Tag: Campaign 2008

Loyal Bushie Dan Bartlett Trashes Thompson, Romney

Jon Ponder

Pres. Bush gave a one-word answer when he was asked recently whether he was supporting one of the Republican candidates. (“No.) But one of his most loyal flunkies was not so taciturn last month.

“Unless they really find a way to crystallize his message for why he’s different than the other candidates, why people should take a second look now, I don’t feel very good that Fred Thompson’s going to be the candidate for my party,” he said.

Speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Sept. 14, former George W. Bush advisor Dan Bartlett excoriated the presidential campaign of former lobbyist and senator Fred Thompson:

Bartlett was harshest in his judgment of Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who jumped into the contest a month ago … Thompson, Bartlett said, was the “biggest dud” because he peaked last spring when he first started talking about running and since then has yet to articulate a compelling vision for why he is running. “The biggest liability was whether he had the fire in the belly to run for office in the first place and be president,” Bartlett said. “So what does he do? He waits four months, fires a bunch of staff, has a big staff turnover, has a lot of backbiting, comes out with his big campaign launch and gives a very incoherent and not very concise stump speech for why he’s running for president.”

Bartlett held out little hope that Thompson could win the nomination. “Unless they really find a way to crystallize his message for why he’s different than the other candidates, why people should take a second look now, I don’t feel very good that Fred Thompson’s going to be the candidate for my party,” he said.

Bartlett also said Mitt Romney had a strong strategy but was hamstrung by charges he has flipflopped on key issues and:

“The Mormon issue is a real problem in the South, it’s a real problem in other parts of the country,” he said. “But people are not going to say it. People are not going to step out and say, ‘I have a problem with Romney because he’s Mormon.’ What they’re going to say is he’s a flip-flopper. … It’s a fact, it’s reality. I don’t know if it’s one that will keep him from becoming the nominee for the party but it’s something they clearly understand they’ve got to deal with.”

John McCain is a “wild card,” Bartlett said, but was most enthusiastic about former governor Mike Huckabee but said he had two problems: his hick-sounding name and the fact he and Bill Clinton share the same birthplace.

Rudolph Giuliani had the “best message,” said Bartlett:

“Republicans, I believe, are terrified about losing the presidency after losing Congress,” he said. “I think this is going to be the season of the pragmatic Republican voter. That bodes well for Rudy and it gives McCain a shot because I think people feel McCain can go toe-to-toe with Hillary in the general election.”

Bartlett worked closely with Bush for 14 years before stepping down in July.

Democrats Stuck on Name for 48-State Strategy

Trish

What does the DNC do the day after the news that five Democrats (Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich) are so incensed about Michigan moving its primary up that they pulled their names off the state’s ballot?

If you guessed, “Um, they launch an idiotic campaign to win in all 50 states which, thanks to their own pigheaded bumbling by allowing no campaigning in two of the most populous states in the country, is so unrealistic and pie in the sky that they can’t even think of a name for it?” you’re right!

An email from one Tom McMahon at the DNC is pleading for my help — and yours too — to name their 2008 organizing plan. Finding a catchy title for this stillborn brainchild is paramount in the minds of our national leaders, so I am appealing to all of you loyal Pensito Reviewers out there to help. Please leave your suggestion here, and remember, “Take Your Heads Out of Your Ass Before It’s Too Late” is already taken.

What Is Howard Dean Smoking?

Buck Banks

The architect of Florida’s current presidential primary mess, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, had the audacity to come to Florida yesterday and dismiss the primary debacle (caused when the state legislature moved Florida’s primary to Jan. 29, ahead of the Feb. 5 date set by the DNC) as a “spat between politicians”:

‘Floridians … are Americans, too, and they want a Democratic president.’
— DNC Chair Howard Dean

“Do I wish this fight weren’t happening? Yes,” said Dean, who had driven from Jacksonville to Tallahassee for a $100-per-person fundraiser. “At the end of the day, I think Iraq, health care, education and ethics matter far more than a fight between politicians.”

Wait a minute. The spat wouldn’t exist if Dean hadn’t enforced the DNC’s rules. Notice that Mel Martinez, Dean’s counterpart on the Republican National Committee, chose not to lower the entire boom on Florida’s Republican primary, stripping the state of only half its convention delegates and allowing candidates to campaign in the state. By contrast, Dean and his cohorts stripped Florida of all its delegates and vowed to punish any Democratic candidates who campaign in Florida.

Seems Dean-o forgot that part, too:

The full effect of what Dean passed off as a “blip” may come to pass later this month. Local Democrats will convene a state convention that lacks a single big-name presidential contender mere days after all the major Republican presidential candidates have descended upon Orlando for a state convention and nationally televised debate.

However, Dean disassociated the DNC from the candidates’ pledge to avoid Florida, saying “what the candidates do is their business.”

Huh?? If the candidates campaign in Florida, they will be punished by the DNC, Howard, so rather than risk that, they’ve pledged not to campaign here. But they can raise money. Is any of this coming back you Howard? Apparently not, when he blurts out inane comments like:

“Floridians, despite the fact that they have strong feelings about this issue … are Americans, too, and they want a Democratic president,” said Dean.

Thanks for including us in, Howard. Now please leave.

Macaca’s Back – And Fred Thompson’s Got Him

Jon Ponder

Fred Thompson has moved aggressively to sew up the racist vote for 2008. (Smart move. It may be the biggest voting block in the country.) He has appointed former Sen. George Allen of Virginia as a national co-chair of his presidential campaign:

Former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), whose White House hopes vanished in a “macaca” moment, was named a top adviser yesterday to Fred Thompson’s White House campaign.

Thompson operatives brushed off the potential baggage Allen might bring to the campaign

During his campaign for reelection to the Senate in 2006, Allen was caught on tape referring to a dark skinned person as a “macaca,” which is a racial epithet in much of the world. Allen was also criticized for his lifelong obsession with the Confederacy and for decorating his government office with a noose, which many see as a symbol of lynching from the Jim Crow era and slavery days.

Allen will also co-chair Thompson’s “National Campaign Leadership Team” with Liz Cheney, the vice president’s heterosexual daughter.

Leonard Nimoy Is Just Another Hollywood Liberal

Buck Banks

I guess I should have known that Leonard Nimoy was a flaming liberal. It’s pretty clear, based on whose campaigns he has contributed to over the years. A new Web site, PoliticalBase.com, has a tool that enables you to search public records and find out who received dough (and we can assume support) from whom.

For instance, in January Nimoy gave $2,300 to Barak Obama’s campaign. In March he gave $1,700, then $2,300 to Al Franken’s campaign for Senate. He supported Barbara Boxer in 1992 and again in 2004. But Nimoy seems to hedge a little when he’s not sure about the horse he’s backing — he gave $2,000 each to Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004. And we won’t mention the $1,000 he gave to Bill Bradley’s presidential campaign in 2000.

But Nimoy seems to hedge a little when he’s not sure about the horse he’s backing — he gave $2,000 each to Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004.

Curious, I wondered how my co-editors voted with their money. Editor-In-Chief Jon Ponder in 1998 and 2000 gave a total of $1,500 to the campaign of Tom “Eliminate the Immigrants” Tancredo. Just kidding. That was Jon Ponder from Littleton, Colo. Co-editor Trish did not show up on the radar, but we suspect she could actually be in the witness-protection program. Some whack job with my given name gave $3,000 to help elect George W. Bush, and if I ever get to Portland, Ore., I’m going to look up the fellow and give him a piece of my mind.

PoliticalBase.com is a great place to waste time productively, if you have a drop of wonk in your veins. You can vote on who you think are the most important people. Overall most powerful is dead Republican Ronald Reagan and most powerful media person is Jon Stewart. Most trustworthy overall and among media people is Jon Stewart again. Most partisan are Ted Kennedy and Markos Zuniga of the Daily Kos blog.

Most attractive? Overall, it was Jon Stewart, Mitt Romney and Barak Obama. Among media it was Jon Stewart, Arianna Huffington and Keith Olbermann.

Stewart’s mom must be stuffing the ballot box. Which is one of the dangers inherent in a Wikipedia-style site that encourages visitors to become contributors, albeit with moderation.

The site was built by a handful of Web designers:

Early this summer, the five folks on your right started building Politicalbase.com as a resource for people wanting to make informed decisions when casting their vote. This team has worked on previous web sites like CNET, Comicvine, CHOW, TV.com, Rhapsody, MP3.com and a few more.

Check it out when you have a few minutes to waste productively. It’s fun.

Bush Bombshell: He Dislikes All the Candidates

Trish

Bush’s answer was so quick and so definitive that it was overlooked, coming two-thirds of the way through a long, rambling Q & A with a friendly group put together by the Lancaster County, Penn. Chamber of Commerce.

Question: Are you able at this point to support any of the presidential candidates coming up?

The President: No.

Q: After saying you’re still having fun, I have even more respect for you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Q: But my question is a little bit lighter, I guess. Two things. One, are you able at this point to support any of the presidential candidates coming up?

THE PRESIDENT: No.

Q: All right. (Laughter.) Then my next question. I have recently watched the interviews with your daughters, and you have to be very proud of them.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.)

Q: I’m proud of my daughter. My question is, would you rather see your daughters go into business or politics?

THE PRESIDENT: I’d rather them do whatever they want to do…

And that was that. Bush never backed up and explained why he doesn’t support any of his party’s candidates, or elaborated on the subject in any way.

We knew the Republican candidates were distancing themselves from Bush. We didn’t know the feeling was mutual.

It will be interesting to see if that changes after a nominee is selected. I find it very hard to imagine that Bush/Cheney will refrain from supporting the Republican. Surely they know that after they leave the White House, someone’s bound to trip over a body or two left behind by their administration. Surely they’d rather that someone be a Republican.

His answer also explains why the Bush cash machine hasn’t cranked up. The Rangers are so far hanging on to the millions they made available in the last two presidential cycles, leaving Republicans lagging.

Combined, the top three Democratic contenders — Clinton, Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards — have raised nearly $190 million compared to the $121 million Romney, Giuliani and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have raised.

Romney’s Liberal Views Exposed in New Ad from Gay GOPers

Jon Ponder

Romney Has “Massachusetts Values”

The Log Cabin Club, a gay Republican organization, has an ad up in which they expose Mitt Romney’s egregious flipflops on social issues. Here’s the transcript:

Narrator: For years he’s fought conservatives and religious extremists — Mitt Romney.

Romney: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country … I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it.” — Massachusetts Senate Debate, October 25, 1994, Boston, Faneuil Hall.

Narrator: Mitt Romney opposed the gun lobby…

Even Ronald Reagan…

Romney: I was independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush. — Massachusetts Senate Debate, October 25, 1994, Boston, Faneuil Hall.

Narrator: … a record fighting the religious right … a pro-choice record … Massachusetts values … Mitt Romney.

It’s hard to parse the thinking behind the fact that the LCC decided not to mention Romney’s former support of gay civil rights in the ad — but then it’s impossible to figure why any gay person would be a Republican. There can’t be a more friendless group in politics.

Ron Paul Raises $5 Mil – in Range of Frontrunner Rudy’s $11 Mil

Jon Ponder

Quarterly fundraising reports from the presidential campaigns are in, and Rep. Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who opposes the war — made a little news:

[Paul] surprised observers when his campaign said it had raised about $5.1 million from July through September, more than doubling his contributions from the second quarter and bringing total donations to more than $8 million for the year. The Paul campaign said it had $5.3 million in cash on hand.

Frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani raised $11 million, Mitt Romney $10 million, John McCain $6 million and Fred Thompson $8 million. Ron Paul has an intense grassroots following but polls under 5 percent in national surveys. The fact that the renegade candidate raised donations within range of the top tier is interesting. He bears watching.

Paul opposes the war, as noted, and some of his libertarian views would appeal to liberals. He opposed the Patriot Act, for example, and favors habeas corpus. He is for legalizing drugs, especially medical marijuana.

In one significant area, however, the libertarian supports government intervention, and it is a deal killer for the left. He opposes a woman’s right to abortion.

UPDATE: Here are Paul’s own words on abortion:

In my medical career, I’ve delivered more than 4,000 babies, so naturally my professional experience has influenced my views on abortion. It’s my strong belief that life begins at conception, and that children in the womb are entitled to inheritance rights. More broadly, libertarians, like most Americans, respectfully come to different views on the issue based on their different personal feelings about when human life begins … I think we ought to return the issue to the states so that local opinions could better determine the specific regulations concerning this deeply personal issue.

And on gay marriage:

Just like with abortion, I believe that marriage is an issue best decided by the states, not the federal government. I’m opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage, but it also goes both ways: I’m against the courts at the federal level pressuring the states into accepting same-sex marriage licenses. What we’re talking about in both cases is the redefinition of an ancient social institution by the federal government that’s best left to the people to decide at the local level.

—

Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised a combined $47 million, more than the combined totals of all the Republicans mentioned above. Clinton raised $27 million, and Obama raised $20 million.

Giuliani Backer Behind Failed Scheme to Give 19 of California’s Electoral College Votes to 2008 GOP Nominee

Jon Ponder

Two big stories broke over the weekend about the Republican scheme to change California’s winner-take-all primary to a proportional system that would give nearly half the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to the GOP in next year’s presidential election.

If the initiative had passed, it could well have resulted in handing Giuliani the presidency in a close election.

First came word that the campaign to put an initiative on the June ballot had failed and was closing shop. Then we learned that campaign’s once-secret major donor was a key back of Rudolph Giuliani, the GOP frontrunner and, not incidentally, the person most likely to have benefited if the initiative had passed.

Pundits have all but ceded the California primary to Giuliani because he is the most liberal GOP candidate. But it is considered highly unlikely he or any Republican could win the state in the general election.

The stakes were actually quite huge. Under the proposed change, if the GOP candidate were to win all the California districts his party won in 2006, even though he lost the state overall, he’d still have 19 additional Electoral College votes — roughly the total votes held by Ohio.

In the story Saturday that broke the news of the initiative’s failure, note the reference to the lack of disclosure of the identity of a donor:

Unable to raise sufficient money and angered over a lack of disclosure by its one large donor, veteran political law attorney Thomas Hiltachk, who drafted the measure, said he was resigning from the committee … Campaign spokesman Kevin Eckery said he was ending his role as well … [Backers] said Thursday that they believed the measure was all but dead, at least for the 2008 election.

In the second story, we learn the donor’s name and that he has close ties to Giuliani:

A close friend and major fundraiser of… Giuliani has identified himself as the mystery financier of the proposed California initiative to apportion the state’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district instead of winner-take-all.

He is New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. He said he provided the $175,000 to initially finance the petition drive to get the measure on the June 2008 ballot …

Singer oversees Elliott Associates, an $8 billion investment fund. He is also chairman of Giuliani’s northeast fundraising operation that produced a third of the New Yorker’s $33.5 million campaign war chest in the first six months of 2007. Singer and his employees have donated at least $182,000 to the Giuliani campaign so far this year.

“I made the contribution without any restrictions,” Singer’s statement said. Some Democrats have threatened legal action, complaining that federal campaign finance laws were violated if the Giuliani campaign was involved.

The Giuliani campaign denied having any role in the campaign:

A Giuliani campaign spokeswoman, Maria Comella, said today that Singer’s donation “was completely independent from our campaign.”

But this strains credulity because, if the initiative had passed, it could well have resulted in handing Giuliani the presidency in a close election next November.

Say It Ain’t So, Newt!

Jon Ponder

It was just one week ago today that Newt Gingrich challenged Fox News viewers to raise $30 million dollars for his presidential campaign. “I don’t see as a citizen how you could turn that down,” he said.

Newt’s image probably can’t be rehabilitated, but if he’s going to try, it will take a lot more money than $30 million and a lot more time than three months.

Yesterday, however, the AP reported that Newt will stay out of the race:

“Newt is not running,” spokesman Rick Tyler said. “It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president.”

Gingrich decided “to continue on raising the challenges America faces and finding solutions to those challenges” as the group’s chairman, Tyler said, “rather than pursuing the presidency.”

So Citizen Newt had to choose between running for president of the United States and keeping his cushy seat atop his nonprofit ideas empire, and he chose cushy. Call me old fashioned but I remember a day when public officials put service ahead of everything else, especially their cushy seats.

I guess Republicans really do hate government.

A cynic might suggest the real reason Newt won’t run is because stepping down would remind him that he was forced to step down as speaker of the House after his colleagues learned he was having an affair with a staffer at the same time, under his leadership, their party was impeaching Pres. Clinton for having an affair with a staffer. (And both Gingrich and Clinton were having these affairs when they jointly passed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.)

It’s likely the real reason Gingrich isn’t running is poll results like these: In a CBS poll this spring, 43 percent gave Newt a “not favorable” rating; 16 percent were favorable. In a USA Today poll around the same time, 48 percent were unfavorable, 29 percent favorable.

The public has a clear picture of who Gingrich is. His image probably can’t be rehabilitated — confessing his affair to Father Dobson did nothing for him among “values voters” — but if he’s going to try, it will take a lot more money than $30 million and a lot more time than three months.