The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features — Comments (44) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
UPDATED: With Mark's blessing, I have added a video roundup of sound bites from yesterday's talking head shows. The video sums up recent developments in the presidential campaign, but you you'll have to at least scroll through Mark's fine work to watch it.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Let's see. On ABC's This Week, 2008 Dem Presidential Hopeful John Edwards railed against "powerful interests," declaring that he's always fought them and will continue to fight them as President.
Alan Greenspan was up next on TW, still pimping his book, and he said that as the post-Cold War disinflation was coming to an end, the central banks had to fight inflation, because economic growth comes with low inflation.
On FNS, Boston Red Sox director George Mitchell discussed the crimes of Andy Pettitte with Boston Red Sox fan and host Chris Wallace.
Next on FNS, Jane Harman proclaimed that she had warned the CIA years ago not destroy that interrogations vid, and she questioned why they made it in the first place. Pete Hoekstra discussed the intelligence community, how it was incompetent, arrogant, politically motivated. And, in their view, accountable to no one.
On MTP, 2008 Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney held up well under some discomforting questioning by host Tim Russert.
On FTN, host Bob Schieffer first talked to 2008 GOP Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson, who plants to hit the pavement in Iowa, with five scheduled stops per day and an untold number of impromptu visits along the way. Thompson discussed illegal immigration and, when asked by Schieffer to attack both Huckabee and Romney, took on Mike but barely bothered with Mitt.
John Edwards was next on FTN, and he talked again about fighting big corporations. He said they must be fought directly and that no compromise is possible. He informed us that the Des Moines Register selected Hillary over himself because they are afraid to take on the special interests, preferring Hillary's brand of compromise.
On LE, Joe Biden blamed the Justice Department for the destruction of the CIA tapes and proclaimed that he didn't trust Bush or Cheney either. And he doesn't trust Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whom he said has not been a good ally in the War on Terror.
Next on LE, Senator Evan Bayh said that the latest NIE actually stated that Iran had not given up its nuclear weapons program; rather, the date when they would have nukes was delayed a little. Senator Kit Bond said that any talk of a rush to military action against Iran was a "figment of the imaginations of those [Dems] running for President."
On LE, Mike Huckabee defended himself against Mitt Romney's complaints about his Foreign Policy article in which he talked about the Bush Administrations arrogant bunker mentality, or whatever. He explained that "with us or with the terrorists" was not the way to go about building a coalition, and that he's stood with the President's tax cuts when Romney opposed then; and with the President, the President's father, and Ronald Reagan when Romney refused.
Read on for the Show-by-Show review…
JOHN EDWARDS ON TW. First up with host George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week was 2008 Dem Presidential hopeful John Edwards, who ranted about "powerful interests," against which he says he intends to fight. Edwards stated that he would be the Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman who took on the powerful interests. He has been fighting powerful interests all his life, he added: as a child, for himself; as an adult, for others.
Edwards promised that he was the candidate who could "close in Iowa" and win the General Election.
TW: ALAN GREENSPAN BOOK TOUR. Alan Greenspan was next on TW as part of his lengthy book tour backing his The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. He told host Stephanopoulos that Edwards was right about the stagnation affecting the middle class, but that his proposed solutions would make matters worse. Steph predicted 1970s style stagflation, and Greenspan pointed out that we've been through a post-Cold War period of disinflation, but that is "coming to an end." He said that central banks had to fight inflation, as low inflation leads to economic growth.
GEORGE MITCHELL ON FNS. George Mitchell, who sits on the Board of Directors of the Boston Red Sox and is a part owner of that team, was the first guest of FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace, who at the end of the interview admitted that he was a Red Sox fan. He began the interview by quizzing Mitchell about New York Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, one of the players mentioned to Mitchell's team by some unsavory characters who were threatened with longer jail sentences if they didn't start talking. (Andy has come clean and admitted to his fans that he used HGH twice in 2002 to try to overcome an injury and get back to his job. He added that he had never taken steroids.)
Wallace asked Mitchell if Pettitte's confession were proof that Roger Clemens was also guilty as charged by Mitchell. That slug Mitchell agreed and further proclaimed that Pettitte's confession validated his entire report.
When asked by Wallace why he would print a list of names of ballplayers against whom he had no proof of steroid use, Mitchell replied that he did his best to intimidate and blackmail the few people to whom he talked – using threats and intimidation – into naming names and "telling the truth."
Mitchell said that he invited every Major League ballplayer, without telling them if they had been named, to meet with and confess to him and clear their names – a form of blackmail – but no one paid any attention to him.
At this point, Mitchell and host Wallace celebrated their World Champion Boston Red Sox, and Mitchell said that he would attend more ballgames this season than last because he no longer had to work long hours on this report. Mitchell expressed fear: "If skepticism turns to cynicism, people might turn away." Nice work with that, Mitchell.
HARMAN AND HOEKSTRA ON FNS. From the House Intelligence Committee, Democrat Jane Harman and Republican Pete Hoekstra were Wallace's next guests. They were on to talk about the destroyed CIA vid.
Harman does not want a special prosecutor counsel involved just yet, as Congress was an independent branch of government and could handle the investigation itself. She pointed out that she had warned the CIA not to destroy that vid. She doesn't buy the CIA's proclaimed reason for destroying the vid – protecting the interrogators – and questioned why they made the vid in the first place.
Hoekstra was not satisfied that the CIA acted in good faith. Hoekstra has a problem with the "intelligence community," he said, calling them "incompetent, arrogant, and political." He complained that they think they are not accountable to anyone.
Harman said that the rank-and-file CIA op was a nice person but the leadership was arrogant. She proclaimed that the most recent NIE on Iran was "among their best work," and the reason could only be that it vaguely and with caveats backed a conclusion which her Dem friends could use against the Bush Administration.
They talked a little about waterboarding. Harman believes John McCain that it is torture, and she referred to "this arrogant Administration."
MITT ROMNEY ON MTP. Host Tim Russert's sole guest on NBC's Meet the Press was Mitt Romney. To start things off, Russert asked Romney about the "freedom requires religion" quip from that Texas speech. ("Can you have freedom without organized religion?") Romney replied that he was paraphrasing John Adams, who had said that our system of government would require morality and freedom to survive. He said that we need morality and that religion is part of the foundation of that morality. He added that the Founders recognized that the Creator was an "instrumental part of the founding of this nation." He wants this taught in school. Russert posited that atheists can also be moral and Romney agreed, prompting Russert to point out that "freedom doesn't require religion." Mitt said that he was speaking in the context of John Adams.
Romney said that he would appoint atheists and agnostics to the Supreme Court if they were the most qualified.
Russert brought up an old issue of Sunstone magazine, a Mormon publication, which said that Romney discussed his possible Presidential run with the "man he admires most in the world: Mormon president Gordon Bitner Hinckley." Russert asked if voters should be concerned that he was seeking advice from the leader of the Mormon Church. Romney said he made the decision to run by himself and his family. He talked about our nation's problems and how he had experience outside government, but that he's happy to get as much advice as he can from anyone he can. He never mentioned the man he most admires.
Russert asked him about the support he received from Bob Jones, who says that Mormonism is not a form of Christianity but rather a cult. He asked Romney about the Mormon church's reluctant acceptance of blacks into the full church in 1978, when Mitt was 31. He wondered why Romney didn't question his membership in a discriminatory organization. Romney said that he is very proud of his faith. He loves it, and he's not going to distance himself from it. But his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. He said that when he learned of the change in church policy, he pulled off the road and wept.
Finally campaign stuff. Russert asked about Romney's remaking of himself. Russert had moderated Romney's 2002 gubernatorial debate and asked him about abortion. Today, he played a clip of Romney at that debate telling a little story about why women should have the right to choose abortion. He played another clip of Romney, in the 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, in which Romney promised that we "would not see him wavering" on his support for abortion. Why the change? Romney told the story that he has always opposed abortion but wondered about the role of government. Then the theoretical, he said, became reality: and a cloning bill crossed his desk. He brought in people from around the country to talk to him, he said, and he realized that he could not be a part of an effort that "would destroy human life."
Romney believes that "from a political perspective, life begins at conception."
Romney pointed out that he kept his promise not to take away abortion rights in Massachusetts; rather, he refused to expand them.
Romney said he sometimes disagrees with the NRA, but he's a member. He blamed opponents for trying to find any change in his position regarding guns. He signed the assault weapons ban, he reminded Russert, but it was one which he said really expanded gun rights. He asked for the NRA's support. Asked about the Brady Bill, Romney ducked by saying that it had changed over time so he didn't know if he supported it. (Romney has also, of course, changed over time.) He favors background checks, but he doesn't want a waiting period of the background can be checked instantly. Romney wants to ban guns which he thinks are of "unusual lethality." (He did not define the term.)
Russert quoted an article in the Baltimore Sun (March 30, 2006) in which he supported a path toward citizenship for illegal aliens, similar to the one recently pushed by the President and John McCain. Romney said that at the time of the article, he had not yet formulated his own plan for illegal aliens and that he did not support any of the others. He had merely called them "reasonable."
Russert played a clip of Romney recently on the campaign trail praising Ronald Reagan, and then he played a clip of an angry Mitt Romney debating Ted Kennedy disavowing President Reagan. Romney said that it was a long shot against Ted Kennedy, but he ran as a conservative. Russert asked him if he could be elected governor of Massachusetts under the platform he currently espouses while running for President. Romney said that the only position which has changed since then is abortion. Romney, for a moment, looked to be as angry talking to Russert as he did in the old film clip. Then he resumed his smiling.
Romney called MittCare "a great plan," but said that he is a federalist and would not apply it against every State. He said he would give States the flexibility they need to offer universal health care. Romney said that he would give the States "some carrots and sticks" to try to coerce them into adopting universal health care.
The interview went much like this, with Romney holding up well under some relatively discomforting questioning.
FRED THOMPSON ON FACE THE NATION. On CBS, host Bob Schieffer's first guest was 2008 Republican Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson, just about to ramp it up in Iowa. Thompson said he is concentrating on Iowa because the State "is where it's at right now." He will make five scheduled stops a day in a bus, plus he promised some unscheduled stops.
Thompson will talk about why he's running. The role of the federal government, he mentioned. ("At tax time, the burden of proof is on the federal government to prove that your money belongs in their coffers.")
Defending his campaign, Thompson told Schieffer that he's doing well in South Carolina.
Perhaps contrasting himself with Mitt Romney, Thompson said that he is not going to change his message or try to be something he's not, and he promised that the pundits are wrong about as often as they are right.
Schieffer asked him about the rise of Mike Huckabee, and Fred did not know why he rose of if this rise will be "merely a blip." Fred said that now Huckabee is being forced to come forward and talk about his record, and Huckabee's record shows that he is liberal: on immigration, on taxes, on Castro, on the current Gitmo camp.
Schieffer asked Thompson what he would do about the 12-million illegal aliens who will be here after we've tightened the borders, etc. Thompson started with "what you don't do," and that's grant them citizenship just because they are here. He thinks that if we enforce the borders, required employers "to employ modern technology to see who they're hiring," and cut off federal funding, they would leave. He did not suggest rounding them up and deporting or incarcerating them. Let them know that they won't receive benefits and won't be protected from the law.
Schieffer asked Thompson why people should select him over "Governor Romney." Thompson said that there was no way you could determine how Mitt would govern in the future, but with him (FDT), he is who he is, a solid conservative.
Schieffer urged Thompson to attack both Huckabee and Romney. Thompson bit the bait more with Huck than with Romney.
JOHN EDWARDS ON FTN. Edwards was up next, and Schieffer pointed out that Edwards was on the cover of Newsweek but that the Des Moines Register had endorsed Hillary. Edwards said that the Register did not endorse him because he wants to fight big corporations while the paper wants to work with them. For their part, the newspaper says that Edwards is not as positive as he was in 2004 and he will not be able to work with the business community.
Edwards blamed pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, oil companies, gas companies, etc. He said you have to be willing to work with Congress and fight the "vested interests."
Schieffer asked Edwards how he gets anything done if he won't compromise. Edwards said he will compromise with Congress but have to be willing to fight large corporations and beat them. "They are in a position of power." He blamed big corporations for killing HillaryCare in '92.
Edwards says he has "huge crowds at every single event."
Edwards said that Barack Obama was not prepared to be President. He didn't use those words, mind you; rather, when Schieffer asked him about Obama, Edwards said that people had to ask themselves if any candidate was prepared to take on the office, etc.
JOE BIDEN ON LE. Blitzer first talked to 2008 Dem Presidential hopeful Joe Biden about the destroyed vid. Joe Biden blamed the Bush Justice Department, accusing them of destroying the vid and promoting waterboarding. Joe Biden reiterated that "we need a special counsel."
Joe Biden said that the Justice Department was "politicized" and should not be used as an "investigative tool."
Joe Biden suggested that President Bush might have ordered that the tapes be destroyed. ("We don't know how high this goes.")
Blitzer pointed out that Jay Rockefeller said that they do not need a special counsel. Joe Biden said that Jay is a heck of a guy, but he proves his point. The Justice Department will give them nothing.
Joe Biden said he does not have confidence in the President, the Vice President, or the Justice Department.
Joe Biden does not have confidence in Pervez Musharraf, despite the Pakistani President having lifted the State of Emergency. He said that we should continue to pressure Musharraf to let everyone campaign for this election. He said that the election was not fair, as there had been no time to campaign.
Blitzer played a clip of President Bush saying that Musharraf has been a reliable partner in the War on Terror. Joe Biden disagreed. He said that Musharraf had been no help in Waziristan. "They've done the bare minimum."
Blitzer told Joe Biden that the House leadership (Nancy and Harry) showed a "lack of patriotism" by not wanting our military to succeed. Joe Biden frowned and said that Nancy and Harry were great patriots and that the surge has not "produced political stability" in Iraq. He once again, as he has for the past six years, announced that "there is some breathing room" if the President follows his instructions right now.
KIT BOND AND EVAN BAYH ON LE. Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri was in the studio, and Blitzer told him that Joe Biden didn't trust Attorney General Mike Mukasey and thought there should be a special counsel to investigate the CIA vid destruction as the Senate wasn't doing anything about it. Bond countered that they've been holding hearings, calling witnesses. He suggested that there might be criminal investigations of people in the CIA. He expressed confidence in Mukasey and blasted Biden for "taking a shot" against anyone in the Administration simply because that's what Democrats do.
Democrat Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said that the witnesses they've called have all claimed no knowledge of anything. He suggested that there might be nothing illegal on any of the tapes but the way the Justice Department is handling it makes it appear that there is.
Bond warned against calling witnesses who are under criminal investigation. "We don't want to get in the middle of a criminal prosecution." He said that they will call anyone else.
Bayh wants to see if the committees "can do their jobs," because he's "not a big fan of special counsels."
Both Bond and Bayh agree that it was a mistake to destroy the tapes.
Bayh wants to know why Rodriguez destroyed the tapes when his superiors had ordered him not to do it. He wonders if the superiors' orders were more a "wink and a nod." (Indeed, a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.)
Bayh explained what he read in the NIE. They've stopped warheads and such, but they are still creating fissile material at the same rate. He said that it has only "delayed the day of reckoning" when Iran has nukes.
Bond agreed with Bayh and pointed out that Iran is working on a missile which could deliver the bomb. "It's unfortunate," he said, "that the lead paragraph was that they've stopped." He said that there "is no rush to take military action," adding that this is a "figment of the imaginations of those [Dems] running for President."
Blitzer asked if there were a hidden agenda in writing the report. Bayh doesn't think so, but he added that it is unfortunate that it gave the impression that Iran had stopped its nuclear program. Bayh suggested that they were being overly cautious after their inaccurate intelligence on Iran.
Contrast Bayh's suggestion that the latest NIE was sloppy with Jane Harman's proclamation on FNS that it was their best.
HUCKABEE ON LE. Blitzer brought up that Huckabee has ventured into foreign affairs with his article in Foreign Policy mag, and that Huckabee slammed the President with the arrogant bunker-mentality, etc. Huckabee said that the only people who are complaining are those who have spent millions of dollars to become President and now find themselves behind. Huckabee stands by what he said, and he suggested that we can't just tell people that they're either before us or against us. We have to work with others.
Blitzer brought up Romney's objections and claims that Huckabee owes Bush an apology. Huckabee reminded that he was with the President when we went into Iraq. He was for the President's tax cuts when Romney opposed them. He was with the President, his father, with Ronald Reagan when Romney was not. OUCH!
Huckabee said that he believes in letting the commanders develop battlefield tactics, not trying to do it politically.
Huckabee congratulated John McCain for getting the Des Moines Register endorsement, but that the editors do not know him as well as they know McCain. Blitzer quoted National Review editor Rich Lowry blasting Huckabee for being as unprepared as was Howard Dean. Huckabee predicted that the "chattering class" will think he's great when he's the nominee, but he cares more about what the people think than what they do. He laughed off the "Wall Street and Washington chattering class." He said that he has actually worked with people and gotten things done.
Blitzer asked Huckabee about Romney's complaints about Huckabee's pardon record. Huckabee replied that Romney did not want to tell us that Huckabee has done what Romney never did as governor. He's actually used the death penalty. He lowered his State's crime rate and though he has made mistakes, he has apologized for them and moved on.
A nice performance by Huckabee, as well.
--------------
Have at it!
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Preview — Comments (12) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 44 Comments (0 topical, 44 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The thing the Romney camp seems to have missed, is that state is about retail politicking. The numbers are small and the percentages that participate equally so. The personal contact with the candidate can be the deciding factor.
BTW the above is an oft overlooked reason why Iowa is important and should not be diminished.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
time there than any other candidate. Romney may be underestimating Fred's ability to turn on the retail politic switch in Iowa, but I do not think it is accurate to say that Romney fails to understand that the state is all about retail politicking.
I don't buy the peaked to early rationale. Generally when a politician peaks to early it means they spent their money to quickly and can't keep things going till the election.
The Huckster doesn't have Romney's cash. He hasn't had Romney's presence. The only thing that explains him in Iowa is he has been able to seal the deal and Romney's support was that of a weak preference not committed support.
Its still up for grabs. Your talking about 100,000 people or so participating (R side) and a 5 way split. The caucus may turn on whether the flu bug is going around that week.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Of any of the candidates, Romney has done the most retail politicking by far, has built the largest and most effective ground organization of any candidate in Iowa, had done more events, and the list goes on.
He may not be winning the battle against Huckabee at the moment, but it is not for lack of effort or for underestimating the importnance of retail politicking in IA.
I thought so as well. He's all tall order in front of him, but let's see what he can do. Remember, Iowa has a history of being fairly fluid, and everybody but Huckabee is dropping in Iowa. About Huckabee, one has to wonder how long he can hold on.
Evan Bayh has a realistic take on Iran/Nukes issue. Harmon is ...well, Jane Harmon. She's lately been trolling for the media Pelosi denied her and is trying to stay visible. Evan Bayh is one of our "grown-up" Dems. If only he would distance himself from DLC. He could be a contender!
But he's one to watch. His tone on Iran is thoughtful. He has a legitimate shot at #2 or cab post this go round or could sit it all out and take his shot in the next round. Either way, we "mainstream" dems like him.
She's repeating the party line -- anything to make the President look like a [deleted] -- while Bayh was, as usual, thoughtful.
And Dave, Evan Bayh was mentioned as a possible candidate, but he removed his name early. He would be an interesting candidate for the Dems in the future, but everyone is thinking what they thought in '04: Vice Presidential candidate Bayh. If Hillary gets the Dem nod, it's a thought.
I was just being a little snarky. Actually I think the VP wlot, if Hillary wins the nomination, will go to Richardson to cement the Hispanic pander.
If Obama wins the nomination, Bayh might have a shot, but Indiana and Illinois might be too close geographically, even though the candidates are not.
Clinton--and even got some state level Dems to endorse her. I would think that would burn the bridges with Obama fairly well.
BTW, Republicans here in Indiana are salivating after having HRC on the ballot (but without Bayh) since we think that would provide a 5 point boost for Republican candidates running in Congressional elections, which could net two seats for the Republicans in the House.
How is Mitt Romney a serious presidential candidate? The guy has flipped on every issue within the last 4 years. He makes John Kerry look like George Bush.
In my opinion, there are only three real candidates that any Republican should consider. They are McCain, Rudy, and Thompson. Unfortunately, Thompson seems to have self-eliminated due to his lack of passion.
Huckabee would be an awful choice for a multitude of reasons, but mostly because he is just not credible on the war on terror. I'm a little shocked that this issue has completely been pushed to the recesses of the political dialogues in BOTH the D and R primaries. But if keeping America safe is really the top priority of R voters, then only McCain and Rudy are credible on the issue (Thompson is as well, but I think he self-eliminated).
Romney is just too slick for my tastes. He changes his positions depending on the constituency and he is not as serious on foreign policy. I remember in a debate a few months ago he would not acknowledge that the surge is working.
Anyway, I think we need to reevaluate our priorities as a party and as a nation. For me, the three most important issues are (in this order) 1. National Security 2. The Supreme Court 3. Keeping taxes low.
I continue to support McCain and would be happy with Rudy or Thompson as our nominee. But Huck and Mitt would be disastrous for our party.
You need to remember that in the debate you referenced Patraeus(sp?) hadn't yet testified. If I remember right, McCain was the only one who was insisting that the surge was working.
Everyone has an opinion, but I'd suggest you might benefit from some more thorough research. Your statement that Romney takes foreign policy lightly is so off the mark I can conclude only that you haven't researched the issue thoroughly. Tell you what: Name the only Republican Presidential candidate who has given a foreign policy speech outside of the country during this Presidential election cycle.
The answer is, of course, Mitt Romney. I'm convinced that there is no better read man on the situation. Indeed, Romney has a policy for North Korea. He set forth a detailed policy speech on dealing with Iran at the Herzliya Conference in Israel. And he delivered a fabulous speech at Yeshiva University in New York on the Israeli-Palestinian situation in regard to the greater series of conflicts in the Middle East.
I think it's magnificent that we can field candidates who can competently, elegantly, and thoroughly discuss matters of foreign policy and do such in a persuasive manner.
Romney has had personal meetings with Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert. Romney particularly knows Netanyaho well. Indeed, the two worked together in Boston and Netanyahu married one of Romney's close friends.
As for Romney "refusing" to admit the surge was working, that's not what he said at all. He said he was waiting for General Petraeus to deliver his report on the progress in Iraq. I thought it was rather astute and a shot at the Democrats who were condemning the surge and Petraeus' report before it was even delivered.
I thoroughly disagree that Romney would be a disaster for the party. On the contrary, I think he's the best of the lot.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
...Is his credibility, or lack thereof. He just has too thin a record advocating for and showing leadership for a wide array of issues that matter to conservatives. Yes, he sounds all the right notes now, but his conversion to many of his positions came way too late in the game- right up to the time he decided to make himself a viable Republican nominee.
Combine that with his statement that "I don't worry too much about how the wealthy are being taxed" during the last debate, and it's clear that he's not a disciplined tax cutter who will not stoop to pandering and engaging in the same type of class warfare rhetoric that we so loathe from Democrats.
Mitt Romney's candidacy has nothing on Fred Thompson, whose entire adult life was steeped in and informed by the principles first enumerated by our Founding Fathers, and rediscovered by Barry Goldwater. We need the genuine article, not a faux conservative - Mitt's primary problem is his credibility amongst discerning conservatives- and that matters a great deal.
I do not undertand how you can possibly say the Fred has put no effort into this election. From his various public appearances to his activity in the many politicol debates, Thompson remains a front runner in the election
The "lazy" charge against Fred Thompson was pre-set as soon as he said he would be interested. He's not the only candidate for whom attack notions were pre-set. We will have those who don't like Fred calling him lazy regardless of the amount of time campaigning or what he does. Whether it works or not is not known, however Thompson's strategy to "peak" at the time votes are cast is a good one. I'm sure all the candidates make an impression when "retail" politicking; I've met Fred, & he can really make an impact. It's going to be interesting to watch how this all plays out..
I thought Romney helped himself overall. I really enjoyed the segment when he talked about religion. He seemed sincere and reasonable, and it made me feel like I (as an evangelical) would have an ally in the white house.
He looked very presidential and articulate.
I was annoyed that Russert kept implying he should be insulted by Bob Jones's comments about mormonism. Do we really have to be insulted everytime someone tells us we're wrong about something? Can't reasonable people agree to disagree about anything? Don't most people of faith implicitly believe other religions are wrong? I wish Romney would have used the prodding to make a comment about the moral relativism pervading this country and the incorrect understanding of 'tolerance'.
I also thought he explained some of his supposed flip-flops well, especially on gun control.
Answering questions without drooling on himself. Mitt did horrible on MTP. He was all over the place and at the end he seemed to suggest that some illegals should be allowed to stay. What happened to his "No Amnesty" pledge? I used to think that people didn't support him because of some anti-Mormon bigotry. After his MTP appearance, I think people don't support him because they don't believe him.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
You wrote, "I think people don't support him because they don't believe him," rather than because of some anti-Mormon bigotry. And you are right.
The question of Team Mitt is, how do they change this? The answer is that they cannot. Letting him open his mouth has only made matters worse,
after his faith speech.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Senator Kit Bond said that any talk of a rush to military action against Iran was a "figment of the imaginations of those [Dems] running for President."
That rings true. When I was in New Hampshire, Mike Gravel was telling anyone in earshot how the entire Congress -- not just this administration -- were gearing up to set the pretext for a war with Iran. He was telling anyone who would put a microphone in front of him that's what was happening.
It was shortly after that I suggested he have a joint ticket with Ron Paul, which got some big laughs from Mike Gravel.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The "Moderate" myth exposed:
Senator Bayh's lifetime ACU rating is 21 percent conservative
He's a lib that will eventually be Daschled out of IN.
He's on as long as the incompetent R's allow him to be.
politics stopped at the water's edge and politicians did not use national security issues for partisan gain. It is this tradition that Sen Evan Bayh represents.
During his testimony to Congress last September, Gen Petraeus made only one slip during two grueling days before several hostile panels. Asked an idiotic question by a senile Senator (John Warner): Did he believe the surge made America safer? the General answered with his usual prudence that he didn't think he could say that. This is of course, a Democratic talking point, and the general realized almost immediately that he had made a mistake.
When his turn came, Sen Bayh remarked graciously that he thought Gen Petraeus might want to revisit his answer to Warner's question, and invited him to do so during Bayh's question time. This was a rare moment of statesmanship, respect for the General and his position, courtesy and simple kindness on Bayh's part. I was quite impressed.
Yes, Bayh is a liberal Democrat, so is Joe Lieberman. If we are ever to return to bipartisan foreign policy, they will be key in making it happen.
How can anyone watch Mitt's interview and think he's credible? Especially the second half. He took both sides of every issue using Clintonian double speak that will allow him to change positions later and be able to point to one thing or the other that he said as cover. He defended his state mandated health care plan and said he'd use a "Carrot and Stick" approach to force it on the rest of the states without explaining why he believes Government is the solution to the problem as opposed to the government being the problem.
I still can't see and no one has yet to tell me why they think Mitt, Rudy or John McCain are less liberal on fiscal policy than Huckabee when they continue to discuss big government solutions to all of our problems.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Your review of ANY candidate is completely disregarded once they get to the last three words of every post you make.
The preceeding eight words are also laughable as you've bought, hook, line and sinker what Huckabee is selling. It might not be evil, but is definitely corrupting.
You disregard everything aceintx says merely because he is a Huckabee supporter. No matter who he supports, he had valid criticisms of Romney (whether we agree or not).
We should avoid casting observations and arguments aside for the sole reason that the observer/argue "buys hook line and sinker what Huckabee/Romney/Whomever is selling." In fact, the best argument could be made against a Romney supporter, what with Mitt's reputation for changing his mind when necessary.
Really, the hardest candidate about whom to make that argument is Giuliani, who is taking the approach: This is me, here's what I can do, if you don't like it, have fun.
This is the guy who was saying that Romney was pro-life in 1994 and became pro-choice when he ran for governor. So any kind of analysis of his is going to be based on "facts" like these.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I wasn't aware of the guy's history.
According to Romney, he became pro-choice in the '70s when his mother did.
ive_decided_that_those_who_oppose_huckabee_do_so_because_they_are_ivy_league_snobs
The Huckabots are not helping their guy. They have a dig in and shout back strategy for dealing with anything negative about their guy. I'd go so far as to say their whole strategy is whoever is loudest and most insistent wins.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
They have a dig in and shout back strategy for dealing with anything negative about their guy. I'd go so far as to say their whole strategy is whoever is loudest and most insistent wins.
If they could only figure out how to get a botnet going.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Huckabee has the same crediblity issues outside of his social conservatism. In the past week, he's flipped on Cuba Policy, flipped on Immigration, criticized the Bush administration for their "arrogant bunker mentality"- and yet you only single out Mitt for his contradictions and failings?
Fred Thompson is the only candidate who is consistent, doesn't compromise, and doesn't have the questionable ethical practices that Huckabee accumulated while he was governor. Are you only selectively applying your standards to the candidates you are not presently supporting, or do they apply to all candidates?
One could argue that Bayh was being pragmatic, on a high profile issue in a RED state, rather than statesman-like.
Lieberman, OTOH, stayed the course in a VERY BLUE state with immense pressure from left-wing groups AND his own party.
That was more statesman-like.
Regardless, my point is that Bayh is often portrayed as moderate by the msm, which is a myth.
They know what they have to do, to help the D's retain his seat in IN.
If Tim Russert asks Mitt Romney probing questions, he would find it discomfiting, not discomforting.
The questions made Romney uncomfortable. They were no more probing than what the candidate has been asked before, and he was given easy outs.
about Red State is that my vocabulary keeps getting a workout. It keeps me on m-w.com.
In this case I think that both words are probably acceptable AND appropriate. Mitt should be both uncomfortable and embarrassed. But probably more on the embarrassed side.
www.forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=96&t=4323
Huck, with more executive experience than anyone running for President, is ready for primetime. A further note; Buchanan actually agreed with Huck's comments on Bush Administration today in interview on LE.
ans I thought that he did really well. Schieffer wanted Thompson to really rain on Romney and Huckabee and Fred wouldn't play the game... spoke about HIMSELF not the others. Fred's answer on immigration was great as well; 'do your job, enforce the law and they'll go home.' Brilliant
GO FRED! GO!