Note: Until a full transcript is released of the Rose interview, these partial quotes will have to make due. It really was a great interview. It was a lot more substantive than any of the others I’ve seen.
“Principles don’t change, circumstances change”
- Fred Thompson, Orange County Speech 12/1
Those are the same words that I’ve tried to hammer in some of my Thompson leaning posts that I’ve written over the months, specifically here in “What’s Old Doesn’t Necessarilly Mean Outdated,” written on October 11. It can’t be overstated enough, but the bottom line is that FDT gets “it.”
In that post from October 11, I wrote that:
… conservatism isn’t grounded in creating new policy, new processes, or new solutions. Those are part of the equation, but do not define it. Conservatism is a philosophy that does not become outdated. Conservatism cannot be redefined or improved. It cannot be updated to meet the times one lives in. It is a set of values and principles that are applied to the problem, not an economic philosophy, or a social theory. Conservatism is limiting the functions of the federal government, not fixing it. It is a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.
I didn’t know that Thompson would say that line specifically, but it is of no great surprise because it is the same approach that defines the solution. I was not using the Senator’s campaign talking points when I wrote that, nor was I aware that he had ever used that specific line during this campaign cycle. It is the root of what this specific type of conservatism is defined by.
Let’s take another look at the remarks Thompson made to Charlie Rose last night that have been picked up by some bloggers:
CHARLIE ROSE: You constantly say in this campaign that you are a conservative. What does that mean today? Is George Bush a conservative?
FRED THOMPSON: Well, let`s talk about me. (LAUGHTER) I thought we might get to that. I think that it means things that are consistent with God`s design for man. It`s consistent with human nature. It`s consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages. They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our founding fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error, and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing, that power is a corrupting thing.
CHARLIE ROSE: In all of that, you did not mention abortion, gay rights – all things that have been part of recent presidential elections.
FRED THOMPSON: Those – well, you`re talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us, which derive from principles. I don`t consider them to be…
CHARLIE ROSE: Principles.
FRED THOMPSON: … the first principles. But the principles are what guides you in coming to positions with regard to the issues. You know, the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God and not from man. The founders talked about, you know, life and liberty and the importance of that. And everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles, and you know, for example, I come to a pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues, you know, for eight years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion-related activities and things of that nature, you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no, properly.
“Let’s talk about me?” No comment on whether George W. Bush is a true conservative? HA!!! THANK YOU FRED THOMPSON!! His non-answer is undoubtedly the best response to a question about the current Commander in Chief from any candidate. That moment right there showed why, even though he’s had trouble in some polls, Fred Thompson is now being increasingly refered to as the true conservative in the race. We have, quite possibly, one of the strongest, most wide open fields in modern party history. I think each of our five (possibly six) competitive candidates have their own unique strengths and appeal to a certain part of the population. Thompson’s strength lies in his principles, and application of them. Thompson is not the only candidate to release policy proposals this campaign. However, Thompson’s proposals are the ones that have set the standard for conservative policy. It may not win any beauty contests or one-liners, but for those who are thinkers, intellectual, or long for the day when ideas won out, Fred Thompson is winning.
Principles are foundational. Everything else is based on them. If you are reflective enough to have thought about what you fundamentally believe, and have any integrity, those beliefs will determine what you do. Thompson is obviously someone who has read and thought about what he believes. Few politicians, in my experience, have the time or inclination or ability to do so. Thompson’s favorite among the founding fathers, he tells Rose, is John Adams – someone else who read and thought – and wouldn’t have had a chance in the modern political arena.
Maybe he’s right. Maybe Thompson’s the type of politician who doesn’t have a chance in today’s modern political arena. However, there’s no point in not trying. If he loses, then he loses. But if he wins, then maybe, just maybe, America is ready for a president like Fred Thompson, a president who has the compacity to think through issues instead of acting upon instinct.
Here is one of the most interesting reviews I’ve read on the internet today that comes from an independent website:…
The Daily Goose at www.independent2008.net had this to say:
Sane, courageous, non-pandering – that’s Fred Thompson. The only other candidate with those characteristics is Barack Obama, which is precisely why I want the 2008 presidential election to be between these two men. America, can we make that happen, for the good of our country?
Wouldn’t it be sustaining to have Obama and Thompson debate Lincoln and Douglas-style: indepth, for at least 90 minutes per debate without moderator?
Watch the hour-long interview with Thompson. What a breath of fresh air to hear someone talk about today’s issues from multiple angles, from a mature perspective. You’ll hear lots of good nuggets, including his favorite founding father, his criticisms of the way the Iraq War was handled, his views on education, the economy, the question of torture, the nature of leadership, and his understanding of the vital American principle of federalism, not to mention a refresher course on the difference between “principles” and “issues”.
Maybe that’s why, despite my strong disagreements with Obama on probably 99% of the issues, I still have some sort of soft spot for him. Maybe he’s the a younger, democratic version of Fred Thompson. I’m not sure, but there is something about him that, despite the opposition to him, that is able to attract someone like myself. Of course, I’m not going to vote for him, but I can still think of him as principled. I could be wrong, as I am not that familiar with him, but he does come across as sincere, and a thoughtful man.
In 2008, patience is a true virtue.
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Mitt Romney
General Race 4 2008 News
Hillary Clinton
In response to Justin Hart’s earlier post, I think he took things a little out of context. Now, I am not defending Ms. Mosteller’s remarks. I think they were over the top and uncalled for and I wish she’d learn to shut up about her own personal views, or at least get her facts straight. However, Justin said that:
…how does she make the leap from doctrinal disagreements to dissing Romney because he’s not orthodox enough to vote for?
Now, after having read the interview, nowhere do I see her specifically dissing Romney. She said the following…
THE PALMETTO SCOOP: Gov. Romney is giving a very significant speech Thursday to try to reassure Republicans that his Mormon faith shouldn’t be a factor in his presidential bid. Do you think that a speech like this will help him or hurt him in South Carolina?
CYNDI MOSTELLER: As a person who’s been to seminary and studied somewhat the Mormon doctrine, I think that the more people scrutinize, look at and become aware of that doctrine, they will have more questions rather than less. I think particularly the Church’s history, and almost theology, on the issue of race – particularly the black race – will be a very difficult issue to defend and to move forward with; especially when we look at the theology of the Church and what the Church founders and prophets and presidents have said throughout the history of the Church until 1978 when they first allowed membership to anyone in the black race. […] There are some issues there and I don’t quite see how you resolve them and seek out and obtain anywhere near the same level of African American support that President Bush obtained both in 2000 and 2004.
Now, what she said could be termed offensive, over the top, and disrespectful, but nowhere did she actually diss Romney. She went on to say…
TPS: But to many people, it seems that Mormonism is a part of the Christian faith. You’re arguing that assertion is incorrect?
MOSTELLER: Yes. I would say that the Southern Baptist Convention considers Mormonism not a part of the Christian faith – they’ve stated that on their Website – and most Evangelicals would not consider it part of the Christian faith. And the Mormon Church would consider us an apostasy, in all of Christian history, since the death of the last apostle. From their perspective, the Gospel that we preach on Sunday would be considered an apostasy to them.
Now, I am not posting this to start a Holy War, and this will probably be the only time I discuss my personal beliefs in a post or editorial fashion. I am not familiar enough with Mormon Doctrine to really comment on the matter. To go even further, I am pretty non-denominational, meaning that although I do believe in God, I don’t consider the differences in teaching to be relevent in my faith. In my view, as long as you are a person of high moral integrity, then you’ll likely go to Heaven (if God is real and He is just).
What my faith also means is that I am not qualified to really discuss the Southern Baptist system of beliefs. I understand how evangelicals will react to an issue, having lived among them for all of my life, but I wouldn’t know the specific problems the denominations would have with Mormons, Jews, etc…
According to the interview, Ms. Mosteller says that Christians will have a difficult time accepting Mitt Romney because of his beliefs. Next, she goes on, however wrongly, to try and explain the differences between the theologies. However offensive her personal understanding of LDS teaching is, she does not use it to attack Mitt Romney. Even I know that she is in error when she comments that “blacks” were not accepted into the church until 1978. The fact is that they were not accepted into priesthood until 1978. The problem Romney faces is that if I hadn’t been following the election that closely, I wouldn’t have been aware of that fact, in the first place.
Earlier this year, this is what the Southern Baptist Convention said about LDS teachings:
Rob Bowman with the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) says Christians need to be aware that the beliefs of the Mormon Church are inconsistent with biblical Christianity. As one Mormon candidate launches his White House bid, the Southern Baptist official is urging Christians to take advantage of materials his denomination offers that teach the truth about Mormonism.
Bowman, manager of the apologetics and interfaith evangelism department of the SBC’s North American Mission Board (NAMB), thinks Christians would be wise to take an even closer look at the Mormons, lest any be deceived about the nature and tenets of that religious group. He says although the Mormon Church wages an expensive public relations campaign, using terms familiar to appeal to evangelicals, the core teachings of the church do not line up with scripture and are inconsistent with evangelical Christianity.
Is Ms. Mosteller wrong in her facts about LDS doctrine? Yes. Did she diss Romney? I don’t see it. She stated her beliefs, as an evangelical Southern Baptist. Now, I don’t support the SBC position, and it is wrong to discriminate over ones faith, but let’s not confuse someone’s distorted views or an offensive position held by a church foundation as an attack on Romney.
Also, it wouldn’t be fair to exclude some of the things that Romney’s supporters, or those who Romney has lobbied for supports opinions on the subject. Let’s review some other comments made over the last few months.
Romney supporter Bob Jones:
“If it turns out to be Guiliani and Hillary we’ve got two pro-choice candidates, and that would be a disaster.”
Asked whether Romney’s religion was a stumbling block for him, Jones replied, “What is the alternative, Hillary’s lack of religion or an erroneous religion?”
“As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism,” he said. “But I’m not voting for a preacher. I’m voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs.”
Terry Sullivan, Romney’s South Carolina campaign manager said, “We’re proud to have the support of Dr. Jones and look forward to his help in delivering Gov. Romney’s conservative message to the voters.”
Of course, Bob Jones:
also labeled the Mormon church an “erroneous faith,” and included it in with Catholicism as a non-Christian “cult.”
Now, I remember the praise that Romney supporters, such as Hugh Hewitt, were giving Jones for backing Romney, despite their theological differences. If one has those same theological differences and does not back Romney, does that mean that they are bigots, opposed to those who back him but have similar views? No. I was brought up in the Catholic church, and he refered to my background as a “cult” as well. Oh well, that’s his opinion. Since he doesn’t support Rudy, does that mean he’s dissing him because of his faith? Of course not.
The bottom line is that there are still people who are either wrong, misinformed, or just suspicious of his religion. It’s unfair, but it’s life. Labeling everyone who doesn’t support Romney and considers Mormonism a “cult,” while ignoring those who support Romney, even though they hold the same view of LDS teachings, won’t convert anyone to your cause.
Tomorrow, Mitt Romney faces an uphill battle, and by refering to those who he has yet to persuade as religious bigots, or whatever one calls them, won’t do Romney any favors. To be successful, Romney is going to have to overcome these challenges and the skepticism of his religious upbringing.
- Mike Huckabee 27% (24%)
- Mitt Romney 24% (26%)
- Rudy Giuliani 13% (14%)
- Fred Thompson 11% (10%)
- John McCain 6% (7%)
- Ron Paul 5% (5%)
- Tom Tancredo 2% (3%)
- Duncan Hunter 1% (1%)
- Undecided 11% (10%)
Survey of 600 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted November 30-December 2. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 23-25 are in parentheses.
- Mitt Romney 29% (33%)
- Rudy Giuliani 17% (22%)
- John McCain 17% (13%)
- Mike Huckabee 11% (7%)
- Ron Paul 6% (7%)
- Fred Thompson 4% (5%)
- Duncan Hunter 2% (<1%)
- Undecided 13% (12%)
Survey of 343 likely Republican presidential primary voters was conducted November 28-December 2. The margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 2-6 are in parentheses.
Bill Kristol threw out this doozy today:
And, in early November, as voters began to focus on the race, Bernie Kerik, Giuliani’s driver who eventually became his police commissioner and then his recommendation to President Bush for Homeland Security chief, was indicted on corruption charges. Then, last week, the story broke – or was revived – about the NYPD providing security and transportation for Mayor Giuliani’s then-mistress, Judith Nathan. This kind of “Sex and the City” scandal probably won’t play well among GOP primary voters.
Giuliani is still formidable. But it isn’t clear he should any longer be considered the GOP favorite.
Like I said, opinions on this race vary drastically. None of us have any clue as to what might happen. I tend to think that Rudy’s dip in numbers has to do with the negative publicity he’s received over the last week. Now, this isn’t the end of Rudy, by a long shot. I still consider him to be the frontrunner, but it just goes to show that this race is far from over.
While posting the South Carolina endorsement, I almost forgot this one that I had saved and forgotten to post from a few days ago.
The West Virginia chapter of the NRLC, West Virginians for Life, endorsed Senator Fred Thompson for P.O.T.U.S.
Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and President Reagan’s Mexico City policy. While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.
Senator Thompson released the following statement today regarding the West Virginians for Life endorsement of his candidacy for President:
“I’m deeply appreciative for their endorsement,” said Thompson. “In supporting me, those who have worked tirelessly to defend life are supporting a consistent conservative who has stood with them yesterday, who stands with them today, and will stand with them tomorrow.”
There’s been ample talk about the sort of speech Governor Romney ought to give, and there seems to be a few consensus points. One of these points seems to be summed ip neatly in a Novak comment (Hat Tip to Gary Matthew Miller). Novak writes:
The speech is billed as a speech on religious liberty. This could be an opportunity for Romney to tap into a vein of resentment and fear that has been largely ignored by much of the Republican establishment and the mainstream media: Conservative Christians being forced by government to violate their consciences. Taxpayers are forced to fund cloning and blasphemous art, and pharmacists are forced to prescribe morning-after pills. If Romney hits this theme, he could rally some of the base that is now floating towards Huckabee.
There seems to be agreement that Romney’s decision is at least partly a result of Huckabee’s rise and Novak points this out neatly. But, consider the bolded part above. Is it really likely that Romney’s trying to “rally” evangelicals who’ve already floated towards Huckabee? I’d suggest another possibility, counterintuitive though it may be. Maybe this speech is an attempt to hold his own evangelical support, while cutting into the support of the non-Huckabee candidates. There’s a particular dynamic at work in Iowa that I think some have missed out on. As the caucuses approach, it’s very likely that some of the support Rudy and McCain are currently receiving in Iowa will redistribute to Mitt, Huck, or possibly Fred.
This will happen for a few reasons. First, McCain and Rudy aren’t seriously contesting the state, and as this becomes apparent, some of their supporters, who were never totally sold on a pro-choice New Yorker or a Maverick Westerner, will want to be part of a winning team. Also, if we buy the theory that people don’t start deciding until the last week, it seems likely that a good portion of Rudy and McCain’s support will dissipate when they’re effectively absent from the full-court press in the final weeks.
Iowans who are supporting Rudy or McCain currently are easy targets for Romney in a Romney/Huckabee two way matchup. They clearly don’t rest everything on social issues, and they’re exceedingly unlikely to identify as evangelicals; if they haven’t jumped onboard the Huck-express yet, it’s likely they have other concerns. If Romney gives the right sort of speech, he might be able to pick up some of these supporters, without alienating his current evangelical support.
We might expect this sort of strategy for a few reasons. First, Huckabee’s lead grew out of one of the best months for a presidential candidate in recent memory. Despite this, he’s seemingly only a handful of points ahead of Romney in Iowa. If Huckabee’s December is considerably worse then his November, and it’s looking like it will be, there’s always the chance that he’ll lose some evangelical support regardless of Romney’s actions. In that situation, Romney’s the most likely recipient anyway. Second, even with the most stunningly brilliant “Faith” speech, Romney’s not going to be able to Out-evangelical a Baptist Minister. If these voters eventually come to Romney’s camp, they’ll do so because of something besides values (taxes, the Dumond fall-out, immigration, etc). So we have to guess that, realistically, the 17% of Iowans who prefer Rudy or McCain are easier targets then any of the evangelicals supporting Huckabee.
So imagine this scenario. Tomorrow morning, Mitt Romney’s gives a speech that leans a bit nearer to the “tolerance” end of the tolerance/Christian nation spectrum. Evangelicals aren’t jumping for joy, but those who are currently supporting him have some of their fears allayed. Unexpectedly though, there are some Iowans who react very positively to Romney’s speech. A number of McCain/Rudy/Thompson supporters who either identify as secularists, or prefer to keep religious belief private, begin to view Romney more favorably. And in the weeks leading up to Iowa, as it becomes a Huck/Romney battle, they find themselves siding with the guy who preached freedom and tolerance, over the Baptist Minister who preached from the podium, what he ought to have left in the pulpit.
Rush really likes Fred Thompson. First there was this:
And now…
Today, Rush called Thompson’s interview with Charlie Rose “fabulous.”
From The National Review’s Jim Geraughty:
Here at the Campaign Spot, we’ve previously wondered if Rush Limbaugh, officially neutral in the GOP presidential primary, prefers one of the candidates and is periodically offering statements that seem to be an endorsement-without-an-official-endorsement.
Earlier today, Limbaugh was chuckling and enjoying the following exchange between Fred Thompson and Charlie Rose – an exchange that suggests that Rose is fuzzy on the difference between “principles” and “issues.”
Here is part of the transcript from the Limbaugh show:
Rush: Let’s go to the audio sound-bites. Last night on Charlie Rose’s show on PBS. Former Senator Fred Thompson is the guest. Charlie Rose says “You constantly say in this campaign that you are a conservative. What does that mean today?”
(start clip)
Fred Thompson: “It means things that are consistent with God’s design for man, is consistent with human nature, it’s consistent with the lessons of history, the lessons of ages. They found form in the Constitution I think and what our founding fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing.”Charlie Rose: “In all of that you didn’t mention abortion, gay rights, all things that have been part of recent presidential elections.”
Fred: “Those… Well you are talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us, which derive FROM principles.”
(end clip)Rush: “Now this is just fabulous to me. This is just great. Here Charlie Rose asks Fred Thompson ‘Well what is a conservative today anyway?’. And so Fred gives his definition of a conservative and Charlie says ‘Well wait a minute I didn’t hear anything about abortion or gay rights, all the things that have been a part of recent presidential elections.’ Here’s how Fred answered that, because Charlie Rose came back and said ‘Principles? What do you mean principles?’.”
(start clip)
Fred Thompson: “Principles are what guide you in coming to positions with regard to issues. You know the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God and not from man. The founders talked about you know life, liberty and the importance of that. And that everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles and you know for example I come to a pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues you know for 8 years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion related activities and things of that nature you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no properly.”
(end clip)Rush: “I guarantee you Charlie Rose is clueless here. None of this…this is…he’s a listening to uh you know mongolese as Fred Thompson’s going through all this.
(laughing) Sometimes you just have to laugh at these poor clichéd liberals who just live in the most closeted cocooned world, while thinking they are the most worldly and uh erudite among us.
The reason some still don’t understand why nobody has been able to deliver the knockout punch when Thompson seems to be on the ropes,, sending him back to the tv set, is that there are still a lot of people who do vote on principles, or are purists, not pragmatists. Thompson, who has been written off time and time again by the national media and even in some states, continues to get great coverage in South Carolina, where he has been focusing all his time.
The bottom line is that Rush believes in ideology and principle, and as long as people like him back Thompson, he’s not going that quietly. You hear report after report about Thompson’s demise, but he’s still there. He may not be winning, but he’s not losing either.
The thing is, look at how it took one week to turn the race for the GOP nomination upside down. Nobody on this site can predict what will likely happen within the next month or so. Does Huckabee stay up? If he falls, where do the 20% of his rasmussen supporters go? Nobody can really answer these questions.
BTW, a note to our reader bjalder:
the first few minutes were a little slow, but for a full hour interview, Thompson hit it out of the park, in my opinion. He was relaxed and firm, and his answers were near perfect. Thompson doesn’t cherrycoat things, and it’s refreshing, to me anyway, that there is a candidate who I consider to be close to “pure” ideologically on matters of lesser federal government. With this group of candidates, that’s no small accomplishment.
Besides, he was being interviewed by Charlie Rose, not Conan O’Brien.
Slight contrast here with another candidate in the race. In 45 seconds Mitt sets the historical context of the incident, finds the silver lining, warns about the remaining danger and gives a nod to the influence of the United States. Not bad.
First, from the NYT:
“South Carolina Citizens for Life is confident in Senator Fred Thompson’s resolve to protect and defend the most defenseless among us: our unborn children,” said Holly Gatling, the group’s executive director. She said that the group would help his campaign in the state
Also:
I will address Justin’s post later.
Many of my Race 4 2008 compatriots have offered some friendly advice to Governor Romney for his speech tomorrow. This afternoon the Prince of Darkness weighed in:
Novak concludes with a sound admonition for Hugh Hewitt et al.
Finally, in calling for religious tolerance, Romney must not come across as branding his opponents — or even those wary of Mormonism — as religious bigots.
The co-chair of Fred Thompson’s South Carolina campaign laid into Mitt’s Mormonism on the eve of Romney’s speech on religious liberties. Cyndi Mosteller, who has gotten in hot water previously for Mormon bashing, pulls no punches in an interview with the Palmetto Scoop:
TPS: Why do you think it is that Republicans, the previous issue aside, might be reluctant to support a Mormon president, such that Romney feels he needs to give a speech addressing just this issue?
CYNDI MOSTELLER: I think the doctrines of Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism are so vastly different from the Mormon doctrine; from the concept of polygamy being the order of Heaven, to human man’s progression to godhead of other worlds, to the idea that Jesus had multiple wives, to the idea that, after the death of the last apostle, all of Christendom was in apostasy – with a capital “A” as the Church refers to it – until Joseph Smith discovered the golden plates in the 1830s. So I think it’s inconsistent with so many basic Christian doctrines and it’s very unusual to the point that it’s almost unbelievable. These concepts are things that are theologically beyond our orthodox imagination.
Orthodox imagination? Regardless of what Miss Mosteller believes about Mormons vs. Christianity (and she gets some Mormon doctrines and history FLAT WRONG in the interview), how does she make the leap from doctrinal disagreements to dissing Romney because he’s not orthodox enough to vote for?
I suppose if I accused Catholics of “ritual cannibalism” I could put the traditional Mass in a bad light for anyone and diss Rudy.
If I accused Baptists of worshiping a disembodied God who is everywhere and nowhere at the same time I might be able to peel away a few members from the fold and stop people from voting for Huckabee.
I won’t do this because its nonsensical and can only lead to one thing, the left dissing all of us:
Will the Thompson campaign condemn Miss Mosteller?
9:30 AM Texas time / 10:30 AM EST
The Romney speech will probably be broadcast on many of the major cable news channels. You can also watch it live streaming on http://www.mittromney.com.
Alternately, if you’re on the road you can call in for the audio:
Phone Number For Listen-Only Program Feed: 866-866-2244
Participant Code: 9411758
Of course, be sure you tune in to MyManMitt.com and Race42008.com for coverage of the event.
Public Policy Polling North Carolina GOP poll (pdf file)
GOP Nomination
- Mike Huckabee 33% (–)
- Rudy Giuliani 17% (19%)
- Fred Thompson 16% (24%)
- Mitt Romney 9% (10%)
- John McCain 8% (8%)
- Ron Paul 3%
- Other 3%
- Undecided 10%
Surveyed 612 likely Republican voters with a MoE of 3.8%. November results in parentheses
Commentary: Think this race is stable and decided? Think again. Huckabee has come from absolutely nowhere to a huge lead in North Carolina, within a matter of weeks. The good news for Huckabee’s campaign is that now he is pretty much the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, with a tie/lead in Iowa, a lead nationally (or one that he is within the margin of error in at least 3 different polls), and now he is jumping into the lead in some February 5 states. The bad news for the Huckabee campaign is that no one can predict anything this year. Huckabee may be the man of the moment, and could likely to come back down to earth. This race is searching for a leader, and nobody has solidified any sort of real support. Not Rudy, not Romney, not fred, not John. However, with support so shaky, it’s not hard to imagine that he could crash and burn. One things for sure, not even Ron Paul can be written off at this point.
Nobody has a majority backing them, and with candidate’s support so fragile, we could be in for more surprises, or we might have the candidate in Huckabee. However, there’s still a month to go and nothing in this race is for sure. If Huckabee wins Iowa, he might be unstoppable.
We Should Be Skeptical Of the NIE
By Fred Thompson
The accuracy of the latest NIE on Iran should be received with a good deal of skepticism. Our intelligence community has often underestimated the intentions of adversaries, including Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and North Korea. And are all of the CIA detractors now going to take intelligence pronouncements at face value? It’s awfully convenient for a lot of people: the administration gets to say its policies worked; the Democrats get to claim we should have eased up on Iran a long time ago: and Russia and China can claim sanctions on Iran are not necessary. Who benefits from all this? Iran.
And what if the NIE estimate is accurate? It’s essentially an analysis of Iran’s intentions at a point in time. Meanwhile, Iran continues to enrich uranium for allegedly peaceful purposes, but which would allow them to easily transition to a nuclear weapons program at any point in the future. Maybe even now–now that so many seem willing to forget Iran’s past deceptions and ongoing intransigence. After all, a nuclear weapons program is simply an extension of the process by why uranium is enriched for civilian nuclear fuel. To this day Iran has yet to comply with international demands and its Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty requirements for open inspections and other safeguard measures.
The bottom line is that the United States must continue to improve its human intelligence capabilities and intelligence analysis. We must hope for the best, but not let our guard down for a moment. If something appears to be too good to be true, it very well may be.
Crossposted at race42008.com with permission from fred08.com
Still no troubles in New Hampshire for Mitt:
Zogby Republican New Hampshire Primary (scroll down)
- Romney – 35% (24)
- McCain – 17% (16)
- Giuliani – 15% (21)
- Huckabee – 10% (5)
- Paul – 7% (3)
- Thompson – 3% (7)
- Hunter – 1% (1)
- Tancredo – 1% (3)
- Undecided – 10% (17)
Survey was taken Dec 1-3 of 508 likely primary voters and has a 4.4% MoE.
Five television ads and multiple swings through the state later and Giuliani slips into third place… meanwhile Huckabee doubles his support to land in fourth.
Iowa continues to be a close one, according to Zogby this time:
Zogby Republican Iowa Caucus, conducted Nov. 29th-Dec 1st, 2007
- Mitt Romney 26% (31)
- Mike Huckabee 25% (15)
- Rudy Giuliani 12% (11)
- Fred Thompson 8% (10)
- John McCain 5% (8)
- Ron Paul 5%
- Tom Tancredo 2% (3)
- Duncan Hunter 1%
- Undecided – 15% (16)
Survey was taken Nov 29-Dec 1 of 508 likely caucus goers and has a 4.4% MoE.
My thoughts on the speech are simple…The timing couldn’t be better…I don’t buy into the fact that he may be doing this to fend of Huckabee…I suspect that the Romney people are smart…They realize that if this comes off as successful with less than a month before the voting begins…Then there will be basically nothing that can be done by other campaigns to keep Romney from taking the “Mo” to Christmas Break in his back pocket….The other scenario is not so pretty and is described below by Mark Davis…
But questions remain, and there is only one way to address them. Mr. Romney must work to comfort Republican voters whose differences with LDS belief are an obstacle to voting for him.
This is not done by telling people that Mormonism is really just another form of mainstream Christianity. Thoughtful people can argue all day about whether Mormonism belongs under the Christian umbrella, but the fact is that crafting an entire text to supplement the Bible, based on Jesus’ visit to America 200 years ago, complete with wholesale revisions in mankind’s status in the afterlife, will naturally raise the eyebrows of those who believe the Bible is the only faith document followers of Jesus need.
And it’s not just a matter of faith-based miracles. For example, I believe Jesus actually rose from the dead so our sins can be forgiven. That’s a huge logical leap, but it is an article of faith.
It is pointless to argue with anyone about the portions of his faith that involve the miracles that give that faith its validity.
But part of Mormon belief involves an entire civilization existing in what is now America some centuries before Christ’s birth and some centuries after.
This society, using a hybrid Hebrew/Egyptian tongue and employing agricultural and metallurgical technologies that objective historians simply find no evidence to support, either existed or it did not.
A voter e-mailed me a few months ago, with vast admiration for Mr. Romney on the issues, but asking: If he’ll believe this, what else will he believe?
This is not unfair. The question for Mr. Romney is how to address it. It is not with familiar platitudes about religious liberty or lectures on tolerance.
It is to say this: “I know there are many Christian voters who are considering my candidacy who have questions or concerns about my faith. There is nothing I can do or say to make my faith familiar to you if it is unfamiliar, or seem rational if it seems irrational.
“All I would do is remind you that millions of Americans vote in every election for people who have vastly different religious beliefs. Christians vote for Jews and vice versa, and they disagree over whether Jesus is the son of God! I believe he is, by the way.
“And, finally, I would swear to you, on the Bible that we both revere, that I will not be getting secret orders from Utah on how to run the country. There is nothing in my faith that will lead me astray from precisely the reliable conservative course that you are looking for in your president.”
There you go, Governor. No charge.
We shall see how it plays out…The Dumond story is out this week…But thanks to Mitt…That won’t be the focus tomorrow night…
Tony Blankley weighs in on Free Trade…
Until the 1980s, it was not even a debated point. Both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives largely supported free trade. During the past 20 years, doubt has emerged on the question of whether Americans gain or lose from free trade. But the Bill Clinton presidency, in full partnership with the Newt Gingrich Republican Congress, fully supported free trade.
However, even in the 1990s, the Democratic Congress only begrudgingly voted with half its caucus for Clinton and Gingrich’s NAFTA. About two-thirds of the Republican caucus voted yes. Then, by about 40 percent to 30 percent, Republican voters thought free trade was good for America (with the remainder saying it made no difference). Now, according to an October 2007 Wall Street Journal poll, by 59 percent to 32 percent, Republicans think foreign (free) trade has been bad for America. Democrats are (SET ITAL) more (END ITAL) negative. Many other polls confirm this trend over the past two decades.
Thus, it was not surprising that this Monday, the Financial Times gave their lead headline (plus a 3-by-6-inch above-the-fold color photo) to Hillary Clinton on her statement that she doubted the benefits of the upcoming world-trade talks in Doha, Qatar. As her campaign is largely premised on the proclaimed wisdom and success of her and her husband’s previous presidency, it is noteworthy in the extreme that she is breaking with her co-president (some guy named Bill, I think) on the question of free trade.
Whether Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party presidential nomination or not, few would doubt that she has shrewdly assessed the most useful position to hold on the issue. The Democratic Party is now, essentially, an anti-free-trade party. The Republican Party remains, at least at the presidential level, a pro-free-trade party, as exemplified by Rudy Giuliani’s statement: “Our philosophy has to be not how many protectionist measures can we put in place, but how do we invent new things to sell” abroad. “That’s the view of the future. What (protectionists) are trying to do is lock in the inadequacies of the past.”
Are you certain, Rudy? Republicans venture forth into the 2008 election campaign with such an unquestioning free-trade policy at their peril. Certainly the most politically gifted of the Republican candidates, Mike Huckabee, sees that peril.
Huckabee, sounding like a Democrat, has expressed concern that free trade can lead to an unfair loss of American jobs: “If somebody in the presidency doesn’t begin to understand that we can’t have free trade if it’s not fair trade, we’re going to continually see people who have worked for 20 and 30 years for companies one day walk in and get the pink slip and told, ‘I’m sorry, but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here.’”
Classic free-traders may impute such words by both Hillary and Huckabee to cynicism, populism and demagogy, but it is just possible that the American people may sense a real danger that the elites, heavily invested in the globalization project, cannot see yet.
It is noteworthy that Hillary cites the newfound free-trade skepticism of Paul Samuelson (arguably the most important free-trade economist of the second half of the 20th century). It was his 2004 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives that triggered my decision to reassess the value of free trade. I still have not been persuaded to give up free trade, but it has become debatable. (I still believe the statistic that about 10 percent of our economic activity is the result of foreign trade. Thus, in a protectionist environment, we would be, as a nation, 10 percent poorer each year. That is a huge factor for decreased prosperity, when compounded over the decades.)
However the Republican Party will be making not only a political mistake, but possibly a policy mistake of the first order if it does not vigorously engage in that emerging debate.
This could be one of the top issues next fall…Thoughts?
I’m not sure its something to tout among conservative audiences, but the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association has endorsed Mike Huckabee.
- Mike Huckabee 20%
- Rudy Giuliani 17%
- John McCain 13%
- Mitt Romney 13%
- Fred Thompson 10%
- Ron Paul 7%
Survey includes approximately 600 Likely Republican Primary Voters. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.
- Rudy Giuliani 27% (29%)
- Mike Huckabee 13% (6%)
- John McCain 13% (12%)
- Mitt Romney 6% (7%)
- Fred Thompson 6% (11%)
- Ron Paul 4% (4%)
- Undecided 23%
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Rudy Giuliani 67% / 17% (+50%)
- John McCain 60% / 17% (+43%)
- Fred Thompson 40% / 8% (+32%)
- Mike Huckabee 36% / 6% (+30%)
- Mitt Romney 38% / 11% (+27%)
Survey of 483 registered Republicans was conducted November 26-December 3. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 31-November 5 are in parentheses.
General Election Match-Ups
- Rudy Giuliani 44%
- Hillary Clinton 44%
- Rudy Giuliani 41%
- Barack Obama 41%
- Rudy Giuliani 44%
- John Edwards 40%
- John McCain 43%
- Hillary Clinton 43%
- Hillary Clinton 48%
- Mike Huckabee 37%
- Hillary Clinton 49%
- Fred Thompson 37%
- Hillary Clinton 49%
- Mitt Romney 37%
Survey of 1,092 registered voters was conducted November 26-December 3. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
- Rudy Giuliani 29% (27%)
- John McCain 13% (12%)
- Mike Huckabee 10% (7%)
- Mitt Romney 7% (11%)
- Fred Thompson 7% (13%)
- Ron Paul 4% (2%)
- Undecided 21%
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Rudy Giuliani 66% / 14% (+52%)
- John McCain 61% / 15% (+46%)
- Fred Thompson 42% / 7% (+35%)
- Mitt Romney 45% / 11% (+34%)
- Mike Huckabee 36% / 7% (+29%)
Survey of 418 registered Republicans was conducted November 26-December 3. The margin of error is +/- 4.8 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 6-11 are in parentheses.
General Election Match-Ups
- Hillary Clinton 45%
- Rudy Giuliani 41%
- Barack Obama 42%
- Rudy Giuliani 38%
- John Edwards 45%
- Rudy Giuliani 38%
- Hillary Clinton 44%
- John McCain 42%
- Hillary Clinton 45%
- Mike Huckabee 38%
- Hillary Clinton 47%
- Fred Thompson 38%
- Hillary Clinton 47%
- Mitt Romney 37%
Survey of 1,178 registered voters was conducted November 26-December 3. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points.
- Rudy Giuliani 30% (30%)
- Mitt Romney 12% (12%)
- Mike Huckabee 11% (8%)
- Fred Thompson 10% (14%)
- John McCain 9% (13%)
- Ron Paul 4% (1%)
- Undecided 17%
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Rudy Giuliani 77% / 13% (+64%)
- John McCain 62% / 20% (+42%)
- Mitt Romney 51% / 11% (+40%)
- Fred Thompson 49% / 10% (+39%)
- Mike Huckabee 40% / 8% (+32%)
Survey of 440 registered Republicans was conducted November 26-December 3. The margin of error is +/- 4.7 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 19-22 are in parentheses.
General Election Match-Ups
- Hillary Clinton 48%
- Rudy Giuliani 41%
- Rudy Giuliani 45%
- Barack Obama 37%
- Rudy Giuliani 43%
- John Edwards 39%
- Hillary Clinton 47%
- John McCain 40%
- Hillary Clinton 50%
- Mike Huckabee 35%
- Hillary Clinton 52%
- Fred Thompson 36%
- Hillary Clinton 50%
- Mitt Romney 36%
Survey of 1,124 registered voters was conducted November 26-December 3. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points.
- Rudy Giuliani 32% (34%)
- Mike Huckabee 18% (8%)
- Mitt Romney 15% (17%)
- Fred Thompson 14% (22%)
- John McCain 11% (10%)
- Other 5% (5%)
- Undecided 6% (3%)
Survey of 493 likely Republican primary voters was conducted December 2-3. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 2-5 are in parentheses.
Summary: The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges: setting a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order, strengthening the international system the terrorists seek to destroy, and extending the system’s benefits. With a stronger defense, a determined diplomacy, and greater U.S. economic and cultural influence, the next president can start to build a lasting, realistic peace.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Using Economic and Cultural Influence
Economic development and engagement are proven, if not fail-safe, engines for successfully moving countries into the international system. America’s robust domestic economy is one of its greatest strengths. Other nations have found that following the U.S. model — with low taxes, sensible regulations, protections for private property, and free trade — brings not only national wealth but also national strength. These principles are not ascendant everywhere, but never has it been clearer that they work.
Ever more open trade throughout the world is essential. Bilateral and regional free-trade agreements are often positive for all involved, but we must not allow them to become special arrangements that undermine a truly global trading system. Foreign aid can help overcome specific problems, but it does not lead to lasting prosperity because it cannot replace trade. Private direct investment is the best way to promote economic development. The next U.S. president should thus revitalize and streamline all U.S. foreign-aid activities to support — not substitute for — private investment in other countries.
Our cultural and commercial influence can also have a positive impact. They did during the Cold War. The steadfast leadership of President Reagan, working alongside British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, helped the Soviet Union understand that it could not bully the West into submission. Although such leadership was essential, alone it might not have toppled the Soviet Union in the time that it did. But it was effective because it came with Western economic investment and cultural influence that inspired people in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. Companies such as Pepsi, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Levi’s helped win the Cold War by entering the Soviet market. Cultural events, such as Van Cliburn’s concerts in the Soviet Union and Mstislav Rostropovich’s in the United States, also hastened change.
Today, we need a similar type of exchange with the Muslim countries that we hope to plug into the global economy. Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are pointing the way by starting to interpret Islam in ways that respect the distinctiveness of their local cultures but are consistent with the global marketplace. Some of these states have coeducational schools, allow women to serve in government, and count shopping malls that sell Western and Arab goods side by side. Their leaders recognize that modernization is their ticket to the global marketplace. And the global marketplace can build bridges between the West and the Islamic world in a way that promotes mutual respect and mutual benefit.
Economic investment and cultural influence work best where civil society already exists. But sometimes America will be compelled to act in those parts of the world where few institutions function properly — those zones that lack not only good governance but any governance — and in states teetering on the edge of conflict or recovering from it. Faced with a choice between leaving a troubled zone to anarchy or helping build functioning civil societies with accountable governments that can serve as bulwarks against barbarism, the American people will choose the latter.
To assist these missions, the next U.S. president should restructure and coordinate all the agencies involved in that process. A hybrid military-civilian organization — a Stabilization and Reconstruction Corps staffed by specially trained military and civilian reservists — must be developed. The agency would undertake tasks such as building roads, sewers, and schools; advising on legal reform; and restoring local currencies. The United States did similar work, and with great success, in Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War II. But even with the rich civic traditions in these nations, the process took a number of years. We must learn from our past if we want to win the peace as well as the war.
Principled Strength
Civilization must stand up and combat the current collapse of governance, the rise of violence, and the spread of chaos and fear in many parts of the world. To turn back this tide of terror and defeat the violent forces of disorder wherever they appear, America must play an even more active role to strengthen the international state system.
In this decade, for the first time in human history, half of the world’s population will live in cities. I know from personal experience that when security is reliably established in a troubled part of a city, normal life rapidly reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back in, children start playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding community returns to life. The same is true in world affairs. Disorder in the world’s bad neighborhoods tends to spread. Tolerating bad behavior breeds more bad behavior. But concerted action to uphold international standards will help peoples, economies, and states to thrive. Civil society can triumph over chaos if it is backed by determined action.
After the attacks of 9/11, President Bush put America on the offensive against terrorists, orchestrating the most fundamental change in U.S. strategy since President Harry Truman reoriented American foreign and defense policy at the outset of the Cold War. But times and challenges change, and our nation must be flexible. President Dwight Eisenhower and his successors accepted Truman’s framework, but they corrected course to fit the specific challenges of their own times. America’s next president must also craft polices to fit the needs of the decade ahead, even as the nation stays on the offensive against the terrorist threat.
The 9/11 generation has learned from the history of the twentieth century that America must not turn a blind eye to gathering storms. We must base our trust on the actions, rather than the words, of others. And we must be on guard against overpromising and underdelivering. Above all, we have learned that evil must be confronted — not appeased — because only principled strength can lead to a realistic peace.
-Rudolph W. Giuliani
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editor’s Note: This essay originally appeared in the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, who retain all rights. It is republished here with the CFR’s consent. Race42008 obtained permission to reprint the essay as a seven-part series which will be published daily from Monday, November 26th, through Friday November 30th, concluding December 4th & December 5th.
When I wrote about the DuMond case yesterday, I had no idea that it would be picked up by the MSM at roughly the same time. Today, Good Morning America had a piece on the issue, which interviewed Ashley Stevens, and the mother of the second victim. I thought the report by Brian Ross was one sided, as it really didn’t give Huckabee’s side of the story. However, this isn’t going to go away, and Huckabee’s response so far has been weak. He needs to address this completely. Misleading denials and weak responses only make him look worse. The mother of the second victim has promised to do everything in her power to stop Huckabee from winning the nomination. That means interviews, campaign commercials, and the whole works. Huckabee must respond fully.
Here’s Byron York this morning at NRO:
Now Huckabee is rising in the polls, and sure enough, the Dumond case is attracting more attention. This morning, ABC News ran a report featuring the mother of the woman Dumond murdered, who blames Huckabee for her daughter’s death and vows to do everything she can to stop his campaign. “I can’t imagine anybody wanting somebody like that running the country,” the woman told ABC.
Here is what he needs to do:
1. Stop Blaming Bill Clinton.
Clinton was a cousin of Ashley Stevens, and denied any sort of commutation or clemency to DuMond. Of course, some on the far right tried to use this against the former president, but the facts just don’t hold up.
2. Come clean.
The Huckabee campaign still will not come clean about the whole mess. After recieving letters from more alleged victims of DuMond, Huckabee chose not to take them into account. Yesterday, he first denied the letters were genuine, only to backtrack later. Huckabee needs to quit acting defensive, and explain the whole situation. It only makes him look worse when he acts as though he had nothing to do with it. Now, Huckabee is not solely responsible for DuMond’s release and doesn’t deserve all the blame, but he needs to accept responsibility for what he did take part in.
3. Contact the victims
Huckabee has never spoken with the victims since the release of DuMond. He would be wise to meet privately with the victims or their living relatives and clear the air.
Here is the full transcript of Huckabee’s response in pdf form. Now, it does clear up some of the issues, but there are still too many holes in the story. (Somebody who can copy PDF files on to the site for viewing is welcome to post the full transcript)
Here is the report from Good Morning America:
Now, I hope I have given a somewhat objective account here. Feel free to make up your own minds.
Byron York expands on the story that is going to leave a mark.
It began in September 1984, when Dumond, a 35-year-old handyman, kidnapped and raped a 17-year-old high-school cheerleader in the small eastern-Arkansas town of Forrest City. Dumond was allowed to remain free on bond while awaiting trial, and in March 1985 two masked men entered his house, tied him up with fishing line, and castrated him. People were stunned; the case, already notorious, became much more so. And that was before the local sheriff, a rather colorful man named Coolidge Conlee, displayed Dumond’s severed testicles in a jar of formaldehyde on his desk in the St. Francis County building. Amid tons of publicity, Dumond was found guilty and sentenced to life plus 20 years.
[...]
That’s where things stood when Huckabee took office on July 15, 1996. Last August, Huckabee told me he had his doubts about Dumond’s guilt, and also felt sorry for him over the castration attack. On September 20, just weeks after taking office, Huckabee announced that he intended to set Dumond free, saying that there were “serious questions as to the legitimacy of his guilt.” On October 31, Huckabee met with the parole board. Not long after, the board voted to free Dumond, but on the condition he move to another state. Huckabee was pleased, in part because – given that the board had voted to free Dumond – there was no need for Huckabee to commute the sentence or pardon him. So Huckabee denied Dumond’s now-irrelevant pardon application while at the same time congratulating him on his soon-to-come freedom. “Dear Wayne,” Huckabee wrote in a letter to Dumond. “My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place.”
But no state would take Dumond. He remained behind bars for two and a half more years, until the board voted to free him in Arkansas. He was released in October 1999 and returned home. The next year, Dumond left the state, moving to a small town near Kansas City, Mo. Within weeks of arriving, he sexually assaulted and murdered a 39-year-old woman at an apartment complex near his home. The day that happened, everyone knew that freeing Wayne Dumond had been a very, very bad idea.
I asked about the “Dear Wayne” letter. Didn’t Huckabee want Dumond to go free? “I thought he would, you know, be clean,” Huckabee told me. “And he had a job, he had sponsors lined up, so at the time, I did not have this apprehension that something horrible like that would happen. I did want him to report in [to parole authorities], because I just didn’t know – you never know about a guy like that.”
As he talked, Huckabee looked down. “I hate it like crazy,” he said. “It’s one of the most horrible things ever that he went off and did what he did. It’s just terrible. There’s nothing you can say, but my gosh, it’s the thing you pray never happens. And it did.”
As stories come to light about Governor Huckabee’s tenure in Arkansas, I am reminded of another Southern governor whose sense of right and wrong — his moralism, if you will — animated his public policy: James Earl Carter. Like Carter, Huckabee is a man of tremendous personal integrity that is the fruit of his deeply-held Christian faith. Carter’s foreign policy, for those old enough here to remember, was animated by a tremendous respect for “human rights”. In fact, Carter’s policies elevated “human rights” over the national security interests of the United States. While well-intended, Carter’s notions had the unintended consequence of both undermining national security and the human rights of those people it was his ambition to protect as Jeane Kirkpatrick demonstrated so effectively in her book Dictatorships and Double Standards. Elements of Carter’s naivete are demonstrated both in Huckabee’s newfound aversion to “waterboarding” and his thinking around the case of Wayne Dumond.
Would I want Mike Huckabee as my pastor? Without question. His sense of justice and righteousness can not be assailed. But his ambition to govern by the beatitudes would leave the nation more vulnerable than it has been since the late 1970s.
As a purely political consideration, Mr. Huckabee’s supporters are deluding themselves if they believe Sen. Rodham would not exploit the rape and murder of that Kansas City woman every bit as effectively and ruthlessly as a fellow named Lee Atwater did in 1988.
