Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:09 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:
Republicans
At today’s NAACP forum, the only Republican in attendance will be Tancredo. At last week’s National Education Association conference, only Huckabee attended -- and he received standing ovations. The Boston Globe says Republicans are missing an opportunity. “Republican nominees have overwhelmingly skipped national conferences and conventions of groups some believe, often wrongly, as being singularly liberal in mission and membership. The candidates' campaign cited ‘scheduling conflicts’ as a reason for passing on the events, but organizers of the conferences see a pattern of rejection.”
BROWNBACK:
A day after Iowans in some counties rejected a one-cent local-option sales tax increase, Brownback
called for a flat income tax and called himself the “conservative alternative.”
GIULIANI:
The
New York Times on the firefighter video: “Some of the video’s assertions are at the very least subject to debate. There is no dispute, for instance, that there were communications failures on Sept. 11. But the video highlights the hand-held radios, whereas the central problem, most experts agree, was the failure of a device meant to boost the signal so that it could reach the high floors of the towers. The video also implies that Mr. Giuliani was more concerned about securing some $200 million in gold stored in a basement vault at the World Trade Center than in recovering the remains of the dead, an accusation widely dismissed by people who closely monitored the cleanup.”
But the New York Post eats up the Giuliani-vs.-firefighters feud with a menacing, dictatorial Giuliani photo and the headline, “Union scorches Giuliani: claims he cost firefighter lives on 9/11.”
HUCKABEE: Third or better? The
Des Moines Register writes that in the Ames straw poll, Huckabee will “be satisfied with a third-place finish if there isn't a large gap between the top three finishers.”
MCCAIN:
The mid-campaign obits continue…
Real Clear Politics' Wilson notes another problem McCain has faced this year: the loss of independent support to Obama, particularly in states like New Hampshire.
Here’s the
Politico’s semi-obit: But even if [McCain] can somehow raise meaningful amounts of cash in the months ahead, people close to the campaign point to intractable problems that could hobble any comeback… Most McCain associates said the news that exploded earlier this week -- the departure of McCain's chief strategist and other top aides -- came as little surprise to them: They have known for months that the Arizonan's candidacy was in a perilous state.”
Also, don’t miss
Chuck Todd’s column on McCain. “There will be a one word explanation for McCain's failure: Bush -- the "Newman" (Jerry Seinfeld's annoying rival) in McCain's tragic presidential sitcom.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times looks at a phone call McCain made from the GOP cloakroom in the Senate to fundraisers after the news that his top two campaign aides had resigned. “The call, however, may only have exacerbated an already tough week for Mr. McCain. Senate ethics rules expressly forbid lawmakers to engage in campaign activities inside Senate facilities. If Mr. McCain solicited campaign contributions on a call from government property, that would be a violation of federal criminal law as well… Matt David, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, confirmed that Mr. McCain made the phone call from the cloakroom. Mr. David said Mr. McCain used his campaign cellphone and did not specifically ask the fund-raisers for campaign contributions, which would have been a crime.”
ROMNEY:
The former governor writes an op-ed in the
Manchester Union-Leader billing himself the candidate of “change.” He writes, “Conservatism, Republicanism, is a philosophy of strength. We believe in a strong military, a strong economy and strong families and values. The way forward is not to look left, but to look ahead. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.”
F. THOMPSON: It looks like Thompson has owned up to lobbying on behalf of that abortion-rights group, as he did some non-denial, denial damage control in a few key conservative media outlets yesterday. For starters, here's a blog post Thompson sent to the popular conservative blog,
Power Line. From his post: "I’ve experienced another gambit of those schooled in the creative uses of law and politics: dredging up clients – or another lawyer’s clients – that I may have represented or consulted with, and then using the media to get me into a public debate as to what I may have done for them or said to them 15 or 20 years ago. Even if my memory serves me correctly, it would not be appropriate for a lawyer to make such comments. This situation does however bring to mind my many years in the law, and the nature of law practice in a country such as ours that prizes independence and individual rights. Of course, these values could not be protected without lawyer-client confidentiality or if lawyers were identified with the positions of their clients."
Power Line’s response to Thompson’s blog: "We'll probably have a bit more to say on the Democratic attacks on Senator Thompson's professional work, though we will reserve our own comments for subsequent posts. In the meantime, thanks to Senator Thompson for entrusting us with his column on a subject that is close to our hearts."
And then Thompson did "Hannity." Huffington Post's Tom Edsall covers Thompson's appearance to deal with the allegations that he lobbied on behalf of that abortion-rights group. "Hannity served up a chest-high, 25 mph softball": ‘They have attacked you, they have attacked your family, and now, they come out in the Los Angeles Times with a piece that says you lobbied for abortion rights. You say that's absolutely not true.’”
More from Edsall: “All Thompson had to do was say to Hannity, ‘You're damned right.’ Instead, he answered as follows: ‘You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself.’ Hmm. Then: ‘They will probably come at me, in 35 years of law practice, with some people, I represented criminal defendants. I was a prosecutor. I had a general practice. So that in and of itself doesn't mean anything anyway.’”
Writes Edsall: "If ever an answer demanded a follow-up, this fit the bill. As both former Watergate counsel Thompson and news-crusader Hannity know, Thompson's "you need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself" indicates that something is going on that needs a little more exploration." Hannity, however, must have missed that. Instead, before ending the interview, he allowed Thompson to declare; ‘I'm not going to get down in the weeds with everything they dredge up over the next six months. In terms of being a target, all I can say is, they know who to be afraid of.’”
