Wednesday’s political round-up

September 5, 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:

* Eight of the nine Republicans presidential hopefuls will meet for a debate in New Hampshire tonight, with only Fred Thompson preferring Jay Leno’s couch to the GOP forum. The debate starts at 9pm eastern, and will be aired on Fox News. Thompson will, however, make an appearance of sorts — he’ll air his first TV ad on Fox News during the event.

* Speaking of Thompson, the actor/lobbyist/senator still can’t keep a consistent group of staffers together for more than a few days. In the latest move, Thompson spokesperson Jim Mills, the former Fox News producer who just joined the campaign a few weeks ago, has resigned, citing “strategic differences.”

* After telling an Iowa audience that the state deserves to hold the first caucus because of the Constitution and “the Lord,” Bill Richardson appeared on MSNBC to respond to the mini-flap. The New Mexico governor explained, “That was an off-the-cuff comment about the importance of Iowa. This was an Iowa crowd — I’m trying to score points, I’m moving up in the polls. So I don’t consider that a mistake — that was an off-the-cuff comment, and I stand very strongly behind the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire should be first.”

* Brave New Films has launched a terrific new clip called, “Rudy in 30 Seconds,” helping document all of Rudy Giuliani’s more scandalous problems. The video is a teaser for part of a new YouTube series called, “The Real Rudy.”

* Speaking of Giuliani, John McCain made some of his most pointed comments thus far about the former mayor’s inexperience : “I don’t think [leadership after 9/11] translates, necessarily, into foreign policy or national security expertise. I know of nothing in his background that indicates that he has any experience in it, with him or Romney.”

* And speaking of McCain, be sure to check out the difficulties he had with a couple of students in New Hampshire yesterday, one of whom McCain called a “little jerk.”

* Al Gore was interviewed by 02138 Magazine, and said that “odds are” that he will endorse one of the Democratic presidential candidates. Asked if he felt some obligation to endorse “the wife of your former boss,” Gore responded, “Uh, no.”

Thompson will, however, make an appearance of sorts — he’ll air his first TV ad on Fox News during the event.

Just pathetic. Very ethical of Foecks News. Will they air a spot by Larry Craig supporting Mitt Romney as well? I heard Willard takes a wide stance on the issues and also goes both ways.

  • Thompson is already proving himself to be nearly as substantial as one of the balloons in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. His two main advantages are that no one knows much about him and he’s not one of the other Republican candidates. The best strategy for him to maintain his lead will be for his campaign to declare that he has chronic laryngitis which precludes him from speaking a word until 2009.

  • McCain was obviously joking, just like Richardson. Let’s give these guys a little breathing room.

  • I thought the Richardson “flap” was silly – it was obvious to anyone with a sense of humor that he was joking around (particularly if you’ve seen his comedic “job interview” campaign spots). But McCain, joking or not, was a little different. You don’t call the kid a “little jerk,” period. That’s just mean. That is a far, far cry from Richardson joking that Iowa’s place at the front of the caucus line is “related to the Lord.”

  • I thought “little jerk” sounded harsh as well, but then I read McCain’s entire response. It was obvious he was just being playful. He’s very good at that.

  • I wonder if an endorsement will paint Gore in the corner as far as a possible 2008 presidential bid– would he endorse and then possibly run against the party choice or what? This sounds like as good a notice of “I’m not running” as I needed, at least as a (possible)Gore supporter.

    One way or the other I think his time is up. We need a strong candidate with the whole party behind him/her in order to ensure we don’t suffer more neocon damage to our democracy.

  • Under the new Larry Craig standard, Gore could endorse someone but then change his mind and decide to run after all.

  • And speaking of McCain, be sure to check out the difficulties he had with a couple of students in New Hampshire yesterday, one of whom McCain called a “little jerk.”

    Anyone who thinks McCain is a man just because of his experience in captivity should look at this as counter-evidence.

    Re: the Richardson thing- so according to him, I was right when I wrote yesterday that he was just being a character. It wasn’t something he really meant.

    We should be able to speak that way- it’s not cool that the media and the right wingers have created a norm of using a speakers’ words against him or her, whether the use is actually justified or honest, or not those things.

  • If a Dem was as old as McCain, the media and the Republicans would be all over it. For McCain to respond to the voicing of a legitimate concern as pointedly as he did is totally unaccepatble. No man should have a temperament that bad once he’s passed 15.

    Maybe Richardson just meant that it would help the Dems to win if Iowa went first, and that if the Dems won then it would help Christianity (human rights) and the Constitution. When the Reoublicans almost totally get away with the horrible things they say, there’s no need to interpret everything a prominent Democrat says in a (probably illogical) worst way possible.

  • Er…I don’t get why people are defending Richardson and trashing McCain. I read the transcript of McCain’s quip (watch here), and it’s so obviously not only a joke, but a joke that went over well…I don’t understand people trashing this. The line got uproarious laughter from the young crowd, the same crowd that laughed at the original question.

    Richardson, meanwhile, is flatly admitting he was pandering to score political points, which I find to be one of the sleazier aspects of campaigning. Making stuff up about the Constitution and invoking God, though? His answer, to me, sounded like some guy who just came on to a girl next to him in a particularly lewd way and then shrugs his shoulders in defense and says, “what? I’m a sleazebag!”

    No s**t. That’s the point. The fact that you were trolling for political points is precisely what’s so off-putting about the comments. Pointing that out isn’t damage control.

  • Mop, just because teenagers laugh at you doesn’t mean they like you. It probably meant they were amused that he got mad. Watch the video- there wasn’t any uproarious laughter, really, just tittering here and there throughout.

    It seemed like McCain tried to joke, but was taking it so seriously because he was so angry, that it didn’t even come off well as good deadpan. During the first parts of his answer, that did perhaps seem like jokes, there was very little laughing, too. And the very first thing he said was, in a backhanded kind of way, that he thinks young people’s music is stupid, which could be a joke or a return-insult- it just depends.

    Richardson, meanwhile, is flatly admitting he was pandering to score political points, which I find to be one of the sleazier aspects of campaigning.

    Not really. He’s just acknowledging what we all do- we speak to our audience, and try to make people feel good, when it’s appropriate. He meant, “I’m speaking to an Iowa crowd- you think I’m not going to praise them and try to energize them?!?” That has nothing to do with being a sleazebag and patronizing people.

    Read my comment at 11. It’s clear that Richardson wasn’t necessarily making stuff up about the Constitution and Christianity. He didn’t go on to say, “The Constitution requires this because blah blah blah,” and that’s why we’re not discussing some substance of his comment- there wasn’t any. What’s misleading is claiming that Richardson was certainly making stuff up about the Constitution and Christianity when it’s a stretch to say that he was.

  • Richardson’s remarks are a lot more like Yogi Berra and a lot less like Pat Robertson than they are being treated. I think the reason the pundits are not getting it right is because they are classist and don’t understand things, or, because they have all become too caught up in the right wing’s insane, twisted way of looking at things and it’s becoming automatic for them to be critical of Democrats for things that do not deserve criticism. I think the commenters sound like a lynch mob when they are talking about Richardson’s remarks.

    Richardson may not be that precise when he speaks in off-the-cuff remarks, but honestly, most people are about as precise as he is when they speak off-the-cuff instead of from prepared materials or in writing. I’m not saying that he’s the person who should be president, but the remarks he’s made that he’s been criticized for should certainly not alone be enough to disqualify him.

  • I mean classism in a more unconscious sense- I’m not charging pundits with disregard for people of humble origins like Rice, Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld have.

  • Pingback: ffeb1b31da99

    • Comments are closed.