|
|||||
     Founders
Managing Directors
Blogger Pool
|
 Saturday, September 8, 2007
Rick Brookhiser at The Corner says what every non-Tennessean is thinking today:
Fred Thompson came to the offices of National Review some years when he was still in the Senate. I liked him fine. He has done nothing, anywhere, ever. The Hubble Telescope could not find what he has done, because he has not done it. Obviously Rick hasn't seen Fred? talking to Michael Moore while smoking a cigar on video. That would change his mind very quickly. Friday, September 7, 2007
He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city’s budget. Because he turned his conservative principles into action, New York City taxpayers saved more than $9 billion in taxes... That's the official line according to Rudy's website. Cesar Conda, former assistant for domestic policy under Vice President Cheney begs to differ: "Upon closer inspection, however, Giuliani?s record on taxes isn't as conservative as advertised. In fact, a nonpartisan independent organization found that Mayor Giuliani actually opposed significant tax cuts, and would have denied hundreds of millions of dollars in tax relief for New Yorkers had he gotten his way. All in all, while Rudy claims to have cut or eliminated taxes 23 times for a total of $9 billion dollars (and at times his campaign has claimed $9.8 billion), he actually can only claim to initiating 15 tax cuts for a total of $5.4 billion dollars. To put this in proper perspective, let's dig a little more: When he took office in 1994, Giuliani was indeed facing a $2.3 billion deficit for the next fiscal year. But Giuliani's last budget, issued in May 2001 – before 9/11 – for fiscal 2002, projected a deficit of nearly $2.8 billion in fiscal 2003, the first budget year the new mayor would face. The IBO estimated the deficit would be even larger, about $3.3 billion. In reality, thanks to 9/11, the budget hole turned out to be around $5 billion. And let's not forget the city debt. When Rudy came into office, he inherited $26.6 billion of general obligation loans. When he left, that number was at $43 billion and climbing. The increase in debt, $16.4 billion, was over 3 TIMES THE CUTS IN TAXES over the same period. Borrowing rose at about 5 percent each of the last five Giuliani years. Currently, NYC pays roughly 10.4% of its total $59 billion budget and 17% of its tax revenue EVERY YEAR to cover the interest on a $51 billion debt (PDF warning). Using those numbers as a model, the debt that Rudy was directly responsible for ($16.4 billion) cost the city in the neighborhood of $6.5 billion dollars over his eight years in office, over a billion dollars more than the tax relief during the same period. So, to summarize the points here... 1. Rudy left the city with a $2.7 billion greater single-year budget shortfall than he found it ($1 billion if you don't count 9/11). 2. Rudy actually lowered taxes by $4.4 billion LESS than his campaign has claimed. 3. During the booming 1990's, Rudy borrowed an additional $16.4 billion on city debt, costing New Yorkers over a billion dollars more than their tax cuts to just pay the interest. Labels: fiscal discipline, rudy It took me a bit to get to watch Wednesday’s debate (I had to sit through a three hour patent law class during the live feed). I wholly endorse Jason’s observations (along with Timotheus in the comments afterwards). I did want to chime in on one moment that has generated some buzz: Romney’s “apparently” comment and McCain’s response. There has been some back and forth about it at NRO specifically (Ramesh Ponnuru, Andy McCarthy, Kathryn Jean Lopez, David Freddoso, and Jim Geraghty).
First off, McCain’s comments were petty and misdirected. McCain’s absolutist position on the surge, while admirable in his support of our troops, is almost the dictionary definition of ideologue. It’s not the facts that convinced McCain that the surge is working, but the idea itself. In McCain’s mind it would be working whether or not the facts showed it, because the idea is right in his mind. This is the same kind of stubbornness that has kept him supporting “comprehensive immigration” when the facts don’t support him. Similarly campaign finance reform has been an abject failure, but McCain still supports it because the idea is right, in spite of the facts. Likewise McCain has come to the correct conclusion on the surge, not lead by the facts, but lead only by the idea. McCain is right more out of luck than any sort of analytical process that lead him to the right conclusion. Such a blind adherence to ideas is unsupportable, which, luckily, is what most Republicans have come to conclude The episode, to me, illuminates one of the areas where Romney stands above other candidates: his strict adherence to facts and analysis. Romney’s “let’s let the facts be told and then decide” sounds so ordinary and common sense in the normal world, but yet so out of place with politicians. No rational person would make decisions like McCain (and, honestly, most other Senators), giving unfailing support to ever failing ideas. Romney’s analytical processes are much more reasonable and certainly more reliable to produce the best results. Specifically in reference to Iraq, Romney’s stance is no less resolute or bold than McCain’s, just grounded in facts and analysis. Romney has never backed away from his understanding that Iraq is key and that we MUST win there. However, Romney understands that facts are key, not only in prosecuting the war, but also in persuading the American people of its success, in a way that pronouncements about ‘honor’ or ‘reputation’ are not. Labels: John McCain Thursday, September 6, 2007
A new poll by ARG shows a huge leap for Romney in Michigan.
Romney had the support of 39% of those surveyed, compared with 13% for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 12% for former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and 9% for Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The poll was taken Saturday through Tuesday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The numbers are a little bit crazy but closely shadow Romney's margins in New Hampshire and Iowa almost overnight. While questions remain the trend is undeniable: Romney's margin was so huge that some questioned the results. Labels: Michigan Tom Bevan, over at RCP blog, has some details about Fred Thompson's campaign launch:
The buzz among the press at Fred's kickoff event is all about the small-ish size of the crowd. I believe the campaign is circulating an official number of 450 people, but it looked to be considerably fewer than that. I'd guess more in the 250 range, and a decent percentage of folks in the room (perhaps 20-25%) were members of the media. Of course the Thompson folks will surely argue that we should compare it to other candidate launches and not with what candidates can garner after months of campaigning. In an ideal world that would be correct, but in a season where the campaigning started at 8 months ago, the comparison Yepsen makes is apt because Thompson doesn't have the time to make up for lost opportunities that other candidates have taken advantage of. As Mitt emphasized last night, he has done over 400 events in Iowa and New Hampshire. Thompson doesn't have the luxury of trying to compare what he's doing now with what others did months ago. ***Update: More from Yepsen himself Fred Thompson’s announcement speech Thursday in Des Moines was underwhelming. Labels: fred thompson Hard to argue with the facts:
 In addition to this, Reid Wilson makes the obvious point: The problem, as Thompson and Giuliani hope they don't find out, is that "traditional" campaigning -- winning Iowa or New Hampshire after months of building an organization and spending lots of money there -- is tradition for a reason: It works. The past five Republican nominees and six of the past eight Democratic nominees have all won either Iowa or New Hampshire, or both. Only George McGovern and Bill Clinton didn't win either, though Clinton had native Iowan Tom Harkin and New Hampshire neighbor Paul Tsongas in the race. When a candidate strays from the traditional route, they're seemingly begging for trouble. Pretty busy today, but I had a couple quick thoughts while watching the debate last night:
Huckabee: A good showing. During his interesting spat with Paul, I think Huckabee showed two things: 1. Good at Rhetoric 2. Poor at substance. Yes, a president should make decisions based on his honor and morals, but we all agree why not defend the war on factual statements. How about specifics? Huckabee is gaining traction for his ability to speak to a higher cause, but right now I am a little unconvinced of his abilities to speak the nitty-gritty. McCain: I think Huckabee and McCain seem to be cut from the same cloth. McCain was also light on details. Most of McCain’s responses where based on gut instincts and feeling. He made a good argument about torture, but I think his presence seems to be more novelty than ability at this point. His comment on Romney’s usage of “Apparently” was an astute political move on his part but hurt the debate substance in general. His comments on “apparently” added little in the way of value to the argument, yet it allowed him to attempt to portray Romney as weak on the war- which Romney clearly is not. In fact while it hurts John McCain in the short term, in the end it does the conversation on Iraq no good. Also the fact that the debate turned into a McCain love fest at some points seems to show the lack of seriousness the other candidates take his candidacy. Romney: Was pretty good. I think he took a couple of cheap shots from McCain (as discussed above) and Chris Wallace on immigration, but he did the best he could. I think he really shone (and exhibited the biggest difference between him and his competitors) on the Iran Case study question. To me his answer was text book business style. List what we can infer from the hypothetical situation, list the pro’s and cons, define the issue, how we will attack, and then ad some sweet rhetoric. His answer was about as comprehensive as could be expected in a few minutes. The others gave less comprehensive answers in my opinion, which is a common theme in the various campaigns to date. Giuliani: Ok. While I thought his answer on his family life was about as good you could ask for, it was factually wrong. Unfortunately he has a record in NYC that shows his personal life affecting his political judgment. These would include offering state protection to his mistresses, arguing the government to pay for abortions, leaving his city in massive amounts of debt, Bernard Kerik, etc. These all seem like reckless decisions that in my opinion reflect a reckless personal life. I suspect these questions will be brought up again. Yet Rudy does get high points for answering with detail- such as his answer to Wallace’s immigration question. Over all these debates mean less and less the more we have them. The candidate invite list needs to be whittled down. Paul, Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter and to some degree McCain are irrelevant at this point. We would get much more out of this with Rudy, Mitt and Fred. Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Is it just me or does it go to the issue of Fred Thompson’s judgment that his announcement of the most important decision is made on a comedy show? What Fred Thompson is telling us is that in his judgment the single most professional way to announce that he is running for President of the most powerful nation on earth (The United State of America) is on a comedy show. Why would you do that? Labels: fred thompson I’m not normally one to cheer at the failings of others, but in this case I’ll make an exception. The motion picture September Dawn was hoped by many to be a body blow to the Romney campaign specifically and the LDS Church in general. The “truth” about the events of September 11, 1857 would “finally” be told and a “reckoning” would be had once and for all.
In the end, September Dawn turned out to be little more than it really was – Wishful Fiction. For the record, I have not seen, nor will I see the movie. Frankly there are other more entertaining movies for which I’ll shell out my $8.50. Judging by the numbers, I’m not alone. It took roughly $11 Million to make this film. After an opening weekend which grossed a whopping $601,857 from the 857 theaters which saw fit to show the film – breaking down to a very underwhelming $702 per venue – September Dawn has barely surpassed the $1 Million mark in total revenue ($1,059,110). I think I’m safe in assuming there won’t be a sequel. To give an accurate comparison, three other LDS history inspired “Period Dramas” – The Work and The Glory, The Work and The Glory II: American Zion, and The Work and The Glory III: A House Divided each grossed more than September Dawn even though they had a much smaller release. Just prior to the movie’s release, Blogfather Hugh interviewed director Chris Cain and main star Jon Voight. Both men came across as likable and although I admire most of their other work, all I needed to know about the foundations of September Dawn I learned in but one exchange: HH: Did you help write it, Chris? The Internet is a great research tool, but nothing can substitute for an actual conversation or interview. If you “google” Mountain Meadows Massacre you’ll find a lot of information, but you’ll get most of it from people with several axes to grind. On the Internet, one source can appear to be as credible as the next even though said source writes from a hysterical point of view. To the Blogfather’s credit, he published an email from a listener who took issue with a premise held by Chris Cain and most of the axe grinders – that being Brigham Young had knowledge of and probably personally ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The listener, Mr. MacDonald, shreds Cain’s premise with stubborn things called facts. While Mr. Cain can claim not to have had an anti-Mormon agenda when making this film, the fact of the matter is he was heavily influenced by those who did. In the final analysis, it doesn’t really matter. September Dawn will go down in movie history as not just a bomb, but a WMD. At its present pace, it won’t even out perform Mariah Carey’s Glitter – and that, dear reader, is a pretty damning indictment if ever there was one. Labels: september dawn A few random pre-debate thoughts:
Any thoughts? Labels: debate Iowa's favorite klown is back, with a post on the recent judicial activism overturning Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. Highlights: Romney was the first to respond. “The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman." Summary: Romney and Huckabee win, Rudy loses, and Fred is STILL not a candidate yet. | ||||
Show/Hide 5 Comments | Post a Comment