Fred Thompson will announce his presidential candidacy next Thursday, Sept. 6, The Politico’s Jonathan Martin reports. Campaign sources tell Martin that Thompson won’t attend the Sept. 5 GOP debate in New Hampshire.
This doesn’t strike me as the smartest strategy. Thompson, or his advisers, seem to think he doesn’t have to pay his dues in New Hampshire. Maybe that will end up being true, but it is very risky. The campaign does not have a lot of money. The safest bet is to mount a serious campaign in New Hampshire and go for victory here, which will translate into momentum and money in January. But Thompson appears set on waging an air war based on name recognition, star power and saying lots of good conservative catch-phrases. That’s a strategy for winning big states with big media markets. But Giuliani and Romney have a clear advantage there, with lots more money and bigger organizations. Is Thompson even planning to compete in Iowa and New Hampshire? Martin reports that his Sept. 6 announcement will be followed by a tour of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida (no Michigan, ha-ha). But that doesn’t mean he’ll create a real campaign operation here. If he decides to compete here, he needs to have more of an organization than he does now. If not, he’s going to need a ton more money. He’ll have to hope that his announcement, already late in my opinion, brings in millions of dollars almost instantly.
Well, sort of.
State Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley has joined with Democratic leaders from Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada to ask the Democratic presidential candidates to pressure other states to keep their nominating contests where they belong, which is later than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
We advocated doing just that in an Aug. 23 editorial.
Thanks for paying attention, Ray!
(Clarification: We advocated pressuring the candidates to pressure the states. Buckley also supports the DNC imposing sanctions for violating the calendar, which we do not support.)
UPDATE:
Here’s the pledge being sent to Democratic presidential candidates:
WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.
_____________________________ __________
Democratic Candidate for President DATE
UPDATE 2: Bill Richardson has already signed this pledge.
John Gizzi of Human Events notices that some in NH aren’t too thrilled with Fred Thompson right now.
To see how your school district did meeting No Child Left Behind’s Adequate Yearly Progress goals, you can go here. You can also break it down by school.
Media Matters for America, the left-wing hit organization that makes a living defending all things Democrat and liberal with shoddy claims of bias in the news, has taken on our Friday editorial on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s flip-flopping on the surge.
Media Muddles claimed breathlessly: “Union Leader editorial falsely claimed Clinton said ‘troop surge in Iraq is working.’ ”
But we’re right and they’re wrong.
Here is what Clinton said on Aug. 20: “We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in Al-Anbar province, it’s working. We’re just years too late changing our tactics. We can’t ever let that happen again.”
Media Muddles preposterously asserts that when Clinton said “change tactics in Iraq” she was not talking about the surge. “In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Clinton said in her August 20 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) that changed tactics in Iraq are ‘working’ — not President Bush’s troop ’surge’ policy.”
Oh, OK. The changed tactics refer to what, then? THE SURGE! This is deliberately disingenuous on the part of Media Muddles. The group would have us believe that Clinton was not referring to the surge just because she didn’t call it the surge. But of course it is precisely what she was referring to.
Media Muddles accepts without question the Clinton campaign’s line that she was referring only to results in Anbar province, writing, “According to an August 21 New York Times article, “Aides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are ‘working’ referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province.”
But, um, that’s not what she said. As the editorial pointed out, she said, “in some areas, particularly in Al-Anbar province, it’s working.” Media Muddles would have us swallow the Clinton campaign line that “some areas, including Al-Anbar province,” means “only Al-Anbar province.” Come on.
Media Muddles quotes our note that Clinton had previously referenced surge successes in March and May, then writes dismissively, “Media Matters could find no reports of Clinton ‘not[ing] the surge’s successes’ in March or May.”
That’s because, again, Media Muddles rules out any Clinton comments that do not use the word “surge.” But Media Muddles then cites the precise two examples we referred to. In March Clinton noted progress in Anbar province, and she did so again in May. She just didn’t call it “the surge.”
Media Muddles claims that Clinton was referring to changed tactics that began in Al Anbar last September. But that’s running interference for Clinton, for she NEVER claims that. Nor, as far as I’ve seen, did she begin referring to the changed tactics as breeding success until this spring, as the surge was getting underway. What she said on Aug. 20 was “we’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq. . .” That’s a reference to a recent change, not a year-old one.
Media Muddles is all wet on this one. Clinton said the surge was producing results, but when she got whacked by the left for it she backtracked and called the surge a failure. And by dissembling for Democratic candidates when they embarrass themselves, Media Muddles continues to diminish its own credibility (what there is of it).
Comment from Paul in Houston, Texas: I think you need to re-read the articles you cite to make your case, because they actually make the case for Media Matters. In those articles she (Clinton) attributes the progress to alliances with tribal leaders, not “the surge.” I’m afraid they’ve got your number, Drew.
Comment from Pierre Watson in Orlando, Fla.: Seems another right winger has been caught with their pants down(you).Cropping whole paragraphs to get one sentence from Hillary, showing support for your side, seems to be a major tactic of the grand ol pedophile party. Sean Hannity is always doing what it seems you’ve done in this case concerning Media Matters correction of your op. ed. It seems they’ve done just a little more research than you with regards to right wing rhetoric that the surge is working. Maybe it is in the green zone, but not anywhere else. Did you see where Petreaus told an Australian newspaper that deaths were down by 75% ? Where, in his office?
Comment from Stan Fitzgerald, Burlington, Vt.: The tactics that are being successful right now are the tactics that are being used in Al Anbar province. Those tactics are the increased use of local tribesmen and militia, and the arming of those groups, to rally against the foreign insurgents and Iraqi terrorists.
That tactic began to have success last fall. Those tactics have been used in other provinces besides Al Anbar province.
On the other hand, we aren’t seeing success from the surge. Contrary to your ideas, a successful surge is not increasing the number of troops and dampening the violence as a result. The surge is only successful if the government makes political progress as a result of that lessened violence, and that has not happened. The surge is not successful. The new tactics, different from what Bush did for years, are being successful.
Not surprisingly, the first Republican member of Congress to call for the firing of Alberto Gonzales had no kind words for the attorney general yesterday. Sen. John Sununu said, “Our country needs a credible, effective Attorney General who can work with Congress on critical issues ranging from immigration to investigating terrorism at home and abroad. Alberto Gonzales’ resignation will finally allow a new Attorney General to take on this task.”
Here is what Sununu said about Gonzales on March 14: “We need a strong, credible attorney general. I don’t believe Alberto Gonzales can fill that role. I think the President should fire the attorney general.”
Sununu’s beef with Gonzales predates the AG’s handling of the fired U.S. attorneys. It goes back to the battle over the Patriot Act. Sununu, who opposed many provisions of the act, thought Gonzales needlessly politicized it and was deliberately misleading about how well the act protected civil liberties.
His opposition to Gonzales is just one of several instances of Sununu demonstrating some real independence on Capitol Hill and siding against the White House when he thought doing so was best for the country. No Bush lackey would have opposed Gonzales so strongly and so early. But of course that won’t stop Sununu-haters from attacking the senator for being a Bush toady, which is preposterous on its face but nonetheless has gained some currency in New Hampshire.
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, and all the republic is relieved. Yes, even conservatives. In fact, especially conservatives. Gonzales was never one of us, and even worse, he was incompetent. There simply cannot be any question about that. He was not fit for the job.
I was tempted to label Gonzales the Ringo Starr of the Bush administration. He was the one, smiling vacantly, who was just happy to be there playing at that level. But that would be unfair to Ringo Starr, who, though lacking flair, was a competent drummer. Gonzales was simply a disaster. He mismanaged his department, evidently used it to bring electoral advantage to Republicans, and was so outclassed that even two-bit, partisan hack senators got the best of him in committee hearings.
His sins were not so great as some Democrats claimed, but he was so ineffectual that even the president could not counter the charges against him and Republican members of Congress were reluctant to come to his defense. And so he became an anchor dragging down the credibility of an administration and a party that already had credibility problems.
Looking back on Gonzales’ tenure as AG, there is one thing for which Americans should be thankful: His incompetence and servile loyalty to Bush became so obvious so quickly that it rallied conservative Republicans against him and thus prevented his appointment to the Supreme Court, which is where Bush wanted him to end up.
Charlie Bass’ Mainstreet Republican Partnership PAC today endorsed Jeb Bradley in the 1st District Republican primary. That’s just two days after former state HHS Commissioner John Stephen announced his candidacy. Jeb’s buddies work fast.
“Jeb Bradley charted a centrist, independent way during his time in Congress,” Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), head of the RMSP PAC, said in a statement. “New Hampshire needs Congressman Bradley’s common-sense, pragmatic leadership – the taxpayers, families and seniors in New Hampshire deserve a member of Congress that is committed to delivering results.”
Interesting that the group worked so quickly to endorse Bradley and that Bradley wanted immediately to position himself to the left of Stephen. Does this mean Charlie Bass also personally endorses Bradley?
Barack Obama’s campaign has opened its seventh office in New Hampshire, this one on Main Street in Conway. The others are in Manchester, Portsmouth, Rochester, Nashua, Concord and Keene. He’s not taking any region for granted.
First it was cattle. Now scientists in Norway have identified moose belches as a major source of carbon dioxide emissions.
This could significantly boost tourism in the North Country. Gov. John Lynch could revive his moose hunt permit auction idea and auction permits to radical environmentalists. A “Shoot a Moose, Save the Planet” campaign could raise thousands of additional dollars for Fish & Game. Someone in Lynch’s office should get on this right away.
The first person to correctly answer any of the following five questions wins a free book.
I’ll give away one book per question, with the exception of Question 3. That question has two correct answers. The first person to give one of them will get a book; the first to give the other will get a book — however, anyone giving both answers will get only one book. Why? Because I feel like it. Anyone answering more than one question will still get only one book, so pick only one question to answer.
Good luck.
And by the way, the Optimus Prime has been won. By this guy.
The Questions:
1. Where is former CIA Director George Tenet now employed?
2. Which presidential candidate is to receive a “Medal of Freedom” award presented by Margaret Thatcher in London next month?
3. Name one of John McCain’s two NH co-chairmen.
4. Filming what scenes in “The Bourne Ultimatum” did Matt Damon say was “like watching paint dry”?
5. What three days a week is Manchester’s main library open until 8:30 in the evening?
John Stephen today announced the filing of a campaign committee to run for Congress in the 1st District. He’ll be challenging Jeb Bradley for the Republican nomination.
Said Stephen in a statement:
“Five years ago, I ran for Congress for one reason- to bring New Hampshire values to Washington. Since then, what we have seen is a whole bunch of Washington values sent back to New Hampshire. $1.5 trillion in deficit spending, representing a massive tax increase on our children and grandchildren, many new and expanded federal spending programs with tons of regulation and a government that can’t even protect our borders is what we’ve seen coming here from Washington. It’s time to take the car keys away from this Congress. We need to get back to low taxes, fiscal discipline and personal freedom and responsibility. These are the values that make New Hampshire great.”
