Thursday’s political round-up

May 10, 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:

* ABC News reported last night that Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, donated $150 to Planned Parenthood in 1994. “Her positions are not terribly relevant to my campaign,” Romney said in response in Iowa last night. Romney’s rivals, as one might imagine, are arguing the opposite.

* Rudy Giuliani criticized congressional Republicans during a speech in Alabama yesterday, saying they failed to keep federal spending under control. “We need a President who knows how to cut spending,” Giuliani said. “I am an expert at it.” He neglected to mention that New York City’s budget swelled by nearly 28% during his two terms as mayor.

* Speaking of Giuliani, the former NYC mayor apparently asked for and received four New York Yankees World Series rings — one for each title during his tenure — each engraved with his name. Giuliani paid $16,000 for the rings, which are valued at over $200,000. It’s illegal for the mayor to accept lucrative gifts from those who do business with the city — and the Yankees did a lot of business with NYC.

* Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson acknowledges that his big speech in California last weekend was a bust, but he’s shaping a new “Stump Speech 2.0” for Saturday night, when Thompson delivers the keynote address to the secretive right-wing Council for National Policy.

* Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) resigned from Congress yesterday in order to become the new chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. Gov. Deval Patrick has set a Sept. 4 primary and an Oct. 16 general election to replace him.

* Al Gore’s friends and former aides don’t expect the VP to run again in 2008.

* And the political world is abuzz with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s new TV ads, which show him struggling at a mock job interview. Fans of the ads think they’re effective because they’re funny and emphasize Richardson’s terrific resume. Critics of the ads think they fail to make Richardson look presidential, and neglect to talk about the issues. Take a look and see for yourself. (For what it’s worth, I think they’re great for an early bio ad, but he’ll need to follow up with something more substantive soon.)

Someone’s got to say it: Romney was for his wife before he was against his wife.

  • Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) resigned from Congress yesterday in order to become the new chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

    WHAT? Just like that? Got a better gig, see ya!
    Wasn’t he working on deep sixing DADT?
    Well. Shit. I think that sucks. If his seat goes to a ReThug…Grrr!

  • I wonder how long it’s going to take Fred Thompson to realize that if he has to give up his residuals from Law and Order, which is playing somewhere every minute of every day and paying him a minimum of 30% of his original paycheck for the episode (and that’s from screening #10 onwards), that he’s going to take a substantial pay cut to be Dear Leader – assuming the rest of the country is as dumb as Tennesseans are when it comes to guys in red pickups.

    Of course, watching TNT and USA channels go bust for lack of programming when they have to drop L&O would be pretty amusing to some of we denizens of the Hollywierd jungle.

  • Giuliani says “We did not do a good job on spending, and we just have to say that to ourselves.”

    You might want to say that to the American people as well, while you’re saying that to your-selves. Especially considering the $8 trillion national debt.

  • I’m not in the habit of defending Giuliani, but a 28% increase in 8 years is only about 3% a year, or just enough to keep up with inflation. That doesn’t make him an “expert” at cutting spending, but I don’t think you can say spending “swelled” while he was mayor.

    This is just standard “I’ll control spending” rhetoric, and doesn’t come across as especially hypocritical to me.

  • “I’m not in the habit of defending Giuliani, but a 28% increase in 8 years is only about 3% a year, or just enough to keep up with inflation. That doesn’t make him an “expert” at cutting spending, but I don’t think you can say spending “swelled” while he was mayor.”

    …and during period when NYC enjoyed a booming economy so one would expect the budget to rise.

  • Actually, despite what many press reports are saying, Richardson has already run two ads in Iowa (I’ve seen references to these being his first). I nit-pick about this only because I think it is relevant to the context of these ads. His first two were (a) a voice-over, text and photo based ad that was purely a dry recitation of his resume, solemnly pushing the importance of his experience. The other was Richardson talking to the camera about Iraq, and he looked, frankly, angry and mean the whole time. While I understand the point was to convey that Iraq is a Serious Issue and he a is Serious Person to Address It, it came off too unlikable, particularly when that does not seem to be how he really is. In that context, I think these “. . . but I don’t take myself too seriously” ads make a lot of sense. Well, that and he has little to lose by breaking conventional wisdom at this point.

  • ignore the (a) without a (b). preview would be my friend if I would ever keep in touch with it.

  • I quite liked the Richardson ad. It was funny and hammered home that this 1 guy has more experience as a legislator and an executive than the rest of the Dem caucus combined. (Is that true? I don’t know, but I suspect it is…)

    And I think CB is overstating that the ad shows Bill “struggling” through the interview. If anything, the interviewer is making all his points for him. This only reiterates his piles of foreign and domestic experience.

    And the look he gives the camera is quite funny and immediately brings to mind how completely idiotic and incompetent our current Preznit is.

    Other thoughts?

  • A whole lot of “critics” seem to be very worried about a supposedly second tier candidate named Bill Richardson.
    I wonder why that is?

  • I agree with Astrogeek @#10. The first ad was especially brilliant, the second one I could live without. But it showed flair, style, wit and the courage to not take himself too seriously. All of which we desperately need.

    Plus the fact his resume really is huge. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize four times??? I’m going to have to pay more attention to this guy!

  • Lots of great feedback. I wanted to respond to a few things:

    * Wasn’t he working on deep sixing DADT?

    Yes, but his bill still has over 100 co-sponsors. The effort moves forward.

    * I’m not in the habit of defending Giuliani, but a 28% increase in 8 years is only about 3% a year, or just enough to keep up with inflation.

    CK raises a fair point. I didn’t mean to suggest that Giuliani spent irresponsibly, only that his claim of being an “expert” in cutting spendnig was hyperbolic, at best.

    And I think CB is overstating that the ad shows Bill “struggling” through the interview.

    I meant in-character “struggling,” of course. The ad is obviously in jest, but the interviewer seems skeptical, and reading Richardson’s background has a “yada yada yada” tone, right?

    He was nominated for the Nobel Prize four times?

    Yes, but technically that’s not as cool as it sounds. Anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Prize. A few months ago, a bunch of idiots nominated Rush Limbaugh for a Nobel Prize.

  • NPR had a quick report on the Richardson ads that really piqued my interets about them. I thought they were funnier than advertised. Richardson may also be more cunning than expected. After the ads, I’m willing to give Bill an even greater benefit of the doubt, not that I thought he didn’t deserve that in the first place. If Bill Richardson is Democratic “second tier” candidate, man, the Repubs look like L-O-S-E-R-S in comparison.

    • Comments are closed.