Labels: national review

Labels: national review

As I read over the piece the blood went rushing back into my face. This was nothing! The evidence was scant, the connection pithy and the rest of the article --- yawn, I probably wrote half of it myself! The meme that "bulletin-board-post-proves-Romney-push-polled-own-campaign" was weak at best.

But still, Gage & Co. had to answer the charges. Conversations with top bloggers Monday morning indicated that a press release was forthcoming from TargetPoint. I sat on pins and needles the entire day with a constant finger on the refresh button.

Then it came. How do you spell relief?

Just to prove it... here's a snapshot of the two posts I had ready to go. Even with my "high status" with the campaign (joke) I had no insight into what was going to happen:

My head was on the chopping block in the blogosphere being one of the primary debunkers of the "Mitt-did-it!" conspiracy theories. I braced myself for the worst. If the Romney campaign were truly the source of the push poll... the club fashioned by opponents is too big to imagine.

I'm also a bit perturbed. How did NRO not wait 4 hours to talk to TargetPoint? How does RedState have the gaul to publish what they did requisite to the thin evidence from Hemingway? And don't get me started on Mark's refusal to let it go.

To be fair, I think Hemingway got caught up in a a whirlwind of Mormon connections. You see, he thinks the force of his evidence are the coincidences taken as a whole. The Lindorfs, Amanda, the contributors, based in Utah...

Among Mormons there's an inside joke that the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon become the 4 degrees of Mormonism. To wit: you can find any other Mormon within a breadth of 4 LDS members.

For example, how many ways do you know the candidate you support? How many degrees of separation does it take you to get to John McCain or Rudy? Personally, I know Mitt from when I was an infant (my Mom and Ann were in the same maternity ward when I was born in Boston). I also know him through a long time family friend. And my best friend's uncle is married to someone who works closely with Romney. Is there some super secret community of Mormons that plans to take over the country by getting Romney elected? No. Its just that Mormons marry other Mormons, marry early in life, and have lots of kids. (Did I mention I'm 35 with 3 kids, and my oldest is 12?)

• The fact that the firm was in Utah? Moot. Utah perfected the art of the call center from innovators like WordPerfect and the large group of health drinks in the state. (Also, apparently, Utahns have neutral accents which helps in cold calls).
• The fact that the firm was owned by the Lindorfs? Moot. They divested of their assets years ago.
• The fact that the firm employs people who donated to Mitt? Moot. A LOT of people have donated to Mitt in Utah. (In fact, I'm surprised that out of 1500 employees only a handful have donated to the campaign).
• The fact that TippingPoint and other "affiliated" Romney campaigns have used Western Wats? Moot. Its the single largest data collection firm in the world. They handle all sorts of 3rd party work and all sorts of campaigns using them including firms employed by Romney competitors. They handle over 7000 projects every year.
• The Mormon factor? Do I really have to answer this? The Mormon cabal is not out to submarine the other candidates by conducting a push poll against their chosen one. And he isn't even their chosen one! I can't tell you how many Mormon Ron Paul supporters there are.... every other day I get some note berating me for not supporting the "true" constitution guy in the race. (Mormons are big on the Constitution)
  

The relief I feel is only tempered by the fact that we still don't know WHO did it. (More on this later).

Labels: Alex Gage, david brody mitt romney, mark hemingway, mitt romney push poll, mormons, national review, nro, push poll, redstate, tippingpoint, utah, western wats

The world is looking to our leaders to meet the challenge of a rogue nation, bent on obtaining nuclear weapons. Failure to do so would diminish the legacy of those who fought and died in World War II and of all victims of genocide and terror. We are long past the time for political correctness and accommodation of Ahmadinejad’s outrageous rhetoric. It is time to speak clearly and frankly, to strengthen alliances and build new ones, and to act with unity and decisiveness against a ruler who threatens to reintroduced the world to the horrors of nuclear devastation and holocaust.

Labels: national review

I know it’s cool on all sides not to trust Romney, but this strikes me as no there there, despite the reporter’s contention otherwise. He supports a human life amendment but lives in the incremental real world. If Roe is overturned, states will take up the issue. If Roe is overturned, it would be helpful to have a president who supports a federal ban, and who will presumably support those trying to ban abortion in their states (something worth hearing him make clear he would). Romney's position makes sense to me.

Mitt Romney is simply struggling to explain the Republican Party's conventional pro-life position. Which is: overturn Roe v. Wade. And then, slowly build up public support for a constitutional amendment banning abortions. ETA: 30 years or more.

This is not a flip-flop.

Assuming that Romney's story of a late-in-life pro-life conversion is true -- and that's a reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary -- it's not surprising that he has trouble articulating, in soundbite form, what he believes -- especially to a media that's been conditioned to listen for nuance.

It's also true that everything Mitt Romney says about abortion will be scrutinized to see whether it comports with what he said last week, two months ago, three months ago. His advisers accept that, frustrating as it may be.

Update #2: James Taranto also concurs

The Post reporter seems to be ignorant about the Constitution. Whatever Romney's opinion of a constitutional amendment on abortion (or any other amendment), it is irrelevant to anything he could do as president.

Amending the Constitution is a purely legislative function, possibly the only purely legislative function in the American system of government. To propose an amendment requires the assent of two-thirds of each house of Congress; to ratify it requires the approval of the legislatures in three-fourths of the states. Once this happens--which is exceedingly rare--the amendment comes into force regardless of the president, who has no veto power.

Labels: James Taranto, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Marc Ambinder, national review

When I first saw the comment on Instapundit, I thought it was an Obama aide who made an astoundingly boneheaded assessement of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. But no, it turns out it was the candidate himself:

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Ahem.

That's it. Too many foreign policy gaffes in too short a time. Goodnight, Senator Obama. Thanks for playing.

Victor Davis Hanson, my favorite public intellectual and expert on all things foreign policy, said this:

Sen. Obama's remarks on foreign policy sound like, well, someone who just a few months ago was a local official of some sort.

In the case of Obama, one or two more of such pronouncements will either ensure Clinton the nomination (and that he is not on the ticket), or make him painfully aware that anything he says extemporaneously about foreign policy will be a disaster, and therefore he won't say anything.

We can only hope that Democrats nominate such a novice. Mitt would have no trouble dismantling him in the general election.

Second, Jonah Goldberg links to First Read's ruminations about the changed caucus date for Iowa:

Flying Blind: NBC/WSJ pollster Peter Hart (D) tells First Read that the revision of the primary calendar -- moving Iowa forward to the first few days in January -- is really the most important political event that has happened in the past few months. From his point of view, it changes the entire rhythm of the political cycle in a way that cannot be fully appreciated, maybe not until after the nominating contests are over. Hart says it would be interesting to re-play many of the past caucuses if they were held on January 5th or 7th; his guess is that Dean would have won in 2004, and that Reagan would have defeated Bush in 1980. Perhaps most significant of all is that no one will know who's up and who's down right before Iowa. No self-respecting polling company, he says, does polling between the 20th and 25th of December. So we very well might have no idea how Iowa will break until after the results are in. If Hart's right and the leader before Christmas is the leader on Caucus day, does that make the window between Thanksgiving and December 20 the three most important three weeks of the primary campaign?

Right now, moving up the calender helps Mitt. It emphasizes the need to win early and often, which Mitt has done. It also shortens the calender and makes it more difficult for others to take his lead. For some that will mean too little, too late - I'm looking your way Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee.

I've argued before that the long campaign season has and will continue to help Mitt. He entered the race a virtual unknown. Through consistent campaigning efforts, increased numbers of visible debates (where he consistently stood out), and persistent media exposure (and perhaps a small helping from grassroots blogs like this humble one), Mitt has gained a level of name recognition where he can effectively spread his message and run an effective campaign. Thus, the long campaign season helped Mitt.

However, that campaign season is coming to a close shortly. According to First Read, the remaining time to make a move before Iowa is essentially four months. That favors Mitt, now the front-runner, who is unlikely to suffer voter fatigue from over-exposure and has the organization in place to maintain and build on his lead.

Not that we should be complacent and rest while ahead. So get out there and argue Mitt's case to all the people you can.

Labels: national review

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has embraced the big-government approach. He has joined Democrats in calling for universal health coverage. The plan he supported in Massachusetts is a variation of HillaryCare.

Or maybe even this:

Tanner goes on to praise Rudy Giuliani's plan that expands healthcare savings accounts and reforms various tax provisions. Certainly there is much to be admired of Giuliani's plan, especially when compared to any Democratic plan. However, it will result in only changes at the margins. Romney's plan is a much bolder plan that would do more for more people. That does not make Romney's plan a liberal idea in disguise. Bold does not translate to liberal.

Tanner mistakenly equates small government with small ideas. Romney sees that even small government can accomplish large things. The small government, conservative principles that Romney advocates are powerful tools that can accomplish something as audacious as insuring a nation.

Labels: Cato Institute, healthcare, Michael Tanner, national review

Looking at voting patterns and the strength of both parties' bases, a true three-way race may help the Democrats more than the Republicans. Why? It’s simple -- the South. The irony of a Bloomberg candidacy is that it could make the Democrats more competitive in the South because their 35% base vote in the South is made up of die-hard Democrats.

Moreover, is it inconceivable that the logic Todd & Co. use about the South might also have applicability in the Northeast and California? Splitting the limousine liberal vote in New York, New Jersey, Conn., California and Mass. could change the dynamics for a Republican quite favorably (depending on the Republican). Indeed, the Republican contender wouldn't need to actually win all or almost any of these states in this scenario. He could however force a Hillary or an Obama to spend time and money in areas a Democrat should have locked up.

His political and personal views are more in line with moderate Democratic Party politics: His first major act as mayor was a large property tax increase, his most controversial was a citywide ban on smoking, and the signature accomplishment of his first term was an education reform that mixed centralized control with increased spending.

Vocally opposed to remarriage for himself, he favors the right to same-sex marriage and has confessed not only to smoking marijuana but to enjoying it.

Labels: Chuck Todd, Michael Bloomberg, national review, Politico

Skeptics see more naked ambition than sincere conversion in Romney’s shifts on multiple issues, including abortion, gun control, gay rights, and taxes. His campaign should make no mistake: His introduction to the public has gone badly, and a few early TV ads isn’t going to fix it.

Conservatives should hope Romney’s campaign does not fizzle. For three decades, candidates who have moved to the right in Republican presidential primaries have been rewarded rather than punished. Conservative openness to converts has made it possible for moderate Republicans who found themselves moving rightward to prosper, and given ideologically malleable Republicans an incentive to adopt conservative positions. In both cases, the effect was to facilitate the country’s rightward move.

Conservatives should want to keep it that way. Thus, the gleeful pounding away at Romney’s changes from some on the right is counterproductive. Do any of these critics really wish that Romney had remained pro-choice?

It is natural that he might say he is personally pro-life, but would not try to change laws in Massachusetts; that he would oppose same-sex marriage, but otherwise promote gay rights; even that he would duck the Reaganite label. In any case, Romney is a career businessman who spent far more time thinking about management and government reform than social issues and political philosophy.

His difficulty is obviously in transitioning from Massachusetts to the national stage. Part of what Romney needs is simply time, and even though the campaign season is already super-charged and the news cycles relentless, he will get it. It is still ten months before anyone votes, and conservatives will get a chance to evaluate Romney's sincerity and honesty over those months. But his conservatism will likely continue to sound tinny until he gives it an overarching theme of his own.

George W. Bush moved right in preparation for his presidential run in 2000, but also thought through a new brand of conservatism that he figured would be attractive in the post-Gingrich, post-impeachment era. We have never been particular fans of “compassionate conservatism,” but Romney would be well advised, in a similar fashion, to figure out a distinctive way to apply his conservatism to the challenges of our time. (Alliteration is not necessary and probably should be avoided.) This individuation could help deepen and authenticate that conservatism, and make it sufficiently compelling to prevail in the general election. At the moment, Romney is running on a businessman's typical theme of competitiveness along with a paint-by-the-numbers collection of conservative positions that seem to have no deeper rationale than getting to the right.

Labels: conservative, flip-flop, flipping, national review