Matt Ortega

Readers will notice that there is a new link in the header for Candidate Bios. These are basic profiles on the Republican candidates and include background information such as previous public offices, organization affiliations, interest group ratings, 2008 candidacy data and a Technorati-powered blog buzz chart for the last seven days.

We hope to expand on these, such as more interest group ratings, etc., as time wears on and are open to suggestions.

Be on the look out for other features popping up in the future as well.

Greg Sargent reports that Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor and recent conservative, threw a 1992 fundraiser for Doug Anderson, who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Utah.

The Anderson campaign worker, Tim Hill, told Election Central that he worked for the Anderson campaign as an organizer in the northern part of the state. He said that he recalled overhearing Anderson and a top adviser discussing the fundraiser fairly early in the campaign.

“It was a small fundraiser in Boston,” Hill told Election Central, adding that he couldn’t recall any specifics about it. The executive director of the Utah Democratic Party, Todd Taylor, confirmed that he remembered Hill working on the Anderson campaign.

[...]

As it happens, Romney was apparently aware at the time of the potential political implications of throwing the fundraiser. Hill says that Romney was worried about helping Anderson because he knew it could create problems for him later.

“There was some talk that Mitt wasn’t doing as much as he could be doing,” Hill told us. “Mitt was worried about looking at his future and was worried about pissing off Republicans.” [emphasis added]

Now, it would be foolish to believe Hill’s story without a grain of salt given the hearsay cirumstances of the details, such as the more damaging “pissing off Republicans” quote. But it reinforces the liberal past that will give Republicans another point to attack on.

Kevin Madden, routinely called upon to defend Romney’s non-conservative past, minimized the significance of the fundraiser. Sargent begs to differ:

The new information about the fundraiser is arguably far more significant than the donations, because it shows that Romney didn’t just give Anderson a check — which could be dismissed as a small favor for a friend — but actively moved to help put a Democrat in the Senate.

Romney spokesman Madden dismissed the idea that the fundraiser was significant as a clue to his political leanings at the time. “I would tell you that relationships back in 1992, whether they were personal or political, don’t really have a reflection on where somebody is in 2007,” Madden said. [emphasis added]

By the same logic Madden applies, what reassurance would conservatives have that a Romney candidacy in 2007 is a reflection of what a Romney presidency would be in 2010, or 2012?

The answer is simple: None.

Conservatives, skeptical of Romney’s awakening to Reagan-style Republicanism within the last several years, are looking for Ronald Reagan, circa 1984, not 1944.

In late December, Matt Browner Hamlin wrote that the ability of narratives to thrive, in part, depends on the reactions by conservative media figures, such as Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh.

The day after the 2006 midterm elections, Limbaugh proclaimed that he was “liberated” by the defeat of the Republican-controlled Congress because he, admittedly, no longer had to “carry the water” for “people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried.” He justified lying to his audience because the “stakes were high.”

Heading into the 2008 presidential primary season, Limbaugh is operating under a different MO: honesty.

Contemplating the current field of Republican presidential candidates, Rush Limbaugh sounded like a man with malaise.

“To be honest with you, there’s nobody out there that revs me up,” he confessed to his audience of several million conservative sympathizers on his radio show last week, “so why should I pretend there is?” [emphasis added]

Limbaugh joins RedState in proclaiming, “They all suck.”

With the three leading candidates’ conservative qualifications, at best, questionable, conservative activists just are not happy.

From consultants to bloggers to talk show hosts, there is a climate of suspicion — at times bordering on contempt — among conservative activists about their 2008 choices.

The resumes of Senator John McCain (AZ), former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (NY) and former Governor Mitt Romney (MA) don’t hold up under the scrutiny of conservatives.

Read more »

The vast majority of Americans are opposed to President Bush’s adoption of the “McCain Doctrine,” which will increase U.S. force levels in Iraq by 21,500. War critics point out that Congress should use the power of the purse to stop the escalation of U.S. involvement.

Glenn Greenwald pointed out that Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) is holding a committee hearing “in order to demonstrate that Congress has the Constitutional authority to compel the President to withdraw troops from Iraq, a power that is not merely confined to cutting off appropriations.” But Greenwald has more goods on the issue:

Back in September, when Chris Wallace falsely accused Bill Clinton of emboldening the Terrorists by prematurely cutting-and-running from Somalia (a favorite right-wing meme), it was documented here (as Clinton himself pointed out to Wallace) that it was actually Republican Senators who forced Clinton to withdraw troops by imposing troop withdrawal deadlines on him and threatening further restrictions on his ability to keep troops there. But if one goes back and reviews that debate, it is quite striking that Republicans back then certainly did not seem to believe that Congress lacked the ability to restrict the President’s power to deploy troops. They argued exactly the opposite - that they had that power — and they used it to force Clinton out of Somalia (all excerpts are available here, by searching “Somalia):

In October 1993, Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) argued against the continued presence of U.S. forces in Somalia, citing public opinion and laid claim to Congressional power to force President Clinton to withdraw from the East African nation.

There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.

[…]

Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long–longer than necessary–then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .

[…]

We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.

I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible. [original emphasis]

Greenwald included the words of Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) — 10/4/93; Senator Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina) — 10/5/93; Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) — 10/5/93; Senator Slade Gorton (R-Washington) — 10/6/93; Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) — 10/6/93; Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) — 10/6/93; Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) — 10/7/93.

Greenwald concluded his piece with:

And Sen. McCain in particular made arguments in favor of Congressionally-mandated withdraw that are patently applicable to Iraq today. And he specifically argued with regard to forcible troop withdrawal that “responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States.” The Constitution hasn’t changed since 1993, so I wonder what has prompted such a fundamental shift in Republican views on the proper role of Congressional war powers.

Interesting. An orderly withdrawal from Somalia wasn’t “cutting and running” fourteen years ago. What changed?

Who is the real John McCain, and why should Americans listen to him?

In the 2000 presidential race for the Republican nomination, Senator McCain introduced the “Straight Talk Express” into the lexicon of American politics.

It is a narrative that portrayed the so-called “maverick” McCain as a different kind of politician that chose principle over party. It earned him a “moderate” branding and with the imminent decimation of the GOP majorities in Congress, created an aura of “electability” about him in the pundit class.

During the 2000 primary race, when then-Texas Governor George W. Bush personally started slinging mud, McCain said:

“Bad generals always fight the last war.”

That advice appears to be lost on the 70-year old southwestern senator heading into the 2008 primaries.

Indeed, for 2008, McCain is taking nothing for granted and trying to emulate Bush’s success by veering farther to the right than his now-defunct “maverick” image ever allowed him. This right turn continues to create sharp contrasts between the current McCain and the McCain from 2000. From abortion to war, Senator McCain has allowed his quest for the party’s nomination to take precedent over principle.

McCain’s biggest hurdle, should he win the nomination, will be the continuing occupation of Iraq. The conflict in Iraq does not escape the evolving principles of John McCain. In August 1990, the Arizona senator was quoted in the New York Times that he opposed “trading American blood for Iraqi blood.”

Fast-forward to 2007 where McCain is the biggest supporter of Bush’s war — neck and neck with Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut). McCain’s ownership of the escalation policy adopted by President Bush earlier this month should give Americans pause considering the senior senator’s track record on Iraq: length and difficulty (Iraq won’t be an issue in 2008?), endorsement of the escalation plan and his reservations that it is too small (see: “numbers game” on escalation, including his initial request for 20,000 more U.S. forces and his belief that an increase would “risk broken army” and put a “terrible strain” on military) and incorrect prognostications by his own admission.

Why should Americans believe Senator McCain finally got it right this time?

His Iraq stance is not resonating with the American people and is, in fact, hurting his standing with Americans. (In fact, according to a recent poll produced by the Princeton Survey Research Associates, Americans by more than a 2-to-1 margin say that “since the war began” Congress is “not assertive enough” in opposing President Bush, ergo Senator McCain, on Iraq.)

Documentarian Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films put together a three-minute video that chronicles these and many other contradictions for the website The Real McCain authored by Cliff Schecter.

In Monday’s Los Angeles Times, staff writer Michael Finnegan profiled the new Greenwald ad and the rise of online video in making the case against 2008 candidates.

Read more from Schecter here.