make himself president is likely to go on a pro-life or pro-choice crusade. (Like Ronald Reagan before him, George W. Bush addresses the March for Life by phone and long distance; the new Democratic Congress, for its part, has wisely decided to leave the whole issue alone.) With this has come an understanding that, aside from the appointing of judges, and some tinkering with executive orders, the president's role is not large.
Purists will want someone whose heart is with them, but, in the real world, the state of the president's heart does not count: Support for abortion remained fairly high under Reagan and Bush 41, and began to fall off under Bill Clinton, the most pro-choice president in American history, strongly backed by the feminist movement, and pushed by his feminist wife. A strict constructionist justice appointed by a president who is pro-choice is no different from a strict constructionist appointed by a pro-life president, at least in the view of the practically minded, and better than an activist justice appointed by somebody else.
For some people, this argument will not be sufficient, and debates have now broken out among social conservatives. But the surprising thing is that these debates are occurring, which had not been foreseen or expected a few months ago. This is why early assessments of Giuliani's possible weakness may be misleading, among them polls indicating that many social conservatives would never back a pro-choice nominee. They do not show what might happen if the nominee pledged not to push for a pro-choice agenda, or if he were endorsed and supported by conservative icons who vouched for him, campaigned with and for him, and swore to their backers that he was all right.
The deal in the works has been carefully crafted to make sure that no one loses too much. Conservatives would be getting a pro-choice nominee, but one who would not push a pro-choice agenda, and one who would give them (as far as presidents can be sure in these matters) the kind of judges they long for. Giuliani would not be required to renounce his beliefs, merely to appoint the right kind of judges and to remain more or less neutral in a policy area in which, to be honest, he has never shown that much interest. The Republicans will remain the pro-life party--as desired by the bulk of their voters and required by the workings of the two-party system--though now with a larger, more varied, and in some ways more competitive field of candidates. And it is worth noting in this altered context that the Democrats also are starting to change. One of the reasons Democrats now run both the houses of Congress is that canny recruiters defied their own culture war lobbies and rammed a number of pro-life and pro-gun candidates down the throats of their interest groups, assessing correctly that control of Congress was worth a few unhappy activists. They are not yet at the point of nominating a pro-life candidate on the national level, but the lid has been pried open a crack. Someday, they too may find a candidate whom they find attractive--say, for irony's sake, a Bob Casey Jr.--except for this single and glaring impediment. And at that point, they too might deal.
And now, as the litmus test slowly expires, it is time to consider its costs. It has been a very good deal for the people who imposed it, but a very bad one for the country at large. It has meant that a candidate for national office must begin by embracing ideas that have been rejected by seven in ten of Americans, while a candidate who comes close to the center of public opinion would never be allowed to compete. It has made candidates for the post of commander in chief of the world's greatest power kick off their campaigns by groveling before leaders of interest groups, which does not make them seem leaderly and causes voters to lose all respect. Worst of all, it posed the real possibility that a candidate would come forth who seemed equipped to deal with a crisis, but who, because he held the "wrong views" in the eyes of the interest groups, would not be allowed to emerge. In Giuliani, some social conservatives think they have found such a candidate and do not want to waste him. And so, they are making a deal.
Noemie Emery, a WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor, is author most recently of Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families.
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Sager: Rudy's meeting with the Right
Giuliani Will Meet The Right
BY RYAN SAGER
March 1, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/49557
When Mayor Giuliani takes the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., at noon tomorrow, it will mark the end of a long, strange, fitful anti-courtship between the man increasingly known as "Rudy" and a venerable right-wing institution that just doesn't know what to make of a crime-fighting, welfare-reforming, abortion-supporting, drag-wearing foreign-policy hawk.
CPAC is the conservative movement's annual family reunion. Two years ago, Mr. Giuliani was the black sheep. Though he won the yearly CPAC presidential straw poll in 2005, measuring the mood primarily of younger convention-goers, he was decidedly persona non grata with the higher-ups. The former mayor, known for his leadership after the September 11, 2001, attacks, asked to speak — he even offered to waive his usual fee — but was flatly rebuffed. "I would assume he wanted to come here to boost his conservative credentials, but we didn't think that would be useful," David Keene, the head of the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC, sniffed at the time to a Rudy-friendly columnist, Deroy Murdock.
That, of course, was in the heady days after President Bush's reelection, when conservatives thought the good times would never stop rolling. Cut to a year later: In 2006, as the GOP's fortunes began to sag, Mr. Keene extended Mr. Giuliani an invitation, but it was a grudging (and last-minute) one. "A lot of people wanted to hear him on the terror question, so we invited him," Mr. Keene told me at the time — taking care to add, "If you ask me if he's a viable candidate for anything: no." Mr. Giuliani chose to stay away, citing prior engagements. Mr. Keene said the mayor had a standing invitation for 2007.
Cut to this month, with the Republican Party in free fall — Congress lost, Mr. Bush's approval ratings in the gutter, and the fortunes of more conventional conservatives such as Senator McCain of Arizona and the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, fading — and it could hardly be a more auspicious time for the now-indisputable front-runner for the Republican nomination to come face-to-face with the wary base. But wait. If the base is really so wary, how exactly is Mr. Giuliani so far ahead in the polls?
The fact is, the base is already fairly comfortable with Mr. Giuliani and is quite seriously considering his candidacy. It's primarily a few gatekeepers — such as Mr. Keene, Focus on the Family head James Dobson, and Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission — who stand truly dead-set against him. And these gatekeepers are becoming increasingly irrelevant in a party that wants to find its way out of the political wilderness and, to some extent, blames the more extreme elements of the religious right for leading it into the woods in the first place.
The polling on this point is unambiguous. (It has been for well over a year now, but people are only now finally beginning to believe it.) Mr. Giuliani is far and away the front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination. And that support comes not from moderate or liberal Republicans, but from conservatives — including the white evangelicals who have made up such an important part of Mr. Bush's base.
Is Mr. Giuliani going to run away with the nomination? The early signs certainly point in that direction. He's leading Mr. McCain in Iowa; he's in spitting distance of Mr. McCain in New Hampshire, where the Arizona senator made his mark with the help of political independents in 2000; he's polling strong down South (though trailing in South Carolina), and the prospect of a California-New York-Florida primary in early February 2008 is nothing but good news for America's mayor.
Meanwhile, Mr. Giuliani seems to have a certain charisma, a certain likability factor, that's going to make it hard for anyone else to catch up. And that's not a matter of opinion. It's a measurable phenomenon. A Gallup poll released at the beginning of last month had some truly astonishing numbers. Don't tell Al Sharpton, but Mr. Giuliani is considered "more likeable" than Mr. McCain by Republicans and Republican leaners by 74% to 21% (a spread of 53 points). These same folks say Mr. Giuliani would be "better in a crisis" by a margin of 40 points. They think he "would do more to unite the country" by 37 points.
The reception Mr. Giuliani gets at CPAC tomorrow will be telling. Two years ago, even a year ago, he could have gotten a hero's welcome — a thank you for his service on September 11 and little scrutiny otherwise, with the presidential contest so far away. Not so here in early 2007. By the time this crowd meets again, the primary could be all but decided. Tomorrow will be a time for sizing up, a time for kicking the tires, a time for some tough questions from a room filled with people who could hardly have imagined a former mayor of New York City being the frontrunner for the Republican nomination just a few years ago.
Because, after all, the conservative movement has to begin dealing with the fact that Mr. Giuliani is now not only the "viable candidate" Mr. Keene denied he was, but far more — he is the front-runner.
Mr. Sager is the online editor of The New York Sun. He can be reached at rsager@nysun.com.
March 1, 2007 Edition > Section: National > Printer-Friendly Version
Slate: How McCain plans to catch Rudy
The Soft Launch: How the senator plans to catch Rudy.
By John Dickerson
Posted Thursday, March 1, 2007, at 10:07 PM ET
On Wednesday night, John McCain broke the news that he is running for president on the Late Show With David Letterman. The formal announcement won't come until April, but the "soft launch," as an adviser called it, was vintage McCain—candid and messy. The Arizona senator poked fun at the political charade of his drawn-out announcement and said soldiers' lives had been "wasted" in Iraq, a comment he was apologizing for the next day.
McCain's ambitions are no secret, but the venue was a surprise. There was a bit of risk in going on Letterman, if for no other reason than that Bob Dole did the same thing in 1995. No candidate running for any office on any planet should ever steal from the Dole playbook. McCain has particular reason to avoid the parallels. Dole's gambit was seen as an effort to come off as youthful, so as to head off questions about his not young age. McCain, who will be 72* on Inauguration Day, faces the same questions.
McCain probably chose the Late Show to bring a little mirth to a campaign that so far has been a lot less jolly than his last run. As the senator has told supporters privately, the press and his opponents are waiting for him to show his age or his temper. Having to be hyper-cautious all the time irritates him. In 2000, there were glowing stories about his swashbuckling maverick style.
This time, the coverage is more often about how he's muffled his straight talk. McCain supports a troop increase in Iraq that nearly 70 percent of the country opposes. He gets criticized from the right for pandering to his moderate base and he gets criticized from the left for abandoning that moderate base to pander to conservatives.
McCain also trails Rudy Giuliani by almost 20 points in the latest Time and ABC/Washington Post polls. For now, the McCain team is taking a measured approach to the widening gap. Their principal strategy is to wait and let Giuliani fall of his own weight. Once conservatives learn about Giuliani's pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay-rights positions, McCain aides expect, their rival's support will diminish considerably. Giuliani's commitment to conservative judges took a knock Thursday, and Giuliani supporter and former solicitor general Ted Olson went right on the air to rebut the charges to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. As Giuliani's own research suggests, the press is also likely to cover his three marriages, business dealings, and experience during the Vietnam War. The McCain campaign will make no Clintonlike efforts to draw their rival off-sides, at least for the moment. They will hope the press does their work for them (sometimes with their guidance).
McCain is also relying on front-runner-sized structure and organization to beat Rudy. The mayor may be popular, they argue, but he lacks the state-by-state organization required to actually win the nomination. McCain and his team have been building that groundwork for two years.
Their best weapon at this stage, they think, is the candidate himself. So, they're getting McCain on the road. He will increasingly be out in the country, away from the Senate and among voters in the kind of free-flowing town halls that were his signature in 2000. This serves several purposes. A frenetic schedule and McCain's energy on stage offer reassurance about his health and vigor. The format, if it stays genuine, allows McCain to connect with the audience even if some of them disagree with him. It also clearly energizes him.
The challenge is that McCain obviously has a lot more to answer for now than he did when he was an insurgent candidate. The big risk is that McCain's looser talk will lead to mistakes, like his remark to Letterman that "we've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." (Barack Obama, who had to apologize for a similar remark, graciously and shrewdly came to McCain's defense).
Unless the GOP finds a fantasy candidate they're stuck with McCain, Giuliani, and Romney.
Which means the conservative vote is up for grabs. McCain's advisers know their candidate has problems with conservatives but argue that of the three, he has the most conservative record.
But policy positions may not make the difference. No matter how much pandering he does, McCain can't stop conservatives from flocking to Rudy regardless of his record, either because they're emotionally drawn to the former mayor or because they can't stand the competition. It won't be clear how far McCain can go until it's clear how far Rudy will fall.
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at slatepolitics@gmail.com.
Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
By John Dickerson
Posted Thursday, March 1, 2007, at 10:07 PM ET
On Wednesday night, John McCain broke the news that he is running for president on the Late Show With David Letterman. The formal announcement won't come until April, but the "soft launch," as an adviser called it, was vintage McCain—candid and messy. The Arizona senator poked fun at the political charade of his drawn-out announcement and said soldiers' lives had been "wasted" in Iraq, a comment he was apologizing for the next day.
McCain's ambitions are no secret, but the venue was a surprise. There was a bit of risk in going on Letterman, if for no other reason than that Bob Dole did the same thing in 1995. No candidate running for any office on any planet should ever steal from the Dole playbook. McCain has particular reason to avoid the parallels. Dole's gambit was seen as an effort to come off as youthful, so as to head off questions about his not young age. McCain, who will be 72* on Inauguration Day, faces the same questions.
McCain probably chose the Late Show to bring a little mirth to a campaign that so far has been a lot less jolly than his last run. As the senator has told supporters privately, the press and his opponents are waiting for him to show his age or his temper. Having to be hyper-cautious all the time irritates him. In 2000, there were glowing stories about his swashbuckling maverick style.
This time, the coverage is more often about how he's muffled his straight talk. McCain supports a troop increase in Iraq that nearly 70 percent of the country opposes. He gets criticized from the right for pandering to his moderate base and he gets criticized from the left for abandoning that moderate base to pander to conservatives.
McCain also trails Rudy Giuliani by almost 20 points in the latest Time and ABC/Washington Post polls. For now, the McCain team is taking a measured approach to the widening gap. Their principal strategy is to wait and let Giuliani fall of his own weight. Once conservatives learn about Giuliani's pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay-rights positions, McCain aides expect, their rival's support will diminish considerably. Giuliani's commitment to conservative judges took a knock Thursday, and Giuliani supporter and former solicitor general Ted Olson went right on the air to rebut the charges to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. As Giuliani's own research suggests, the press is also likely to cover his three marriages, business dealings, and experience during the Vietnam War. The McCain campaign will make no Clintonlike efforts to draw their rival off-sides, at least for the moment. They will hope the press does their work for them (sometimes with their guidance).
McCain is also relying on front-runner-sized structure and organization to beat Rudy. The mayor may be popular, they argue, but he lacks the state-by-state organization required to actually win the nomination. McCain and his team have been building that groundwork for two years.
Their best weapon at this stage, they think, is the candidate himself. So, they're getting McCain on the road. He will increasingly be out in the country, away from the Senate and among voters in the kind of free-flowing town halls that were his signature in 2000. This serves several purposes. A frenetic schedule and McCain's energy on stage offer reassurance about his health and vigor. The format, if it stays genuine, allows McCain to connect with the audience even if some of them disagree with him. It also clearly energizes him.
The challenge is that McCain obviously has a lot more to answer for now than he did when he was an insurgent candidate. The big risk is that McCain's looser talk will lead to mistakes, like his remark to Letterman that "we've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." (Barack Obama, who had to apologize for a similar remark, graciously and shrewdly came to McCain's defense).
Unless the GOP finds a fantasy candidate they're stuck with McCain, Giuliani, and Romney.
Which means the conservative vote is up for grabs. McCain's advisers know their candidate has problems with conservatives but argue that of the three, he has the most conservative record.
But policy positions may not make the difference. No matter how much pandering he does, McCain can't stop conservatives from flocking to Rudy regardless of his record, either because they're emotionally drawn to the former mayor or because they can't stand the competition. It won't be clear how far McCain can go until it's clear how far Rudy will fall.
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at slatepolitics@gmail.com.
Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Wash Examiner: Rudy and the Draft?
This writer doesn't think this issue matters one bit, but Giuliani may need to explain the circumstances surrounding the deferment...
Draft questions cloud Giuliani’s chances
Bill Sammon, The Examiner
Feb 28, 2007 9:04 PM (16 hrs ago)
WASHINGTON - If this presidential campaign is anything like the last, John McCain’s Vietnam service will inevitably be contrasted with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani’s avoidance of a war that he opposed.
“Any suggestion that he was dodging the draft is totally, factually inaccurate,” said a senior Giuliani campaign adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “He opposed the war on tactical and strategic grounds.”
But as far back as 1993, when he successfully ran for mayor of New York, Giuliani has been dogged by accusations that he pulled strings to avoid the draft. By contrast, McCain has long been feted as a bona fide war hero for his harrowing stint in a Vietnamese prison.
Anyone who dismisses the significance of Vietnam as a potential issue in the 2008 campaign is forgetting how surprisingly potent it proved in 2004, when there was enormous interest in the military records of both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Four years later, with the nation still at war, Americans likely are to again scrutinize the military records of those who seek the job of commander in chief.
Giuliani, who once said of the Vietnam war, “I disagreed with it,” obtained an occupational deferment in 1969, when he was a law clerk. Although critics say such deferments were rare, the Giuliani campaign disagrees.
“He wanted an occupational deferment, which was very common at the time, because he wanted to be a lawyer,” the Giuliani adviser said.
When Giuliani’s deferment expired in 1970, he drew draft number 308, which was never called. His campaign suggests this proves he was not a draft dodger.
“This is an important point: After his deferment, his name was entered into the lottery — at least once — and he had a high number,” the adviser said.
Still, Giuliani has always been politically sensitive to the issue. During his 1993 mayoral campaign, he commissioned a “vulnerability study” that listed “draft dodger” as one of the epithets that might be hurled against him.
In blunt language, the consultants who prepared the study articulated how adversaries might frame the issue.
“Giuliani received special treatment from a friendly federal judge to avoid military service during the Vietnam war, when thousands of less fortunate people were dying,” they wrote. “Then, as a member of the Justice Department, he hypocritically prosecuted draft dodgers.”
Mark Salter, McCain’s chief of staff, said he had “no idea” whether Giuliani’s deferment would become a presidential campaign issue.
“Who knows?” he told The Examiner. “One assumes just about everything these days gets examined.”
He added: “I don’t think McCain would want it to be an issue. I know that sort of suggests a false modesty, but I really don’t.”
The “false modesty” remark was an allusion to the Arizona senator’s extensive military background. The son and grandson of admirals, McCain graduated from the Naval Academy and served 22 years in the Navy, including five and a half as a prisoner of war in Hanoi.
Thus, if Vietnam becomes an issue in the 2008 campaign, McCain might find himself in the role that Kerry had hoped to play in 2004 — unassailable war hero. That status eluded Kerry when his combat record was challenged by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, who also denounced the Democrat for accusing fellow Vietnam veterans of war crimes.
Giuliani, on the other hand — who had a 2-to-1 advantage over McCain in an ABC poll of Republicans this week — could find his record subjected to the sort of intense scrutiny that Bush experienced in 2004. Some of that scrutiny came from Kerry himself, who questioned whether Bush had fulfilled his stateside duties in the National Guard.
CBS News raised similar questions in a “60 Minutes” broadcast that backfired because the network used documents that could not be authenticated. The ensuing scandal, known as “Memogate,” ended up inoculating Bush against further attacks on his military record.
Swift Boats co-founder John O’Neill said the only reason Vietnam became a major issue in 2004 was that Kerry kept bringing it up.
“I do think Kerry was a special case,” O’Neill said. “Whatever Rudy Giuliani or the rest of these people did or didn’t do in terms of the Vietnam War, I don’t think that’s a legitimate issue in the presidential campaign of 2008.”
During an interview with The Examiner last fall, when he was mounting a second bid for the White House, Kerry said of the Swift Boat Veterans: “I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other.” But the senator from Massachusetts later dropped out of the race.
Kerry spokeswoman Amy Brundage said this week that “2008 should be a choice between candidates’ visions on ending the war in Iraq.” She added: “That conversation must not be stolen by partisan front groups [that use] lying, despicable attack ads to smear the records of those who have served in uniform.”
During the Vietnam War, Romney divided his time between college and overseas work for the Mormon church.
“A younger Mitt Romney became eligible for the draft in 1970, but his number was not called in the military draft,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said. “During that time, he did spend several years as a missionary for his church in France.”
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was only 14 when the Vietnam War ended. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a woman, was not subject to the draft that would complicate her future husband’s White House bid.
John Edwards, who is also running for president, didn’t get many questions about his military record when he was Kerry’s running mate in 2004, thanks to all the focus being on Kerry and Bush.
“I did not serve in the military,” Edwards said in an April 2004 interview with Katie Couric, who then asked if he had a high lottery number.
“I did, and I came after the time that they were actually drafting from the lottery,” he said.
“And because [of] the time I came along and graduated from high school and then went to college, I was not drafted.”
bsammon@dcexaminer.com
Examiner
Draft questions cloud Giuliani’s chances
Bill Sammon, The Examiner
Feb 28, 2007 9:04 PM (16 hrs ago)
WASHINGTON - If this presidential campaign is anything like the last, John McCain’s Vietnam service will inevitably be contrasted with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani’s avoidance of a war that he opposed.
“Any suggestion that he was dodging the draft is totally, factually inaccurate,” said a senior Giuliani campaign adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “He opposed the war on tactical and strategic grounds.”
But as far back as 1993, when he successfully ran for mayor of New York, Giuliani has been dogged by accusations that he pulled strings to avoid the draft. By contrast, McCain has long been feted as a bona fide war hero for his harrowing stint in a Vietnamese prison.
Anyone who dismisses the significance of Vietnam as a potential issue in the 2008 campaign is forgetting how surprisingly potent it proved in 2004, when there was enormous interest in the military records of both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Four years later, with the nation still at war, Americans likely are to again scrutinize the military records of those who seek the job of commander in chief.
Giuliani, who once said of the Vietnam war, “I disagreed with it,” obtained an occupational deferment in 1969, when he was a law clerk. Although critics say such deferments were rare, the Giuliani campaign disagrees.
“He wanted an occupational deferment, which was very common at the time, because he wanted to be a lawyer,” the Giuliani adviser said.
When Giuliani’s deferment expired in 1970, he drew draft number 308, which was never called. His campaign suggests this proves he was not a draft dodger.
“This is an important point: After his deferment, his name was entered into the lottery — at least once — and he had a high number,” the adviser said.
Still, Giuliani has always been politically sensitive to the issue. During his 1993 mayoral campaign, he commissioned a “vulnerability study” that listed “draft dodger” as one of the epithets that might be hurled against him.
In blunt language, the consultants who prepared the study articulated how adversaries might frame the issue.
“Giuliani received special treatment from a friendly federal judge to avoid military service during the Vietnam war, when thousands of less fortunate people were dying,” they wrote. “Then, as a member of the Justice Department, he hypocritically prosecuted draft dodgers.”
Mark Salter, McCain’s chief of staff, said he had “no idea” whether Giuliani’s deferment would become a presidential campaign issue.
“Who knows?” he told The Examiner. “One assumes just about everything these days gets examined.”
He added: “I don’t think McCain would want it to be an issue. I know that sort of suggests a false modesty, but I really don’t.”
The “false modesty” remark was an allusion to the Arizona senator’s extensive military background. The son and grandson of admirals, McCain graduated from the Naval Academy and served 22 years in the Navy, including five and a half as a prisoner of war in Hanoi.
Thus, if Vietnam becomes an issue in the 2008 campaign, McCain might find himself in the role that Kerry had hoped to play in 2004 — unassailable war hero. That status eluded Kerry when his combat record was challenged by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, who also denounced the Democrat for accusing fellow Vietnam veterans of war crimes.
Giuliani, on the other hand — who had a 2-to-1 advantage over McCain in an ABC poll of Republicans this week — could find his record subjected to the sort of intense scrutiny that Bush experienced in 2004. Some of that scrutiny came from Kerry himself, who questioned whether Bush had fulfilled his stateside duties in the National Guard.
CBS News raised similar questions in a “60 Minutes” broadcast that backfired because the network used documents that could not be authenticated. The ensuing scandal, known as “Memogate,” ended up inoculating Bush against further attacks on his military record.
Swift Boats co-founder John O’Neill said the only reason Vietnam became a major issue in 2004 was that Kerry kept bringing it up.
“I do think Kerry was a special case,” O’Neill said. “Whatever Rudy Giuliani or the rest of these people did or didn’t do in terms of the Vietnam War, I don’t think that’s a legitimate issue in the presidential campaign of 2008.”
During an interview with The Examiner last fall, when he was mounting a second bid for the White House, Kerry said of the Swift Boat Veterans: “I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other.” But the senator from Massachusetts later dropped out of the race.
Kerry spokeswoman Amy Brundage said this week that “2008 should be a choice between candidates’ visions on ending the war in Iraq.” She added: “That conversation must not be stolen by partisan front groups [that use] lying, despicable attack ads to smear the records of those who have served in uniform.”
During the Vietnam War, Romney divided his time between college and overseas work for the Mormon church.
“A younger Mitt Romney became eligible for the draft in 1970, but his number was not called in the military draft,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said. “During that time, he did spend several years as a missionary for his church in France.”
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was only 14 when the Vietnam War ended. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a woman, was not subject to the draft that would complicate her future husband’s White House bid.
John Edwards, who is also running for president, didn’t get many questions about his military record when he was Kerry’s running mate in 2004, thanks to all the focus being on Kerry and Bush.
“I did not serve in the military,” Edwards said in an April 2004 interview with Katie Couric, who then asked if he had a high lottery number.
“I did, and I came after the time that they were actually drafting from the lottery,” he said.
“And because [of] the time I came along and graduated from high school and then went to college, I was not drafted.”
bsammon@dcexaminer.com
Examiner
NY Post: Newt "rips" Hillary
NEWT RIPS 'NASTY' HILL
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
March 1, 2007 -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich yesterday called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "a nasty woman" who runs an "endlessly ruthless" campaign machine.
The conservative Republican made the surprising comments - after months of taking care not to trash the Democratic presidential front-runner - in a wide-ranging New York Post editorial-board interview.
Asked whether Americans are ready to elect Rudy Giuliani - a leader, the questioner noted, whom Ed Koch had called a "nasty man" - Gingrich shot back, "As opposed to a nasty woman?"
Gingrich added that he thinks she'll be the nominee, and cited the battle between Clinton's camp and Sen. Barack Obama's team last week over Obama donor David Geffen bashing the former first couple.
"Nobody will out-mud the Clintons," said Gingrich, who added that he'll decide in the coming months whether to run for the White House.
He called Clinton's political team one of the most "talented" in U.S. history, but "endlessly ruthless."
"You can't beat them tactically . . . They're too relentless, they're too well-organized, they have too big a machine and they'll just grind you down," he said.
"If they think [Obama] is a real threat, they'll just grind him up."
Gingrich's harsh comments about Clinton were surprising because he has complimented her abilities and worked with her last year on a health-care initiative.
Clinton campaign spokesman Blake Zeff cited several instances in the last year where Gingrich had kind words for the senator. "Before Mr. Gingrich started running for president, he repeatedly praised Sen. Clinton," Zeff said. "We take him at his word then."
During the Post session, Gingrich also:
* Dubbed Obama a great "counterimage" to Clinton, but said he doesn't think the Illinois Democrat can win. "If the country wants therapy, they're going to elect Obama," he said.
* Said the GOP needs to nominate a Ronald Reagan-type candidate and added, "I think it's not an accident that Giuliani is running as well as he is in the polls."
Gingrich called New York's evolution under Giuliani "a tremendous story . . . It's a different city."
* Warned that the GOP is in the "early stages of an enormous transition" and suggested electability is an issue for Republicans.
"A normative Republican running like a traditional Republican, which means a non-Reagan Republican, and trying to beat Hillary by being negative is hopeless," he said.
Last night, at an election forum at Cooper Union, Gingrich and former Gov. Mario Cuomo agreed on the need for more meaningful debates by the presidential candidates in 2008. Gingrich called for nine weekly 90-minutes debates between the two nominees before Election Day.
maggie.haberman@nypost.com
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
March 1, 2007 -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich yesterday called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "a nasty woman" who runs an "endlessly ruthless" campaign machine.
The conservative Republican made the surprising comments - after months of taking care not to trash the Democratic presidential front-runner - in a wide-ranging New York Post editorial-board interview.
Asked whether Americans are ready to elect Rudy Giuliani - a leader, the questioner noted, whom Ed Koch had called a "nasty man" - Gingrich shot back, "As opposed to a nasty woman?"
Gingrich added that he thinks she'll be the nominee, and cited the battle between Clinton's camp and Sen. Barack Obama's team last week over Obama donor David Geffen bashing the former first couple.
"Nobody will out-mud the Clintons," said Gingrich, who added that he'll decide in the coming months whether to run for the White House.
He called Clinton's political team one of the most "talented" in U.S. history, but "endlessly ruthless."
"You can't beat them tactically . . . They're too relentless, they're too well-organized, they have too big a machine and they'll just grind you down," he said.
"If they think [Obama] is a real threat, they'll just grind him up."
Gingrich's harsh comments about Clinton were surprising because he has complimented her abilities and worked with her last year on a health-care initiative.
Clinton campaign spokesman Blake Zeff cited several instances in the last year where Gingrich had kind words for the senator. "Before Mr. Gingrich started running for president, he repeatedly praised Sen. Clinton," Zeff said. "We take him at his word then."
During the Post session, Gingrich also:
* Dubbed Obama a great "counterimage" to Clinton, but said he doesn't think the Illinois Democrat can win. "If the country wants therapy, they're going to elect Obama," he said.
* Said the GOP needs to nominate a Ronald Reagan-type candidate and added, "I think it's not an accident that Giuliani is running as well as he is in the polls."
Gingrich called New York's evolution under Giuliani "a tremendous story . . . It's a different city."
* Warned that the GOP is in the "early stages of an enormous transition" and suggested electability is an issue for Republicans.
"A normative Republican running like a traditional Republican, which means a non-Reagan Republican, and trying to beat Hillary by being negative is hopeless," he said.
Last night, at an election forum at Cooper Union, Gingrich and former Gov. Mario Cuomo agreed on the need for more meaningful debates by the presidential candidates in 2008. Gingrich called for nine weekly 90-minutes debates between the two nominees before Election Day.
maggie.haberman@nypost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)