Monday’s political round-up

November 26, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Slowly but surely, Rudy Giuliani’s scandalous personal life is becoming more of a campaign issue: “‘It just drives me nuts, I have to be honest with you, when politicians get up and talk about their personal life, and then say, ‘Oh, everybody makes mistakes,” Romney said. ‘Well, everybody makes mistakes, but not everybody asks to be president of the United States… And when you ask for those responsibilities, then we expect you to live by a higher standard of conduct.'”

* Last week, an ex-con was arrested in a double-murder case, after having been released from prison by a judge appointed to the bench by Mitt Romney. Romney has called on the judge to resign, but Giuliani has slammed the former governor for the appointment anyway, insisting that it’s an example of Romney’s poor judgment and weakness on crime.

* Romney tried to turn Giuliani’s criticism around: “Rudy Giuliani should be the last guy to talk about appointing a screwup to public office, rival Mitt Romney sniped Sunday as the Republicans continued to attack each other during a weekend of campaigning in New Hampshire. Romney called it ‘strange’ and ‘ironic’ that Giuliani should attack him about a judge he appointed, conjuring up the specter of Giuliani’s disgraced police commissioner, Bernard Kerik.”

* Bob Novak unloaded on Mike Huckabee in his new column: “Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses and might make more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem.”

* Speaking of Huckabee, the former governor delivered a couple of sermons at two Baptist churches in South Carolina yesterday. “God is still looking for good soldiers, good soldiers for Christ,” he told the congregation in Irmo. “Every single person here is a soldier that God needs in his army. He is just waiting on us to say here am I, send me.”

* CNN: “Sen. Barack Obama dropped the hint last week, but Monday his presidential campaign made it official: talk show host Oprah Winfrey will join him on the campaign trail next month. The campaign said Oprah will make four appearances with the Democratic presidential candidate in three key early states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The stops will be the weekend of December 8th and 9th, in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Manchester and Columbia.”

* Romney’s background as a pro-choice candidate continues to dog him: “Two Republican presidential candidates slammed rival Mitt Romney’s record on abortion Saturday, claiming Romney cannot be trusted on the issue because of his past support for abortion rights. The attacks, some of the most pointed to date from his Republican opponents Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, come one week after Romney’s campaign sent out a mailer in South Carolina calling him ‘the only presidential candidate who supports the Republican party’s pro-life platform: a constitutional amendment banning abortion nationwide.'”

* Jonathan Martin had a good piece the other day on Fred Thompson’s campaign troubles, including this striking note: “Even [Thompson’s] own aides and advisers acknowledge privately that there are days when he seems disinterested in running for president at all.”

* This may surprise some people, but apparently, some over-zealous Ron Paul fans have become so aggressive towards journalists, it “appears to spill beyond advocacy into harassment.”

* Lance Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France champion, is apparently considering a political career. This week, spokeswoman Katherine McLane explained, “For the coming year, his focus is on making cancer a national priority and a front-burner topic in the presidential election. What happens after that, who can say?”

Oh good, now when Hillary’s campaign goes after Oprah, they can accuse themselves of ganging up on a woman.

Go Obama!

  • – I’m hoping we’ll see a Mittens/Ghooliani fist fight before 2008 is too old. I’d award the current round to Mittens for his 1-2 punch on Bernie Kerick.

    – Yes, Paulementarians are scary. What else is new?

    –

    “God is still looking for good soldiers, good soldiers for Christ,”

    Change the names in the above statement and he’d sound like a recruiter for Al Quaida. IOKIYAC! And why is it that even near-pagans like myself know that talking about soldiers for Christ would piss Christ off no end? “I said turn the other cheek damn it!”

    BTW, the link for that story doesn’t work.

  • Novack has gotten the memo – Huckabee has moved from “sideshow spectacle” to “threat to the anti-tax wing of the GOP” – he must be eliminated.

    We’ll see how he does. Huckabee’s campaign relies on the fact that he’s a more “Christian Conservative” than anyone else in the running. And Huckabee’s record is such that he has to appeal to actual Christian Conservatives – I’m not sure how large a faction that really is in the GOP. There are a lot who call themselves “Christian Conservatives”, but it remains to be seen if they’ll vote for the “most Christian-est” candidate, or if they use the badge of “Christian Conservative” but really just vote pro-authoritarian with a large side order of firey anti-tax rhetoric and a dash of subtle racism.

    Huckabee loses on two fronts – the anti-tax loons hate him because he did some realistic things with taxes as governor of Arkanasas and the natavists hate him because he supported “amnesty” and a guest worker program over the years. That’s two strikes from the Republican base. I’d be really surprised if he gets the nomination with that, but I guess stranger things have happened.

    (Also – I like how Novack subtly calls social conservatives phony conservatives in this editorial – apparently, social conservatives are phony conservatives now rather than the backbone of the voting base of the GOP. I didn’t get the memo on that one.)

  • Bob Novak unloaded on Mike Huckabee in his new column…

    The most ironic part of today’s Novakery was where Bob suddenly realized that basing your party’s electoral strategy on gimme votes from the Christian right might have unforeseen consequences. Ya’ think, Bob? All that pandering and now the Christians are turning their backs on the Novak-approved kewl kids. It’s tragic, I tell ya’.

  • “…Republicans know that (Huckabee) is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.”

    ya see… it’s not the strong hand directing americans’ lives the object to. it’s what he’s directing them to do that bothers “true” conservatives. big government in economic issues: BAD. big government in peoples lives: NO PROBLEM!

  • For the “prince of darkness” a conservative is someone who wants to eliminate all taxes whatsoever and yet be able to impose imperium on the rest of the globe. He (women don’t count) also must hate babies, once they’re born.

    I don’t know how he squares his political philosophy with his (Roman Catholic) church’s stands on social fairness, rights of labor, opposition to the Iraq invasion/occupation, and many other issues. He must have a considerable capacity for compartmentalizing.

  • Not sure if the Oprah thing is a good move – she’s not having a very good year. The woman may be obscenely wealthy, but I don’t think she’s all that smart. Not saying she doesn’t do some good things, mind you, but her success is in large part a matter of luck – right place/right time kind of thing.

    Years ago, when Oprah was still in Baltimore and doing a local show (People are Talking), she interviewed my husband, whose only comment to me was that she was dumb as a box of rocks.

  • I love it when Republicans bicker over who the “real” conservative is.

    Is it Giuliani, the social liberal, libertine, and former McGovernite? Is it Mitt, former governor of Taxachusetts? Or is it “Maverick” McCain, desperately trying to flop from where he once flipped?

    Maybe Huckabee is the “real” conservative. He has never wavered on social issues. But (oops) he’s a bit too much tax-and-spend. If he was borrow-and-spend like Bush 43 and Saint Ronald, Novak might like him better.

    Thompson might be our guy, but he seems so… clueless! Are there no other “true” conservatives out there? Tancredo and Brownback? Too scary and weird. Ron Paul? No, he’s anti-war, and there’s nothing “conservative” about that. Newt? Nobody likes that a**hole.

    Tough times to be a Republican.

  • What? You mean that wRonG Paul supporters—Tim McVeigh-ish, patriot-movement anarchists and Mengele-esque, stormfront-dot-orc knuckledraggers—are stooping to harassment tactics? Who would’ve thunk it?

  • I am not a “paultard” or timothy mcveighish, or mengele-esque, as many people have tried to paint Ron Paul supporters. They cannot attack the man himself, so they try to discourage people from joining the movement by maligning his supporters.

    I am an American who is fed up with my government and sees an opportunity to seize back control from Washington bureaucrats and realize the dream that our founding fathers had of maximum personal freedom and prosperity within the boundaries of order.

    Why Ron Paul is right for America:

    He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

    He voted against the Patriot Act.
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.

    He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

    Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

  • Ed Stephan –

    I don’t know how he squares his political philosophy with his (Roman Catholic) church’s stands on social fairness, rights of labor, opposition to the Iraq invasion/occupation, and many other issues.

    The same way other conservative Catholics do – by ignoring them. As long as you’re voting against abortion rights and birth control, everything else is A-OK!

    Of course, those of us in the liberal Catholic camp do the same thing. We tend to ignore and/or downplay the Church’s stance on abortion and birth control and instead focus on social justice, poverty, labor rights, opposition to unjust wars, and other concerns when we vote. Just the nature of the beast. It gets maddening when the hierarchy starts to dictate that the abortion issue is the MOST IMPORTANT one of all the things Catholics should be concerned about, but American Catholics have gotten used to ignoring the whims of the hierarchy over the last century or so, so the dissonance isn’t as severe as one might think.

  • Anne wrote:

    Not sure if the Oprah thing is a good move – she’s not having a very good year. The woman may be obscenely wealthy, but I don’t think she’s all that smart. Not saying she doesn’t do some good things, mind you, but her success is in large part a matter of luck – right place/right time kind of thing.

    Can’t say I agree with you there. There aren’t a lot of Oprahs out there. She may not be as intelligent or well-read/informed as some, but a lot of those who are well-read informed don’t have near to the kind of personality/knack for people that she does. And I’m she that she’s more informed than some ways than a lot of us who assume we are the well-read/informed ones.

    Kind of related, it’s amazing how many smart/educated people don’t have a lot of common-knowledge and life skills that many people they consider dumb and uneducated do- merely because the more common people read a lot of self-help type books and articles, but the “smart/educated” ones never even venture into that section of the bookstore, because they think that whole subject is corny, and assume they’re so smart they already know or have figured out everything the self-help writers report on, anyway.

    A lot of people a lot of elites think are dumb probably know so much good stuff, the elites would be surprised and feel inadequate to learn of it all.

  • Huckabee is insane and seriously deluded. Why would God need an army? What is he really saying…we need more Christian Jihadists to do what ever we tell them God says to do? People in the pews aren’t buying this crap.
    These republicans are scary because they are all delusional willing to say or do anything to win. Integrity is lost on them. This represents the “values” voters. Hey we all have values but these guys aren’t representative of the norm. Hopefully republicans won’t hold their noses and vote for them anyway.

  • Ron Paul’s bunch may be on to something.

    Gravel’s supporters are mostly online, but polite.
    Result: he’s out of the debates.

    (maybe if he raised 4 mil in a day? Money = access?)

  • Ron Paul wants to end big government in favor of big corporations ruling everything. It’s a cop out since government is the only way to regulate these corps. who would have us all working below min wage and our kids too. No social programs for the sick and injured, blind, crippled etc. The idea is to make government more efficient not eliminate it. What Paul has not voted for is like Kucinich but there it ends. He has no plan to deal with our huge debt just how to stop incurring more. He would let the market determine everything. Replacing federal government with private corporate government will destroy the working class and force them into poverty. No consumer protections on food or meds etc. Get a grip of the whole picture because Paul is only 50% right.

  • ed stephan @#6…

    novakula is rumored to be a member of opus dei, and they seem to be MUCH more concerned about power than they are about religion.

  • Anne is right about Oprah. As “the maven of materialism” tm, Oprah is a “false prophet” on how to live a meaningful life. She’s also a lousy advocate for commitment (She won’t marry her long-time boyfriend Steadman; has she never heard of pre-nup?). Her recent South African school scandal is just one in a series of scandals that Oprah has to live down. Just because she doesn’t get arrested for DUI, doesn’t remove from my mind her image as a “celebrity train wreck.”

    To sum up: Oprah lives in several mansions, but her largest house is made of glass.

  • Slip kid, that’s just unfair. Oprah gives a lot of money and gifts away and helps starving people in Africa who everybody else ignores. She’s not perfect? So what. She draws a lot of attention to the plight of people who are in bad situations. Just because she doesn’t do one thing other people do doesn’t make her a bad person- and a lot of those who criticize her probably do a lot of bad things she doesn’t do.

    You should provide a link about the scandal instead of letting people just think in their own minds that it’s something when they don’t see any of the facts for themselves.

    If she’s a bad person, she’s a good model for how a bad person can try to be not so bad.

  • If I had to choose between a candidate Oprah supports and one Chuck Norris supports, I’d go with Oprah.

  • Hey Swan, ever watch Oprah’s show or its promos?

    And yes, she is charitable.

    But, her shtick on most of her shows is materialism and celebrity–a definition of vacuousness, if there ever was one.

    As for scandals–they’re not so much personal. Scandals that come to mind have to do with supporting fraudulent authors and Oprah’s Book Club nonsense, which puts into doubt her wisdom and discretion.

    Too many people give Oprah a free ride; I won’t. I don’t know Oprah’s shoe size, but she has large feet made of clay. And Oprah’s charitable giving doesn’t excuse her larger than life callousness—including enabling George W. Bush with an appearance (with Laura) on her show in the fall of 2000. Simply put: She is a vapid egomaniac.

  • Slip kid, I’ve seen Oprahs shows a few times years ago, when she built her reputation. I haven’t really watched it for more than 10 seconds at a time in recent years. But from your comments, it sounds like you’re the one who has only watched (or is only choosing to remember) some of her shows, and not a representative sampling of her shows, at that. If you want to talk about destructive talk shows, talk about Ricki Lake or what’s-his-name, who always had bad behavior on their shows– dysfunctional people fighting all the important people in thier lives, and never really being criticized or set straight. Even Dr. Phil seems to me like he probably does more harm than good sometimes by highlighting so many super-dysfunctional and unrepentant people.

    Oprah is basically decent. Please define what you mean by celebrity and materialism and vacuousness before you go content-lessly slandering this person. Is she a bad person because she interviews famous people who everybody wants to know about on her shows? A lot of shows do that. We can be interested in a famous singer or personality without becoming convinced that the only important thing in life is singing well or being beautiful. I don’t think Oprah takes it too far and I think some people who say or write things like what you wrote about celebrity are taking a good thing too far and have a chip on their shoulder about other people being successful and famous in life when the ones doing the criticizing haven’t really even tried that hard to either find something they can excel at or to work hard enough at it so they’ll get some recognition. If the sore masses would find something productive that interests them to put a real old-fashioned work-ethic and pride into, we’d have a lot more great products and arts and great achievements in this country and a lot less people who basically produce nothing except holding themselves out as whiny, chip-on-their-shoulder, redneck assholes.

  • Okay – since I started the Oprah thing, let me add a couple comments…

    First, Oprah isn’t a bad person. She’s done some good things, used her popularity to raise awareness of a variety of issues, many of them dealing with health – all good things.

    Second, someone who has to put together I-don’t-know-how-many shows a year that has to appeal to millions of people is bound to go over-the-top on the pop culture thing. Every star who has a movie out, every author who has a book out, uses Oprah to reach the same kinds of audiences in the afternoon that Letterman, Leno and O’Brien reach in the late-night hours. Promotion is promotion is promotion.

    So, being on the Obama bandwagon will probably help him more than it hurts him, depending on whether Oprah acts like Lady Bountiful – which she has a tendency to do – or like Oprah-the-voter. On some of the shows I’ve seen, she gets very “oh, isn’t it great to be rich?” with some of her famous guests, and it just seems so ostentatious. Yes, she gives away a lot of money – but the merchandise she gives away is not coming out of her pocket – it’s donated for promotional purposes.

    I remember Oprah when she was a nobody local news reader, and then co-host of a local talk show. She wasn’t very smart – like too many of the people who read the news off a teleprompter, and have no idea what they’re reading. She went to Chicago to do a show in a larger market and she caught on – that’s luck, and it is about being in the right place at the right time.

    If Oprah can get women to get out and vote, more power to her; she’s as entitled as anyone to back the person she thinks will make the best president. I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed that she isn’t using her platform to showcase all the Democratic candidates – although her audience isn’t likely to want to hear in-depth discussions of economic and foreign policy, as much as they will want to get the video version of People – all the human interest stuff, boxers or briefs, favorite books and movies – fluff. We’re getting enough of that already, so while an Oprah endorsement is no small thing, I’m not sure it will add much to the debate.

    And I suppose I have to wonder why it is that Oprah’s vote means more than mine, or yours or those of any 50 people you know – but I know the answer: it’s the size of her microphone.

  • I’m amazed at any reader of this site that doesn’t get it: Ultimately, Oprah and her influence is destructive to American society, because her bad judgment outweighs her virtues. Her existence in the pantheon of Bush-enablers is just “icing on the cake.”

    And Swan–I don’t like being personal–but you and your defense of Oprah is just damn pathetic! (And give it up before I conjure-up the spirit of Tom Cleaver and rip you a new one.)

    • Comments are closed.