Huckabee a Serious Contender or Just Serious About Croutons?

What better example of a profile primary than Huckabee's recent 11-page spread in The New York Times Magazine? Zev Chafets, the author, does an interesting job defining Huckabee. As a New Yorker, my strongest memory after reading it was the fact that Huckabee chose to eat at Olive Garden when visiting with the writer in Manhattan. Chafets writes, "I had offered to take him anywhere he wanted and then vetoed his first choice, T.G.I.Friday's." Huckabee orders soup and a salad and seems to spend a large part of the interview playing with his croutons. I am sure that the Gang of 500 will pick up on this as well. My question is whether America can take a candidate seriously when he visits Manhattan and chooses to eat at a chain. If he wants to appeal to more than the Midwestern voter, why not choose a pizza place or a deli? Is this a case of Huckabee being too humble and "small-town" for his own good?

The rest of the article is also interesting. Chafets's writing shows that he is slightly skeptical of this "dark horse" candidate. At one point, Chafets talks to Huckabee about foreign affairs and gets an interesting response. Chafets writes:

At lunch, when I asked him who influences his thinking on foreign affairs, he mentioned Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, and Frank Gaffney, a neoconservative and the founder of a research group called the Center for Security Policy. This is like taking travel advice from Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf, but the governor seemed unaware of the incongruity.

The article is humorous at times, as both quotes illustrate, which allowed me to enjoyably read the entire 11 pages. It is obvious, however, that Huckabee will have to continue to work if he wants to be taken seriously. His rise to the top of the polls is not enough to counter his age and experience.

My Mac won't let me hyperlink but this should work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?ex=1355461200&en=e8ee2a8545fa9f6f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Clinton Applying Halpern and Harris

In an attempt to reverse Obama's surge in Iowa, Hillary Clinton has lifted a "trade secret" straight from Halpern and Harris: run toward your weakness. Her enemies during the battles of the 1990s portrayed Hillary as a ruthless, ultra-feminist liberal. Obama has not-so-subtly alluded to these memories with his electibility argument: do Democrats really want to nominate someone, he asks, that stirs the passions of every grassroots GOP voter?

To combat this argument, Clinton has begun to highlight her softer side -- she has become more "emotional" at recent speeches in Iowa and is airing ads featuring her mother and daughter gushing about how warm and caring she is. She has also launched a website, CNN reports, showing Hillary as a strong Senator who works hard for everyday people like you and me.

These efforts represent an attempt to drive down her infamous high "unfavorable" ratings the media has worried about and to steal (or at least mitigate) the "nice guy" image that Obama enjoys.

An active-postive President in the making?

While hardly an election-changing event, Thursday's Democratic debate allowed Senator Obama to look like a front-runner. He earned the praise of David Yepsen, the "dean" of Iowa political reporting, and the general wisdom is that he has finally "hit his stride" as a candidate. This afternoon, he projected authority, poise and a good sense of humor.

The moderator pointed out that some of the big names among Obama's foreign policy advisers once worked in the Clinton White House. How, then, would he "still deliver the kind of break from the past" promised to voters?

Hillary, off-camera, responded with a boisterous laugh that could barely contain her sarcasm: "I want to hear that!" she cackled. Obama, undaunted, brushed off Hillary's response with a disarming smile. Demonstrating a newfound grasp of the art of the soundbite, he coolly told the one-time frontrunner that he was "looking forward to you advising me as well."



While definitely trivial in the grand scheme of things, this episode suggests Obama's increasing confidence as a candidate. Previously, he seemed uncomfortable engaging in the nitty-gritty of campaign warfare. Now, however, he appears to have found a way to make it interesting for him and, as a result, be able to deliver convincing performances at debates.

SF Straw Poll Links

Sorry!! My hyperlinks didn't work. The Youtube video can be found at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lFao5EilpCw&feature=related . The article can be found at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/10/BAOLTQJLN.DTL (then scroll to the bottom of the page).

SF Straw Poll Canceled

Below is a little piece on what's going on in San Fran with Ron Paul:

GOP goes wild: San Francisco Republicans have managed to prove that they can be just as wacky as the rest of the bunch.

It all started when the San Francisco Republican Alliance, one of many small GOP clubs in town, got together at the Holiday Inn at Fisherman's Wharf the other night for a little pre-election dinner and presidential straw poll.

The keynote speaker, Republican state Sen. Sam Aanestad of Grass Valley in Nevada County, delivered a long-winded speech on behalf of his candidate, Fred Thompson, leaving little time for other speakers.

But it did give Ron Paul backers time to put out a call for their supporters to show up - and the result was dozens of Paul's posse members trying to get in as Thompson's folks cried foul.

Club president Gail Neira, dressed in red and wearing a Santa cap, then got up and canceled the vote.

The stormy aftermath was caught on video by a Paul supporter, who promptly posted it on YouTube (watch here)


"This is why people are leaving the Republican Party," one Paul backer is overheard shouting. "You can't say, 'Come to a straw poll,' then cancel it."

"Yes, we can," one man replies.

"I want my money back," says another.

The video finishes with an older Paul backer angrily telling Neira, "You are a disgrace to the Republican Party."

What the tape doesn't capture is the hotel security guards who were called soon after to restore order and clear the room.

Neira says her phone has been ringing off the hook ever since from furious Paul supporters from all over the country. Still, rules are rules, and she was the one who got to make them. And as far as she's concerned, this was an invitation-only dinner.

"I don't believe in rewarding people who breach my protocol," she said.

No word yet on a plans for a sequel.


The article above can be found at sfgate.com.

The Freak Show, 1800

The text for this ad comes from an actual article in a Federalist newspaper.

Romney Goes Negative in Iowa

The Huffington Post has a story from the AP today that says Mitt Romney has decided to pull the trigger on attack ads. Romney is putting out a spot in Iowa attacking Mike Huckabee on immigration. The ad is in response to Huckabee's recent ascent in the polls, as well as an ad Huckabee is airing touting his immigration policy. The ad also tries to downplay Romney's shaky past on social conservative issues.

Romney seems like the 2008 election cycle's equivalent to the person in Risk who gets a hold of Europe early on. It looks nice at first, but then you realize you've put yourself in the cross hairs of every one of your opponents and you can't commit enough forces to win on any front. Romney was looking great this summer, but now he has different opponents attacking him on different political fronts. It's going to be very difficult for him to balance his campaign strategy anddefend against each of them.

Bill vs. Oprah

The New York Times reported today that Republicans are "uninspired" by their choice of candidates, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll. In contrast, Democrats are continuing to support Clinton, citing her as more able to unite the country. Interestingly, 44% of Clinton supporters say that Bill's presence encourages them to support Hillary. Obama's most recent endorser, Oprah Winfrey, does not seem to have any influence. The polling data states that only 1% of voters believe that Oprah's involvement will influence their decision.

The latest poll also makes one question what the other candidates can do to catch up to the front-runners, according to another New York Times article. Voters are happier with candidates that explain their own position on issues instead of attacking the other candidates about their stances. It seems that being on the offensive is less appealing in 2008. Perhaps Democrats are still unable to forget Kerry's flip-flops from 2004.

Republicans, Immigration, and the General Election

The BBC recently reported that Hispanics registered to vote favor Democrats over Republicans 57% to 23%. This is in contrast to the 2004 election, when Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote. Bush's 2004 campaign ran ads in Spanish criticizing Kerry's social views and drew many socially conservative Hispanics into the Republican camp. It appears that Hispanics, however, have abandoned the GOP, given the intensity of the immigration debate. Most Republican candidates during the recent Univision debate found themselves in a tight spot, trying not to alienate Hispanic voters but at the same time attempting to remain true to their conservative base. It will be interesting to see whether the lack of Hispanic turnout for the GOP will have a measurable effect on Republican performance in the general election. Their large presence in some swing states, such as Florida, indicates that it may.

The Future of the Presidency

The Freak Show lives. Just ask:

• Mike Huckabee
• Rudy Giuliani
• Mitt Romney
• Barack Obama

As Halperin and Harris point out, Senator Clinton can raise a great deal of money but has special problems:

• Weak candidate skills
• Bill
• Bill

Libby drops appeal case

A Politico.com article reports that today Scooter Libby dropped his appeal case probably hoping to pressure the White House into a pardon. Libby's lawyer attributes the development to high expenses and a long time frame for results. As a lame duck president, Bush is unfortunately more than likely to pardon the four felony counts in his last days in office. Not that Libby will ever have to serve jail time (thanks to Bush's grant of clemency), he just wants his (obviously guilty) record cleared.

Here for the official statement by Libby's lawyer.

CIA Destroys Tapes

Bush is under fire from congress and reporters who are looking for answers about tapes that were destroyed by the CIA. Bush is maintaining his position that he did not know about the tapes or their destruction before he was briefed about them on Thursday. The tapes were allegedly the tapings of interrogations of two suspected terrorists. One of the detainee's lawyers is pointing to a 2005 court order which required the government to "preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees." full story

Crossed Wires

A teenager from Iceland claims that he reached a private White House phone line while pretending to be the president of his country. If so, he would not be the first ordinary person to get through. On May 14, 1965, a Denver couple accidentally interrupted a call between LBJ and Abe Fortas. Story and audio here.

Interesting Take on Romney's Speech

Maureen Dowd wrote a column in today's New York Times comparing Romney's speech last week to JFK's speeches regarding his Catholicism. While many people have drawn strong comparisons between Romney and Kenendy, Dowd argues that Romney's speech was quite different because he is trying to appeal to the religious right, while Kennedy was trying to assure the voters that his religion would not be a major factor in his presidency.

Click here for the article.

Habeas Wrapup, Huck Oppo, the Future of the Presidency

In class, I promised more information on the writ of habeas corpus and "court-stripping." Click the links for that information.

See Geoff's post below on Huckabee's "Welcome to the NFL" experience, which is now happening with considerable fury:

• LA Times headline: "Parole officials: Huckabee pushed rapist's release."
• AP headline: "Huckabee Wanted to Isolate AIDS Patients."

In class this week, we shall consider the following questions:

• Who will be the next president?
• What legacy will Bush leave to his successor?
• How are changes in economics, technology, and international relations likely to affect the institution?

Giuliani jokes

Click here for some funny jokes about Rudy Giuliani. One highlight:

"Iran's president ... wanted to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, but his critics said, 'No, no. You are trying to exploit Ground Zero for political gain, and that is Rudy Giuliani's job.'" --Bill Maher

Geoff

Iowa

Here is a great Politico overview of the Iowa Caucus. This is a good supplement to the Clinton video we watched. It is interesting to note that the Democratic and Republican caucuses are different. The Republican system is not like what we saw in the Clinton video. Instead, Republicans write down a candidates name on a blank piece of paper. Democrats also give more weight to rural districts.

The author has some interesting and humorous insight into the strategy Dems use in the caucus. Bribing people with snow shoveling and babysitting is perfectly normal. There is a lot of fighting that can potentially go on on caucus night, and neighbors can leave pretty mad at each other. The whole system seems so foreign to me and at the same time this strange process will be crucial to this election.

Oppo on Huckabee Already in Play

Huckabee's opponents did not wait long to pull the trigger with the oppo research. This article in the New York Times details the first issue: A convicted rapist that was released while Huckabee was governor later sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in Missouri. Huckabee had written a letter to the rapist while he was incarcerated saying "My desire is that you be released from prison."

The article drew parallels to the way strategist Lee Atwater smeared Michael Dukakis in 1988 with the Willie Horton debacle.

As Prof Pitney says, "welcome to the NFL".

Geoff

Cheney's Bold Iraq Predictions

Politico.com interviewed Cheney about the situation in Iraq in an article today, in which he boldly predicts that Iraq will be self-governing by January 2009. By then, he says, we will have "in fact achieved our objective in terms of having a self-governing Iraq that’s capable for the most part of defending themselves, a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a nation that will be a positive force in influencing the world around it in the future." Good to see he's still right on line with his reputation for impossible and sometimes wholly false predictions. Congressional Democrats' responses aren't online yet, but I think we can read their minds.

The article also discusses the new White House belief that Iran poses no nuclear threat. Despite confidence in U.S. intelligence, he concedes that "there are things [intelligence officials] don’t know. There’s always the possibility that circumstances will change. But I think they’ve done the best job they can with the intelligence that’s available."

Note that a contributor to the article is John F. Harris of our very own The Way to Win.

Huckabee polls well and Ideas about Romney

I have two unrelated parts to this post. First, as we are probably all aware, Huckabee has polled at first in Rasmussen. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315264,00.html This is the first national poll where he has come in first. I was wondering how large of an effect polls have traditionally had on voters. It seems that voters are more likely to support a candidate if that candidate is polling well. Huckabee seems especially likely to pick up voters because he is becoming the most fashionable Republican candidate. His decidedly populist demeanor is likely to serve him well among undecided voters. How much does this Rasmussen poll help him with those voters?
Second, I was curious with Romney's speech set for tomorrow about the potential power of the Mormon vote. While at a national level Mormons aren't likely to make a significant impact, could a strong Mormon voter turnout help Romney win the nomination? I am particularly thinking about the Mormon vote in states like Idaho, Arizona, and especially Nevada, where there is a fairly high Mormon population, particularly in the Las Vegas area. There are approxamately 7 million Mormons in the US. Obviously, not all would vote for Romney, but even if 2/3 of them voted for him in the primaries, couldn't that significantly help him win the nomination. Since only about 1.5 million live in Utah, the impact of the remaining supporters could be huge. On a related note, most of those who wouldn't vote for a Mormon are Republican. If Romney were to win the nomination over those votes, would it indicate that he had a strong chance of winning the general election, kind of like what happened with JFK in W. Virginia?
Continuing with Romney, I was wondering if he would have a weak presidency. Considering that he was governor of Massachusetts as a Republican, he must be very willing to compromise and work towards a centrist solution. In addition, his constant flip-flopping on issues shows that he is not terribly dedicated to sticking to the Republican core. In 2002, he earned a reputation for getting people to come together, again demonstrating his tendencies to try and bring people towards a middle ground. Finally, his mission in France would have taught him to reconcille two very different ways of living. So, all of this to me indicates that if elected president, he would try to just work things out, allowing Congress to trample all over him. Hasn't Congress best responded to strong executives?

Will Immigration Become an Issue?

Romney has attacked Giuliani for employing a landscaping company that employs illegal workers. Romney himself fired his own landscaping company last year. Shortly after firing the landscaper, Romney re-contracted the company. He said in a statement on Tuesday, "After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions. They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status." The landscaper was fired once again when Romney discovered that the contract had been violated. Romney fired the landscaper for, assumingly, political reasons. But why would he jepordize himself and his political career by hiring the same landscaper? I think this was a poor decision on Romney's part and this may push the issue of immigration back into the spotlight. Immigration has remained out of the public eye, for the most part, since President Bush's Immigration Reform Act was defeated in the Senate in 2006. This may be an issue to watch in the coming months since immigration caused national tension back in 2006. click here for article.

Military Tribunals

What the heck are these review tribunals? According to the New York Times they constitute "panels of military officers who review the initial determination that an individual detainee has been properly labeled an enemy combatant." Opponents to this system say the tribunals limit access to evidence and witnesses and forbid defense lawyers from participating in hearings. Waxman, a lawyer for six Algerian detainees, asserts the current procedure fails to offer "even the most elemental aspects of an independent adversarial proceeding."

So here are my questions: 1. Are there any checks on these tribunals outside of the military? What about outside the executive branch 2. Are there any alternatives to using the federal court system as a checking device on these tribunals? 3. Who made up these tribunal rules? Is this common protocol? How often do these review tribunals actual acquit people? 4. Has the military not used tribunals before the War on Terror?

Bush and National Security

The Washington Post has an illuminating article on the Guantanamo case before the Supreme Court today. See here for background on military commissions.

We went into Afghanistan because of 9/11. Why did the intelligence community fail to foresee or prevent it? From the report of the 9/11 commission:

Commenting on Pearl Harbor,Roberta Wohlstetter found it "much easier after the event to sort the relevant from the irrelevant signals.After the event,of course, a signal is always crystal clear; we can now see what disaster it was signaling since the disaster has occurred. But before the event it is obscure and pregnant with conflicting meanings. ...With that caution in mind,we asked ourselves,before we judged others,whether the insights that seem apparent now would really have been
meaningful at the time,given the limits of what people then could reasonably have known or done. We believe the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures in:

• imagination (see bin Laden memo)
• policy (see NBC report)
• capabilities (see Washington Post on translators)
• and management (see map of intelligence community)

Our Monday class accurately predicted how the president would respond to the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (full transcript here):

QUESTION: My question, sir, is are you feeling troubled about your standing here today about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the American people?

PRESIDENT: No. I'm feeling pretty spirited -- pretty good about life. And I made the decision to come before you so I could explain the NIE. And I have said Iran is dangerous. And the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world. Quite the contrary. I'm using this NIE as an opportunity to continue to rally our colleagues and allies. The NIE makes it clear that the strategy we have used in the past is effective.

Iran: New Intel...New Policy?

After the news that Iran's covert nuclear weapons program is inactive and has been since 2003, as reported in the NIE yesterday, many are asking: will the Bush administration's aggressive policy and rhetoric towards Iran change?

The New York Times published a couple interesting articles on this subject, see: the foreign policy debate,how the 2005 NIE was so wrong, and Bush's response.

President Bush held a press conference Tuesday and answered several questions on the new findings. It's interesting to see how Bush uses the NIE to support his current policy. Even though the intel community reported with "high confidence" that Iran halted their nuclear weapons program years ago, in direct opposition to the premise for the current foreign policy agenda towards Iran, Bush maintained that the information confirmed his current approach.

With the new intelligence, Bush seemed optimistic that the NIE could help him further his foreign policy objectives concerning Iran, saying:

"To me, the NIE provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community -- continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program."

Bush spins the report in an effort to make it cohesive with his current approach--illustrating an intimate and difficult relationship between intelligence and policy.

Foreign Policy and National Security

As we approach the end of the course, think back on two familiar quotations:

• “Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce [standing armies]. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.” -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 8.
• "If the Union’s existence were constantly menaced, and if its great interests were continually interwoven with those of other powerful nations, one would see the prestige of the executive growing, because of what was expected from it and of what it did."-- Tocqueville, Democracy in America

JFK taped meetings on the Cuban Missile Crisis. On October 18, he and his advisers discussed the real possibility of nuclear war. (Text of this clip starts here at the bottom of p. 538). In October 1962, JFK discussed the Cuban Missile Crisis on national TV. As you reflect on JFK's decisionmaking, think about Peter Drucker's dictum: “The first rule in decision-making is that one does not make a decision without disagreement.”

A couple of years later, LBJ dealt with the Gulf of Tonkin.

Bad intelligence contributed to the US reaction in the Gulf of Tonkin. It also led to other problems in future decades. One "remedy" has been the reorganization of the intelligence community.