Campaign Update

 

Campaign Update

Posted by Dean Barnett  | 10:51 AM

Thank goodness! The actual voting will likely begin weeks earlier than planned, putting us out of our misery far earlier than we would have dared hope. That's good news, and it will probably imbue all the campaigns with an extra sense of urgency, excluding the Thompson campaign which seems unable to show interest let alone urgency.

We have a fresh new batch of poll numbers to dive into. The latest Rasmussen national numbers show Rudy at 25%, Fred at 21%, Romney at 14% and McCain at 9%. If you've sensed (as I have) that Fred has been losing momentum while his campaign temporizes, the Rasmussen trends bear that out. Fred has gone from a peak position of a 5 point lead to a 4 point deficit in the past three weeks. If he wants to win, Fred has to get into the game and play well.

There are also some fresh numbers out of Iowa. The latest Des Moines Register poll shows Romney holding a commanding lead pulling 27%, Rudy at 11% and Fred at 6.5%. You need a ground game to do well in Iowa, and the dilatory nature of the Fred campaign means he doesn't have one. For what it's worth, John McCain has drifted into Ron Paul/Pasadena Phil territory, drawing a ridiculous 3% of the vote. With the date of the Iowa caucuses drawing nearer, so too does McCain's decision that he's needed in the Senate on a full-time basis. When it finally happens, some lucky reader here will receive a signed copy of a "Mormon in the White House?" Unlike many politicians, Hugh and I never forget our promises.

One additional note about the Iowa polls: Click over now to Real Clear Politics' summary of all the recent Iowa numbers. You'll see three polling outfits with results more or less in line with one another. And then you'll see ARG which has numbers wildly out of whack with everyone else's. Hear me now, and know what the pros know – no one who knows about these things trusts the results of an ARG poll. Please, when an ARG poll comes out that casts a favorable light on your candidate of choice, don't send me a crowing email demanding that I link to it. I won't.

SPEAKING OF CANDIDATES OF CHOICE, it's been an interesting week for mine, Mitt Romney. Last Thursday, he went into talk show host Jan Mickelson's studio and engaged in a heated discussion over "the Mormon issue." I thought Romney came across great in that exchange, and so did most other bloggers and commentators. The YouTube has been viewed over 170,000 times, something that probably makes the Romney campaign very happy.

On a less sunny note, yesterday, at an "Ask Mitt Anything" session, Romney was asked to defend his five sons against the charge that they're chickenhawks. Romney started out extremely well by saluting our volunteer army and mentioning his niece's Reservist husband who had just been activated, and then concluded rather clumsily by saying his sons are serving the country by trying to help him get elected president. Generally speaking, volunteering and sacrificing for political campaigns is a noble thing and shows a level of civic involvement that most people respect. But there was something a little off about Mitt saying his sons were serving the country by serving his campaign, especially in the context of discussing military service. Listening to the tape, it seems Romney intended it as a joke and the crowd did laugh. But it wasn't a particularly good joke, and it definitely was an ill-advised one. It was exactly the kind of comment that the press would replay as a "Gotcha!" moment. (Here's the entire clip if you're interested.)

Obviously this isn't a big deal. The chickenhawk thing is a Democrat obsession, not a Republican one. And family members, even if they're involved in the principal's campaign, are widely considered civilians by everyone except the left-wing blogging community and sometimes Mike Wallace. I've never heard a single Republican complain that the Bush twins aren't in Iraq. Or that Chelsea Clinton isn't in Afghanistan. During the 2004 election, I don't think a single Republican made a talking point out of the fact that Senator Kerry's daughters and stepson (the one who did all those hilarious impersonations on the campaign trail) opted for the civilian lifestyle.

What's more, I doubt the Romney campaign would mind if the media collectively decided that the candidates' lives at home should be a pressing issue. I think the Romneys would happily put themselves up against the Clintons in that regard. Lastly, I don't think anyone has suggested that Romney supports the troops with insufficient vigor.

But yesterday's happenings should provide a teachable moment for all our candidates. In this day of YouTubes and cell phone video recorders, now more than ever presidential candidates are one Macaca away from history's ashbin. Hillary Clinton is at a huge advantage in this regard. She's been under this kind of glare for 16 years now, and it shows. She hasn't made a single gaffe this entire campaign. No botched jokes, no clumsy TV interviews, not a single misstep that has sent her campaign into crisis management mode. She has proven herself the master of every circumstance and situation. The woman's got game. It's why she'll be the Democratic nominee.

It works out well for the Republicans that the campaign got so intense so early. Right now, by my estimation, Rudy and Mitt are the two most likely nominees. I like Fred, too, but the train is leaving the station and Fred's not yet aboard. He has reduced his margin of error down to zero, and both Romney and Rudy (like Obama) made a bunch of missteps when they first hit the hustings. It's a new game out there, a lot different from the last time Thompson ran for Senate.

Mitt and Rudy have both gotten better, a lot better, since the campaign started. They'll have to keep improving to defeat Hillary.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

Romney: Giuliani's NYC 'Sanctuary' for Illegal Immigrants

(Reuters)

Romney: Giuliani's NYC 'Sanctuary' for Illegal Immigrants

Republican Presidential Contender Calls Giuliani's New York a 'Sanctuary' for Illegals

By JAKE TAPPER with RON CLAIBORNE

BETTENDORF, Iowa, Aug. 8, 2007 —

In one of the strongest conflicts yet between Republican presidential front-runners, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney attacked rival Rudy Giuliani Wednesday, implying that Giuliani supported illegal immigration when he was mayor of New York.

"If you look at lists compiled on Web sites of sanctuary cities, New York is at the top of the list when Mayor Giuliani was mayor," Romney said at the Abbey Hotel here. "He instructed city workers not to provide information to the federal government that would allow them to enforce the law. New York City was the poster child for sanctuary cities in the country."

The Giuliani campaign issued a statement rejecting the charge. Campaign communications director Katie Levinson said, "I am not even sure we should weigh in on this, given Mitt Romney may change his mind later today about it. Mitt Romney is as wrong about Mayor Giuliani's position on illegal immigration as he was when he last mischaracterized the mayor's record and later had to apologize. New York is the safest large city in America since Mayor Giuliani turned it around -- it is not a haven for illegality of any kind. The mayor's record speaks for itself."

New York became a sanctuary city, where illegal immigrants enjoy some measure of protection, through an executive order signed by Mayor Ed Koch in 1989, five years before Giuliani became mayor in January 1994.

But if Giuliani inherited the policy, he reissued it and seemed to embrace it.

At a June 1994 press conference, Giuliani decried anti-illegal immigration policies as unfair and hostile.

"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens," Giuliani said at the time. "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair."

At a speech in Minneapolis in 1996, Giuliani defended Koch's executive order, that, in his words "protects undocumented immigrants in New York City from being reported to the INS while they are using city services that are critical for their health and safety, and for the health and safety of the entire city."

"There are times when undocumented immigrants must have a substantial degree of protection," Giuliani said.

Romney Leads Iowa, Giuliani Out Front Nationally

Giuliani leads in national polls of the Republican candidates, but Romney is the current front-runner in Iowa polls of likely Republican caucus-goers, and is favored to win this weekend's straw poll in Ames.

Cracking down on illegal immigration is a compelling issue for conservative Republicans.

"You have to follow the law, and honor and respect the law," Romney said Wednesday. "And if you don't do that and create the perception that we welcome people coming into our cities or communities that are here illegally & you attract people into this country to come illegally. That's why we went from 3 million illegal aliens to 12 million illegal aliens."

Romney described Giuliani as having an "open door policy that said, 'Come on in, we want you if you're undocumented and this will be a zone of protection. You don't have to worry about city officials providing information to the federal government.'"

Romney first leveled the "sanctuary city" charge last week, trying to contrast Giuliani's policy as mayor with his own as governor, saying he'd denied driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Monday in Clear Lake, Giuliani protested, saying, "Frankly, that designation would not apply to New York City. What you got to look at in fairness to is the overall results -- and no city in terms of crime, safety, dealing with illegality of all different kinds has done a better job than New York City."

Earlier this year, Giuliani came out against the immigration reform compromise that failed in the Senate, saying he opposed "amnesty." He emphasizes increasing the number of border guards, building a high-tech fence and a national tamperproof ID card for immigrants.

But as he tries to appeal to conservative voters, Giuliani is often competing with his own past views.

Giuliani's History on Immigration

Giuliani has long faulted the federal government for not doing enough to secure the borders. But liberal immigrants' rights groups generally give him high marks during his tenure for sensitivity to their issues.

In 1996, Giuliani compared "the anti-immigration issue that's now sweeping the country" to "the Chinese Exclusionary Act, or the Know-Nothing movement -- these were movements that encouraged Americans to fear foreigners, to fear something that is different and to stop immigration."

That same year he sued the federal government for new provisions in federal immigration laws that would encourage government employees to turn in illegal immigrants seeking benefits from the city.

He said educating the children of illegal immigrants made sense.

"The reality is that they are here, and they're going to remain here. The choice becomes for a city what do you do? Allow them to stay on the streets or allow them to be educated? The preferred choice from the point of view of New York City is to be educated," Giuliani claimed.

For his part, Romney also seems to have had a much more lenient view of illegal immigrants than his current rhetoric would suggest. And while Giuliani may be placing a different emphasis on his immigration views, Romney seems to have changed his in some cases.

For 10 years, Romney used the services of a landscaping company for his Belmont, Mass., estate that hired illegal workers from Guatemala, workers who told the Boston Globe that Romney never inquired about their legal status.

While Romney was governor, the commonwealth of Massachusetts became one of the six states with the largest growth in unauthorized migrant population, from 2002 to 2004, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, with somewhere between 200,000-250,000 new illegal immigrants. Romney was governor from January 2003 until 2007.

Romney in the past voiced support for immigration reform bills far more liberal than the 2007 bill.

In 2005, he called immigration reform efforts by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and President Bush that provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants "reasonable proposals" that were "very different than amnesty. & It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."

In 2006, Romney said "those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."

McCain's 2007 efforts at an immigration reform compromise are seen as one of the main reasons for his recent woes in the polls.

Jan Simmonds and Matt Stuart contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

These kinds of stories chaps my hide

"Romney, who did not serve in Vietnam due to his Mormon missionary
work and a high draft lottery number"

These kinds of stories chaps my hide!  It seems to elude that because
Mitt is a Mormon and was on a mission that that somehow excluded him
from serving in Vietnam.  The reason he didn't go to Vietnam was
because he had a high draft lottery number!  It had nothing to do
with him being on a mission....

re: Romney’s Radical Roots from Mark Hemingway

I don't know if in the long run the fact that Jan recorded Romney's off air conversation will hurt him more than it helped him. I'm not really trying to push the transcript, because I think it will help Romney. I'm trying to push it because people are going to lie, misrepresent, and oversimplify what happened in that booth. While Mark spent all day spinning his thoughts about what Romney said, and inserting himself into the story, I spent most of the day transcribing what actually happened. Who spent their time better? Me or Mark?

Who cares what Mark thinks about what happened. I think it is more important that we first nail down the facts of what happened, so please watch the video, one more time and help me correct any mistakes in the transcript.

It will be a good use of your time.

(see previous post if you don't know what I'm talking about)

Romney’s Radical Roots?

This is such a poorly written article, I am surprised it got on National Review:

It says,

That's because Romney's argument with the Iowa talk-radio host starts with the two discussing their shared affinity for W. Cleon Skousen. "You and I share a common affection for the late Cleon Skousen," the radio host says. The former governor agrees, affirming Skousen was his professor and when the radio host professes his fondness for Skousen's book The Making of America, while he acknowledges he hasn't read it, Mitt quickly says "That's worth reading."

This is demonstratively not true. Romney asks , "That's worth reading?"

To which Jan Mickelson responds to the question, " Oh Absolutely."

Here is my transcript of the interview:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Jan-Mickelson

But it was a question, and that is why I typed the transcript. Watch the video again, Mark.

Also, when Jan said, "You and I share a common affection for the late Cleon Skousen." Romney was VERY non committal. 

Back to my transcript:

Governor Mitt Romney: Mmm.

That is why it is important to have a good transcript of the interview. Because it is such a big deal, and people are watching it so much, we need to be ready for all the spin people are going to give it with the facts of what it does and does not say.

This is what I have so far:

Jan Mickelson: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM, Good morning Sir, Welcome aboard.

 

MR: Thank you good to be with you this morning. Marshaltown, is one of my favorite places. I used to work in marshal town.

 

Jan Mickelson: As a what?

 

MR: I worked there as a consultant to fisher controls. It was one of my first assignments as a young consultant and I made the treck, gosh it was a long period of time, back and forth from Dimoin to Marshaltown. I worked for a guy named Larry Sully who was head of that division. He told me I was going to come to love the people of Iowa and he was right.

 

Jan Mickelson: You have a photographic memory.

 

MR: Not Really. But there are a few things you can remember such as at Rubs, there is a place called Rubs, in Monture and I sued to go there…

 

Jan Mickelson: Did you cook your own

 

MR: I did cook my own.

 

Jan Mickelson: Are you any good?

 

Jan Mickelson: No now and then..I had to keep taking my…I got these real think filet menoins, cause that's what I wanted,  you know you cook it and cook it and it looked like charcoal on the outside, and I got back to my table and it was too raw, and you had to go back, this was…

 

Jan Mickelson: You made your own stake go back?

 

MR: Of course. This…

 

Jan Mickelson: You probably didn't even tip yourself.

 

MR: This was when Rubs had about 10 tables. It is now a much bigger interprise, but this was back, oh gosh, probably in the late 70s.

 

Jan Mickelson: OK. They have wonderful soccer field up there too, Ed Fisher built for the community. They are a progressive community in one sense, but they, uh, anyway that's a different story, because you have talked about immigration before (who hasn't) and immigration has had a huge effect on marshaltown and a lot of rural Iowa communities. Well, welcome abourd sir,

 

MR: Thank You

 

Jan Mickelson: You've been on an ask me anything tour.

 

MR: Yeah

 

Jan Mickelson: Does that apply to me?

 

MR: You can ask whatever you like but I will dodge some of your questions

 

Jan Mickelson: Because our time is extraordinarily limited can I just dispense with the rest of the niceties…

 

MR: Absolutely.

 

Jan Mickelson: and go right to the tough questions.

 

MR: Yeah.

 

Jan Mickelson: At the, ah, um, because you are right now, ah, according to recent public opinion polls running number one in the republican side here, ah, you are the candidate to beat here in Iowa.

 

MR: You know I hope I'm doing well here. I think we've counted and I've been at over 200 events in Iowa and I've met a lot of great people. We've got a great team, doing our best, and hopefully making progress.

 

Jan Mickelson: You and I share a common affection for the late Cleon Skouson.

 

MR: Mmm.

 

Jan Mickelson: The last I talked to you you said he was one of your instructors (does that mean Romney has an effecting for him?)

 

MR: Exactly

 

Jan Mickelson: He was also one of my instructors, via a book he wrote on the making of America. It was a wonderful commentary on the US constitution. It combines Madison's notes with every codicil in the constitution. It tells you exactly what original intent is.

 

(First of all Jan, there wasn't one real intent. The constitution was agreed apon by many different people with many different intents)

 

MR: Isn't that something? That is a book I had not read, and it's worth reading?

 

Jan Mickelson: Oh Absolutely.  

 

Jan Mickelson: You can never be a hustled by a politician again (ooh, magic! You have the keys to knowledge, Jan! You have politician's kryptonite.) If you've actually read the original intent of the framers (Jan seems to think that he is the only one who has ever done this. Mitt Romney graduated with honors from Harvard Law school. Do you think politicians like Mitt Romney, have never read the founding fathers? Here is a news flash for you Jan. Most politicians have probably read the founding fathers more than you have.)

 

MR: Wouldn't it be nice if our supreme court followed the intent of the constitution and the framers, instead of using the constitution as a springboard as some attempt to do.

 

Jan Mickelson: Is Rowe vs. Wade the law of the land?

 

MR: It is now. It is…

 

Jan Mickelson: You just flunked Cleon Skousan's test

 

(What an arrogant prick. Let's play stupid games with semantics)

 

MR: It was improperly decided, I'm sorry to…

 

Jan Mickelson: Cleon is spinning in his grave SIR.

 

MR: I'm sorry to violate the Cleon Scouson test, I'm not familiar with it.

 

Jan Mickelson: Well no the point is the Supreme Court doesn't make law, it can't make law. There are only 3 sources of law and the court is not one of them.

 

(A lot of people have spoken of Jan Mickelson's arrogance, in telling Mitt Romney what HIS religion believes. I think Jan's arrogance manifest itself most because Jan is not a lawyer, and he has in front of him someone Mitt Romney who graduated at the top of class from Harvard Law school, and Jan think that he can teach mitt Romney about how Law is made? Look you now name 3^rd rate talk show host, have some humility. This "I know everything act" is pretty lame.)

 

MR: We obviously apply what the Supreme Court tells us me must do, and in my opinion…

 

(Here is where Mitt Romney starts getting interrupted with every sentence he tries to speak)

 

Jan Mickelson: Even if it's unconstitutional? Even if they just make it up?

 

MR: That, unfortunately, is a decision that the court has the first choice of making… And then

 

(Back to Cleon)

 

Jan Mickelson: You flunked the 2^nd Cleon Skousan test.

 

MR: And then you have redress. This is what happened in my state. The court said that people of the same gender, under the constitution, are entitled to marry…

 

Jan Mickelson: They were wrong.

 

MR: My constitution was written by John Adams in Massachusetts…

 

Jan Mickelson: Yes

 

MR: …and John

 

Jan Mickelson: which excluded legislating from the bench

 

MR: exactly

 

Jan Mickelson: … and so your duty and obligation at that point was to say thank you for sharing, its not law.

 

MR: And the redress at..

 

Jan Mickelson: that's cleaon Skouson's opinion.

 

(As though just because Mitt Romney and Cleon are both Mormon, they should both agree?)

 

(Being incredible deferential)

 

MR: That's Cleaon's option… Our redress at that stage is open to us because the constitution does lay out how to overtern a court decision. In our case its through ballet initiatives and an amendment to our state constitution, which is a process we began and are still fighting for in my state. There are ways of having the people step above the court... what was interesting…

 

Jan Mickelson: But if the court was lawless… if its assuming legislative authority…you don't even have to invoke the redresses you mentioned you just say that is null and void on the face because they are out of their legal jurisdictions…and you don't have to sign anything overwhich they have legal jurisdiction.

 

(Does Jan think saying the word "jurisdiction" over and over makes him a lawyer?

 

This is MassResistance propaganda, and it is completely stupid. It is embarrassing that Jan Mickelson got a hold of it (probably from Brownback) and even more embarrassing that he believes it.)

 

MR: Its not a circumstance I would look forward to…

 

Jan Mickelson: Oh I would

 

MR: … having to confront.

 

Jan Mickelson: I would LOVE to…

 

(And here it is that we get to the real point of the interview. Jan Mickelson gets real loud and pompous here, because he day dreams of being in power.)

 

Jan Mickelson: I'm only speaking for myself here, Mr. Governor, but I want a president who will tell the supreme court when it leaves its constitutional boundaries, to go take a Flying leap, and meet me in the back and we'll settle this like men. Because that is what this country is crying for, and we don't have to amend the constitution aberrant supreme court rulings, if the guy at top, and the political class…

 

(You can tell this guy has psychological problems. He hates "the political class", he daydreams about what he would do if he was in power. He gets very flippant sounding when he says, "sir" or "Governor". He has problems.

 

Jan Mickelson: will assume their constitutional authority, according to Cleon Skouson.

 

MR: I hear what Cleon is saying, I would worry about a circumstance where a president would decide which court decisions…

 

Jan Mickelson: You mean like Adams, and Washingtons, and Jefferson

 

MR: No. Clinton. Alright? I worry about a Hillary Clinton saying, "I don't like that court decision, and I disagree with it, and they've gone on the wrong side, and I've decided I'm going to take a different course…

 

Jan Mickelson: Well there is a different branch of Government too.

 

MR: I understand. I'm not terribly enthused about Harry Reid either. And so what I tell you in my view the right course for Rowe v. Wade, is to have it overturned, and to have it overturned by a court which includes additional justices like Roberts and Alito, and that is the way to have the states finally have the authority that states were intended to have, which is this should be a matter of state decisions not federal decision.

 

Jan Mickelson: What would you do then… On a personal basis you have made a transistion. I'm not going to play the sound bites, but you have been on the record a couple of times in favor of abortion…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What They're Really Saying About Governor Mitt Romney At The Des Moines, Iowa GOP Debate

What They're Really Saying About Governor Mitt Romney At The Des Moines, Iowa GOP Debate

Sunday, Aug 05, 2007 11:25 AM EDT

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "Former Gov. Mitt Romney is the frontrunner in Iowa and he's at the center of the debate at its start." (Chris Cillizza, "Republican Debate In Iowa Begins," Washington Post's The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/ 8/5/07)

Time's Mark Halperin: "I think Governor Romney had the best performance overall. He's been strong in all the debates, comes very well prepared." (ABC WOI-DM's "Vote 2008 Special," 8/5/07)

- Time's Mark Halperin: "Mitt Romney gets an A. I couldn't find a lot of things to criticize in his performance. He faced some tough questions, but he did a good job handling it. It's becoming cliché to say, but he looks and sounds like a president. For a lot of voters that's important." (ABC WOI-DM's "Vote 2008 Special," 8/5/07)

ABC News Political Director David Chalian: "I think Mitt Romney had a really strong performance. ... I think from then on out, he had a very smooth, solid performance, and continues to show why he is leading in these early states." (ABC WOI-DM's "Vote 2008 Special," 8/5/07)

The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "The pre-packaged one-liner of the morning. At least so far. Romney on Obama's desire to meet with enemy leaders and hawkish views on Pakistan: 'He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.'" (Jonathan Martin, "The View From Across The Street," The Politico, http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/ 8/5/07)

- National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I didn't know where [Romney]'d go from the McCain, Giuliani start there.... hitting Obama "from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove" was pretty funny, and to point. And a good ending on the military and the surge." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "The Corner," National Review Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com 6/5/07)

The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "Republican pollster and author Frank Luntz and Fox News have set up a dial group of 29 GOP primary voters from the Des Moines area ... Asked who was winning the debate so far, about a dozen said Romney." (Jonathan Martin, "The View From Across The Street," The Politico, http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/ 8/5/07)

- The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "One small but influential group of voters -- a bit like Iowa itself, come to think of it -- had Mitt Romney winning at the halfway point." (Jonathan Martin, "The View Across The Street," The Politico, 8/5/07)

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "From the "normal American" focus group that just dropped by my Corner Debate Watching Headquarters ... "Romney seems the most pleasant and presidential." Coming off that YouTube fighting with that radio host, he seems like a guy revving for the fight. (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "The Corner," National Review Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com 6/5/07)

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'Moving Islam toward modernity'... Romney's attitude sounds a little like Ronald Reagan's cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union. And it strikes me as a real-world approach taking into consideration the problems we face run deep." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "The Corner," National Review Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com 6/5/07)

ABC News Political Radar: "Romney has a pretty effective -- if not down-the-line conservative -- answer on healthcare: 'We have to have our citizens insured.' And he took a subtle jab at Giuliani's new health care plan, which relies on tax breaks to encourage individuals to obtain health coverage." (ABC News, "Live Blogging From Sunday's Democratic Debate," http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/, 8/5/07)

ABC News Political Radar: "That Romney is smooth, smooth, smooth on the stage -- a really nice disource [sic] on foreign policy..." "Live Blogging From Sunday's Republican Debate," ABCNews' Political Radar, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 8/5/07)

A Statement From Senator Jim DeMint (SC)

Sunday, Aug 05, 2007 10:39 AM EDT

"Mitt Romney again demonstrated why he will make a great President. He has the business experience from outside Washington to take difficult issues head-on while continuing to use innovative solutions to secure America's future."


- Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)
August 5, 2007

A Statement From Former Lt. Governor Toni Jennings

Sunday, Aug 05, 2007 10:37 AM EDT

"In this morning's fourth Republican Presidential debate, Governor Romney again demonstrated that he is the most qualified candidate for President of the United States. Governor Romney won today's debate by clearly outlining his optimistic vision for our nation and focusing on substantive policies that will strengthen our military, economy and families. At this critical time for America, it has never been more important to ensure we have a strong, conservative and principled leader at the helm of our government. As we witnessed this morning, Governor Romney is the right choice to meet the new generation of challenges we face."


- Former Lt. Governor Toni Jennings
August 5, 2007

A Statement From Iowa Chairman Doug Gross

Sunday, Aug 05, 2007 10:32 AM EDT

"In a crowded field, Governor Romney stood out as the only candidate substantively addressing the challenges confronting our nation today. With his vision of a stronger America, Governor Romney has proven that he is the leader we need in the White House. He is also the only major candidate fully committed to the Iowa process and speaking to the concerns of Iowa families. Today's debate was a great start to a week that will conclude at the Iowa Straw Poll."

- Chairman Doug Gross
August 5, 2007

A Statement From Tom Rath

Sunday, Aug 05, 2007 10:31 AM EDT

"Governor Romney once again demonstrated his leadership ability, depth of policy knowledge, and vision for a strong America during today's debate. Time and time again, in town after town across New Hampshire and across the country, Governor Romney has proven he is the candidate most qualified, most capable, and most able to turn Washington around. Governor Romney is the candidate who can keep our nation's military, economy, and families strong and we need him in the White House."


- New Hampshire Senior Adviser Tom Rath
August 5, 2007

Governor Mitt Romney Outlines His Vision To Lead America

Sunday, Aug 05, 2007 10:30 AM EDT

This morning, Romney for President Communications Director Matt Rhoades released the following statement on the fourth Republican presidential debate:

"This morning, Governor Romney won the debate by once again demonstrating why he is the best candidate to lead our nation forward. He spoke directly to the challenges facing America and what we must do to strengthen our economy, military and families. Governor Romney is the only candidate with the vision to build a stronger America.

"We look forward to communicating Governor Romney's message of conservative change this week through the Iowa Straw Poll and into the January Caucuses."

Stats: Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson

Views: 64,976

Comments: 529

Favorited: 39 times

#1 - Most Discussed (Today) - News & Politics

#3 - Most Viewed (Today) - News & Politics

Mitt Romney: The Victory Caucus Interview

Written by N.Z.

Thursday, 02 August 2007

This morning, Ed Morrisey and I had the opportunity to interview former Massachusetts governor and current presidential contender Mitt Romney. We started with a discussion of Governor Romney's new "Surge of Support for the Troops " initiative, and continued into an overall discussion of the war effort. You can download the audio by clicking here (3MB mp3) or can listen online by simply clicking on the button below. I've also transcribed some key statements from the Governor below. Thanks to Governor Romney for taking the time to speak with us, and we hope to conduct similar interviews with other candidates in the near future. On what Americans should know about the surge: "What I'd tell them is if we very quickly withdraw from Iraq, that there is a very real risk that things will get a lot worse, not only in the Middle East, but potentially for Americans as well. And so there's a real risk that if we leave incorrectly, if we leave precipitously, it will be very harmful, and that the best shot we have to protect our interests and the people of the world is if the surge is successful. And the good news is that at least over this last weekend, a couple of people who are entirely divorced from politics, these are analysts with the Brookings Institution, they spent eight days in Iraq and they came back and said 'You know what, this is a war we just might win.' These are people who have been critical of the way the war has been conducted in the past, but who believe that the surge is actually showing signs of progress. And so we have an opportunity now for a very positive outcome. And actually the good news is becoming apparent enough that Rep. Clyburn, a Democrat,  third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, said over the weekend gosh, if things start going well in Iraq, that could be bad for Democrats. Well, it could be good for all Americans, Republican and Democrat if things start going better in Iraq and if the surge works we'll be able to start bringing our troops home in a way that will mean they don't have to go back again. I tell people that we're all frustrated that we're in Iraq as long as we're in, that we've made mistakes, but that at this stage, the best hope we have for our interests and for the people of the world is to see the surge work and there are some promising signs."  On Iran and whether he believes Iran sees a stable Iraq as in their best interest: I think we would try and convince them that a stable Iraq is in their interest, but I think they have to be of two minds, because they have to say that anything that hurts America, they like. And of course the messier and the uglier Iraq is, the better they feel about it. They also of course are making a play to become the hegemonic power in the Middle East by achieving nuclear weaponry. And so I think that while a student of history in the Middle East might tell them that it would not be good idea for Iraq to erupt in massive civil war --- it might spill over your borders, you're going to have an enormous number of refugees coming to Iran from Iraq and that would not be good for you, that while those things might be true, and I'm sure weigh on their minds, they also have to recognize that they have a deep desire to destabilize or to weaken rather America and our strength in the region, and to be seen as a great champion of the Shia people in Iraq... they after all are providing improvised explosive devices, and have been providing as well apparently some military resources to help the insurgency as well as sectarian violence in Iraq. So I'm not as sanguine about them being our friend in this regard, I'd like to try to help them become convinced to become a factor towards stability. But I have to admit that my view is that Iran is one of the great threats that the world faces. That their jihadist philosophy, Ahmendijad's denial of the Holocaust, these combine to suggest that they are a very dangerous nation led by an evil person. On Ahmedinijad and Barak Obama: I do not agree with Barak Obama that the President of the United States in his first year of office ought to make a personal visit to Ahmedinijad. This is a person who ought to be indicted under the genocide convention for incitation to genocide. This is a person who should be shunned by the entire world, not dignified by a visit by the President of the United States. Comments (17) ... written by MH Knight, August 02, 2007 All of these views I wholeheartedly endorse. Teacher written by David Pyle, August 02, 2007 Wonderful. This man is wonderful and will make an excellent President and comments like this only serve to cement that opinion. ... written by Theo Marvin, August 02, 2007 Bring them home now. I cannot support any candidate who won't make that commitment. ... written by Mark Bailey, August 02, 2007 The Iraqis know they are NOT a free people. Neither did they ever really ask for democracy. Our example won't make them want it any more. And of we think that dropping a few bombs on Iran will pacify them, we will be instead involved in a country that's more than double the size and population of Iraq. Both countries deserve their own government, not one sponsored by Exxon/Mobil. Thank you written by David Walser, August 02, 2007 Thank you for the interview. It's good to hear candidates discuss serious issues at length. Very well done. Honest Answers written by Jeff Brennan, August 02, 2007 Hey Theo and Mark At least give Mitt (and the interviewers) a thumbs up for getting a candidate to clearly articulate a position on something important. I mean the difference between this Victory Caucus & Mitt conversation and the YouTube Video Q&A with the Democrats is pretty dramatic. Better yet, be as honest as Mitt is about your position on the war. You don't really want the troops home or for us to give the Iraqi's what they really want. You want the President Bush led war to fail because you loathe him beyond measure. I'd respect that statement a lot more than the gibberish you posted. At least you had the guts to put a name with it. ... written by Carolyn Goldstein, August 02, 2007 I think, that Governor Romney presents the right and knowledgeable approach. Furthermore, he returns a sadly, if not desperately, needed civility to the political arena. ... written by AJ Gunderson, August 03, 2007 Ive got to hand it to Gov. Romney here....this man knows what he is talking about. I hear leadership in his voice. I agree with all that was said and believe that this man could solidify our status of the greatest nation on earth. Great interview! ... written by El-ahrairah, August 03, 2007 Theo, What part of leaving to soon is bad for the Iraqis and the United States don't you understand. Just saying that you want the troops home now without considering the consequences shows your total lack of understanding of world history, or to paraphrase Governor Romney, "your naivity is showing". Mark, You forgot to throw in there "Bush Lied! People Died!". Next time you want to spew anti-war, Democratic talking points, try and do it the right way. Oh, BTW, explain to me that if we invaded Iraq because to steal Iraqi oil, why is the price of oil more now than when we invaded? If the whole reason of the invasion was to take the Iraqi oil for the United States, shouldn't the price of oil be cheaper now? Oops, I forgot, it's all part of some evil Karl Rove secret plot that only tin-hat wearers like yourself have been able to decypher, right? I guess when the mothership comes to take you away, we'll all know the truth, right? ... written by Theo Marvin, August 03, 2007 Yes, I'm among the 65 percent of Americans who disapprove of George Bush's performance, and I thought the war was ill-advised from the beginning. I wonder: how many of you would be willing to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt after 4 years of outrageous blunders and mismanagement in what's billed as so important a battle? Agreed: thumbs up to Victory Caucus for pinning Romney down on something. That's quite a feat. ... written by Jonn, August 03, 2007 Mark: These guys have done a nice job of putting you in your place but a few more comments are in order. The people of Iraq and Iran do deserve their own governments, but what makes you think the regime of Ahmadinejad is wanted by the Iranian people? Or the bloody reign of Saddam was actually chosen by the Iraqis? Every human desires freedom, and the best government system to put that in place is democracy. So of course they want it. Is that not apparent by their voting en masse (better turnout then American elections)? And what about the Iraqi people rising up to participate in the fight against Al Qaeda? The Iraqi battalions and police are becoming more reliable and the citizens are turning against Al Qaeda oppression in their provinces. (btw, nice work El-ahrairah) Not only do they want freedom and democracy, but they are fighting for it. Oil companies have little to do with it. Do your research before espousing liberal talking points. Questions fot Theo written by submandave, August 03, 2007 "I thought the war was ill-advised from the beginning" I will assume by "war" you are referring to the Iraq campaign. I'm curious as to your answers to a few questions: - Did you believe in 2002/2003 that Saddam Hussein either still had the WMD previously inventoried by UNSCOM or still had a weapons production capability? If not, upon what basis was this opinion formed? - If you believed Saddam had WMD/production capability, did you deem, post-9/11, that potential for him to use such weapons/knowledge to aid our enemies an acceptable risk? - If you did not believe Saddam had WMD/production capability, did you expect him to again pursue such weapons if sanctions were lifted? If not, upon what basis was this opinion formed? - Did you support UNSCR 1441, requiring Saddam to provide full accounting of his WMDs and programs? If so, what "serious consequences" other than regime change do you think would have been appropriate given Iraq's non-compliance? Do you think such lesser measures would have helped bolster the UN's and US's credibility or reinforced the impression of both as toothless paper tigers? - Given what we now know about Iraq's bribes via the Oil-for-Food programs, do you believe major benefactors (including France and Russia) would have supported your proposed actions? - If you did not favor forcible regime change, what was your preferred course of action vis-a-vis Iraq? Do you think we should have continued sanctions indefinitely? Should we have vetoed any UNSCR to lift sanctions? - If you preferred a containment approach to Saddam and Iraq, discuss the effects that having an intact Ba'athist Iraq requiring prolonged military presence would have on potential military options available to counter a nuclear Iran? Saddam was an enemy of the US and the battle for Iraq was a battle that had to be fought sometime. I think choosing to fight that battle before Iran achieved her nuclear ambitions was the right choice. I am not saying that military action against Iran is inevitable, but it is certainly a real possibility, and having a presence in Iraq from which to stage such action is a much better position of strength than having military assets tied up with containing a hostile army on the western flank of the area of operations. In fact, the stronger our military position is, the less likely military action against Iran becomes. Realistically, there is no victory scenario in the GWOT that includes an Iran or Iraq (or probably Syria and possibly KSA) under the same political regime as pre-9/11. Our goal is to effect such changes as peacefully as possible, but we must be ready to respond militarilly when necessary. Breaking up the Taliban and denying Al Queda its safe harbor was a necessity. Likewise, it was essential to have Saddam and the Ba'athists out of power in Iraq before Iran achieved its nuclear ambitions. Neither of these were possible through non-military measures. ... written by Theo Marvin, August 03, 2007 Response to submandave: Thank you for the lengthy exam. The issue is really much less complicated than you've tried to make it. I believed from the beginning that a badly executed war would have worse consequences, in terms of our prospects in the "GWOT," than no war at all. I didn't trust George Bush's competence to execute a war effectively, so I didn't support the war. He's wonderful as the cheerleader-in-chief. But a chief executive he isn't. Which is why it's so important that we get it right in 2008. Again, kudos to Victory Caucus for providing this forum. ... written by willis, August 03, 2007 "Both countries deserve their own government, not one sponsored by Exxon/Mobil." How do they get their own government, Mark? The one in Iran seized power in a revolution and decides what candidates the populace can vote on. The one is Iraq selected its on candidates and voted them into office. How does Exxon fit into this? ... written by Geoff B, August 03, 2007 Theo, I notice you did not respond to submandave's questions. This is pretty typical of war opponents. They were "against it from the beginning" and are "against war." But of course when faced with the complicated facts of the actual history involved before the war they cannot come up with answers or alternatives. Life is about making difficult choices in complicated circumstances -- it should not be about criticizing the people who make those difficult decisions afterwards claiming that you always knew better. As for Romney's answers, they are of course well-presented and thoughtful. He will make a great president. I hope we are smart enough to elect him. ... written by Theo Marvin, August 03, 2007 Geoff, Again, I'm not "against war." What I'm against is callow and shockingly incompetent leaders taking us into wars that they're utterly unprepared to win. "Life is about making difficult choices in complicated circumstances." How does this noble-sounding rot square with the portrait of the administration's shoddy war planning that emerges in "Fiasco" or "The Assassin's Gate"? But the responsibility is never with those who actually make the policies, is it? It's obviously the fault of those who dare to criticize. Romney written by R H Martin, August 03, 2007 1/2 of me admires Romney - he did indeed articulate a position on Iraq that is clear, well thought out and better expressed than those of other candidates. The other 1/2 of me feels sorry for him. He just decided to tie himself to a 1 ton anchor and go swimming. The bald political fact is that a position to "stay the course" or something like it has already sunk McCain and will sink anyone foolish enough to follow his example. Add to that the mess over Gonzalez, the NSA surveillance program, the wreckage of the financial health of the federal treasury etc. etc. and what it adds up to is that any Republican candidate who tries to lug Bush and Cheny with them through the campaign is doomed. The Repiublican who rejects Bush and Cheney utterly and offers a credible conservative alternative has a chance in the general election - the elctorate is not as liberal as some Democrats would like to think, but unless a Republican gives them a respectable conservative alternative, the inevitable result will be a return to Democratic control of both the Executive and Legislative branches.

The Fourth Republican Debate From Des Moines, Iowa

Local Coverage Of The Debate

Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 02:05 PM EDT

Click here to find out what time the debate will be broadcast on your local ABC station.

New on Mitt TV: "Why The Ames Straw Poll Is Important"

Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 02:00 PM EDT

What They're Really Saying About Governor Romney's Campaign: Selected YouTube Videos

Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 01:32 PM EDT

Jim Cramer: Romney "Best Business Man In North America"

Lee Iacocca Praises Gov. Mitt Romney

Halperin: Governor Romney Best Funded And Best Organized

Forbes: Gov. Romney "Right On Target"

Todd: No One Has Run A Better Campaign Than Romney

Brinkley: There's a Bit of the Reagan Shine on Romney

Hewitt on Gov. Romney

Governor Romney and Iowa: Selected YouTube Videos

Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 01:29 PM EDT

Greta Tours The Mitt Mobile

Traveling with Mitt: On the Road in Iowa

Iowa Press On Gov. Romney

Gov. Romney Sits Down With The Iowa Press

KGAN: Gov. Romney Campaigns In Cedar Rapids, IA

The Romney Agenda: Selected YouTube Videos

Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 01:20 PM EDT

Gov. Romney: A Surge Of Support For Our Troops

Governor Romney: Time To Shore Up Ethics In Washington

Governor Mitt Romney: "There are a lot of things about Washington that give me real pause. One, by the way, is just watching the scandalous behavior that has been alleged on both sides of the aisle, but frankly I'm particularly disappointed in our own. ... [W]e'll see how many are accurate, but I think we're going to have to find a way to demand a higher standard. There is no excuse for unethical conduct on the part of people who go to Washington to serve this country. One thing I'd like to add, if I'm lucky enough to be President, I will fight for a provision, for a law, which says that if you're convicted of a crime as a government employee or an appointee – you're convicted of a crime that involves violation of the public trust, you've done some kind of abuse of your position – that you get stripped of your pension. A lot of people go [to Washington] for pensions. We're going to take away their pensions if they violate our trust." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At An Ask Mitt Anything, Urbandale, IA, 8/2/07)

Governor Romney On Protecting Our Children

Governor Romney: Conservatism Is A Philosophy Of Strength

Governor Romney: "Conservatism, Republicanism, it's a philosophy of strength. We believe in a strong military. We believe in a strong economy. We believe in strong families and values. We believe in the American people. ... The American people, of course, are the source of our strength – hard working, educated, risk taking, opportunity loving, God fearing American people. People who are willing to sacrifice for their families. People who will give of themselves for freedom, who love America. They've always been the source of our strength and they always will be!" (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The 2007 Young Republican National Convention, Hollywood, FL, 7/7/07)

Governor Romney On The Republican Three-Legged Stool

Governor Romney: "I speak about three-legs to the Republican stool being necessary to win a general election, which is a conservative base in terms of military, economic and family and family values. ... I think we're better if we have a three-legged stool and if we have all parts of our campaign focused on those issues and that's exactly what I intend to do." (Fox News' "America's Newsroom," 6/6/07)

Governor Romney: Benchmarks for Washington

Governor Romney: "We're also going to have to do something we talk about in Iraq. We all talked about benchmarks. Well, how about benchmarks in Washington? Let's lay out what we're going to get done, and instead of just talking about the same old same old, let's streamline and make Washington more efficient." (Fox News Channel, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/15/07)

Governor Romney: Border Security Is Number One

Governor Romney: "[T]he people I speak with as I go to Republican events agree with me that there are three key rules that we have to follow. One is, we have to secure the border. Two is, we have to have an employment verification system to know who's here legally and who's not here legally. That's only fair to the employers to know who is who. And then, finally, for those people that are here illegally today, while it may be fine for them to apply for citizenship and to apply for permanent residency, that they should do so in line with everyone else and they should be given no advantage, no special privilege by having come here illegally." (Fox News' "Your World," 5/24/07)

Governor Romney: Reach Beyond The Shallow Water

Governor Romney: "If there ever was a time for great Americans, great and good Americans, Americans who are willing to cross into the deep waters of life, it is now. You cross into the deep waters of life by marrying and raising good children. There is no work more important to America's future than the work that is done within the four walls of the American home. ..." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, 5/5/07)

Governor Romney: Making Savings Tax Free

Governor Romney: "I'd like middle-income Americans to be able to save their money and not have to pay any tax at all on interest, dividends or capital gains." (MSNBC, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Simi Valley, CA, 5/3/07)

Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G9hydflwEQ

#4 - Most Viewed (Today) - News & Politics

New York Times: Romney Defends His Faith

August 4, 2007,  12:48 pm

Romney Defends His Faith

By Michael Luo

A clip of Republican Mitt Romney in a contentious exchange with a conservative Des Moines radio host over his Mormon beliefs is making the rounds today, offering something of a different critique about his religious faith.

Mr. Romney was interviewed on Thursday morning by Jan Mickelson, of WHO, who essentially challenged him on whether he was really a devout Mormon, a bit of a change from the usual questioning about his beliefs.

Mr. Mickelson pointed to Mormon doctrine discouraging abortion and questioned how Mr. Romney could have ever supported abortion rights. Until some two-and-a-half years ago, Mr. Romney has said that he was "effectively pro-choice," vowing to protect the law of the land in Massachusetts allowing abortion. But in a conversion story he has told many times at this point, when his state began debating the cloning of human embryos for stem cell research, he changed his view.

Much of the exchange occurred when they are not on the air, but the radio show had a camera that was taping Mr. Romney, something he clearly did not know.

In the video clip, Mr. Romney seems clearly irritated that Mr. Mickelson is trying to inform him of the particulars of his church's beliefs.

Mr. Romney explained that while his church bars individual members from getting abortions or encouraging that practice on a personal basis, it is an entirely different matter when it comes to the stances Mormons who are public officials take. He gives the example that he is barred as a member of the church from drinking alcohol, but that does not mean he should make that the law of the land for others.

Mr. Mickelson also questioned Mr. Romney about his knowledge of other aspects of Mormon beliefs, including whether Jesus Christ will appear in his second coming in Missouri.

Mr. Mickelson's point was that Mr. Romney should not be distancing himself from his church's beliefs because that is even more of a turnoff for Christian conservatives who disagree with Mormon theology.

But Mr. Romney lashed back that Mr. Mickelson is "trying to tell me I'm not a faithful Mormon."

This is actually a question that comes up with surprising regularity among Christian conservatives on the trail, who wonder if Mr. Romney is a "cafeteria Mormon" and not even faithful to his own church. It is illustrative of the delicate balancing act that Mr. Romney must do with regard to his faith among Christian conservatives he is courting who are troubled by his church's teachings.

Mr. Romney assured Mr. Mickelson that he is committed to his church, pointing out he served as bishop of his ward, the Mormon equivalent of a Roman Catholic parish, and president of his stake, a collection of wards.

But he pointed out, as he has time and time again, that he is not "running as a Mormon," so the specific doctrines of his church should not be a part of the discussion.

Here is the link.

Pakistan Fires Back At Obama

Officials Criticize Presidential Hopeful For 'Irresponsible' Comments on Military Strikes

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007

---

Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.  (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)


Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007

---

(AP) Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.

Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.

Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.

Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.

"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.

Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.

But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.

In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.

It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.

Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.

Pakistan Fires Back At Obama

Officials Criticize Presidential Hopeful For 'Irresponsible' Comments on Military Strikes

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007

---

Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.  (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)


Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007

---

(AP) Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.

Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.

Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.

Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.

"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.

Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.

But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.

In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.

It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.

Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.

Mickelson in the Morning

Video note!   After some debate,  here's the re-posting of Thursday's intense exchange with Gov Mitt Romney. 

A technical note... All of the in-studio presidential interviews are video taped for later webcasting.   Normally, as in this case,  they are shot with two fixed cameras by the webcaster.  He and the cameras are highly visible. The cameras are mounted on tripods just a few feet from the guest and host.   Most of the time the interviews are mixed down for time and composition,  as in the recent Senator John McCain interview.   In this case the complete one camera feed was posted so no later issues of "editing" could be raised.   ( and because Mickelson looks crappy on camera...  ed. note)

Direct download: mickelson-2007-08-03.mp3
Category: podcasts -- posted at: 6:28 PM

Here are more comments:

Thanks WHO and Jan for re-posting the video. The exchange of ideas was interesting.



posted by: j on Fri, 8/3 09:00 PM EDT

Jay,

Could you share with us the back story on how this video became public? Did Romney know he was being video taped? The whole thing smacks of unfair treatment of your guest. I'm not referring to your "hard" questioning of Romney. I'm referring to videoing someone when they are unaware and broadcasting what was supposed to be a private conversation -- off the record -- between you and your guest. That may be standard procedure in Iowa, but it's considered underhanded at best in other parts of the country. If that's NOT what happened, if Romney knew his comments were being recorded for broadcast (or he gave his permission for their broadcast after the fact), we should know that. If it is what happened, if you violated your guest's trust, we should know that, too.

By the way, I don't think Romney came off poorly in the exchange. It's the surreptitious nature of the recording that's distasteful.

posted by: David Walser on Sat, 8/4 03:57 AM EDT

Jan,

Please forgive my typo! I know your name and don't know how "Jan" became "Jay" in my post, above.

posted by: David Walser on Sat, 8/4 04:09 AM EDT