October 01, 2007
Sunday Snapshot
On "This Week," Newt Gingrich confirmed his decision not to run in '08:
Asked if he had second thoughts, Gingrich: "No. The McCain-Feingold Act criminalizes politics."
Asked what that meant: "Well, we learned yesterday morning -- this was the decisive moment. I had taken leave from Fox. Randy Evans had taken leave from his law firm. We had a Web site set up to launch on Monday. And we were informed yesterday morning that if I had any communication with American Solutions after I became a candidate, it was a criminal offense."
More: "American Solutions is technically a 527, which is a form of fund-raising, which allows us to develop ideas. We've said publicly that any polling data we release we'd be releasing to both parties. We launched a workshop Thursday night, and all day Saturday we had 35 different workshops being broadcast to over 2,000 locations. It's an effort to reach out on a bipartisan basis. ... And I'm very proud of it, and we've had about a year of work going into it. And I thought there was a way that you could continue the momentum of those ideas while I began to prepare a presidential campaign. What we learned yesterday morning was, I mean, it's a literally a go to jail, criminal activity."
Asked if it was a money factor: "Without having even set the Web site up, Randy's estimate was we had several million dollars in pledges. I think we would clearly have been competitive financially within three weeks, and we literally had not even set up the Web site yet. But what hit me was it would have been an underdog campaign. I mean, clearly, if you were going to come from behind, I think it would have been a real campaign. I think we would have had a chance to win. But to give up and kill an organization we spent a year on and that had 2,000 sites around the country where people had now invested their time and effort just to look at whether or not you could run I thought would be irresponsible."
On the state of the GOP: "I think it's conceivable if we nominate the wrong person you could end up in a '64. I think it's more likely you end up in a 1976."
Asked what that means: "That Senator Clinton comes out of the Democratic Convention ahead, that the Republicans nominate somebody and that they close the gap every day until the election but don't quite win, because I think Senator Clinton, in the end, is such a polarizing figure that while I think she's the most likely winner, I don't think she's likely to be a landslide winner under the circumstances."
More: "The Republicans have got to get out from under Washington. And if we nominate somebody who is a continuation of where we are right now, we're going to lose."
Asked which GOPer comes closest to advocating his ideas: "Both Giuliani and Romney are beginning to articulate really dramatic change. I think that Thompson has not yet -- I think Huckabee is very effective, and if Huckabee can find money, he will be dramatically competitive almost overnight."
Asked if Huckabee can win: "He's got to get money. I mean, if he gets money, he becomes instantly competitive, I think" (ABC, 9/30) [EMILY GOODIN].
CLINTON PART DEUX
Ex-Pres. Clinton made a couple of Sunday show stops:
Asked if the "buy one, get on free" slogan from '91 applies: "I think people know us both better. But I think that if you mean you get two people with reasonable talent working hard for America, that's true. But I don't want people to be under any illusion that you'd have two, in effect, independent policy makers. As a matter of fact, Hillary can't legally put me in the Cabinet, as you know, but I would be opposed to it even if she could. I think that I should be out there helping her solve problems and giving my best advice, maybe helping solve the domestic problems."
On Dems saying HRC can't bring people together: "They're saying that because her negative ratings are higher because she's been beat up on for 16 years. And I asked them, do they really want to reward the Republican attack machine that brought us the Swift Boat ads, the same machine that puts Senator Max Cleland's picture in an ad with Saddam Hussein and John Walker Lindh? Yes, they're good at what they do. But you become polarizing in American politics not if you attack somebody, but if someone attacks you."
More: "When the two parties nominate somebody, they will take a fresh look at both, so I just think this argument doesn't hold any water. She's going to do fine."
Asked if HRC wins if he wants a West Wing office: "No, I don't care. If Hillary wins, I want to do whatever she wants me to do. I'll have an office wherever she wants me to have it. I hope that I'll be able to continue to do this and all my foundation work. She has said she wants me to, and I'll have an office wherever I'm given one. If they want to give it to me in the basement of the White House, I'll be happy."
Asked who'll be the GOP nominee: "I can't tell you, and I think it depends on whether Mayor Giuliani can hold on when they try to attack him, and it depends on whether Governor Romney can hold the lead he now has in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he doesn't move up in the national polls -- that is, where the locals leave him -- those are the sort of variables. And then the other sort of variable you can't rule out is John McCain making a comeback with no money."
Asked about Thompson: "I think on Fred Thompson it depends upon -- I really think that if you just take his profile, he's the one they wanted to vote for because they like -- in President Reagan in 1980 and President Bush in 2000, they have somebody they think is rabidly conservative much so amiable and macho and, you know, sort of like a Rorschach test."
More: "I also think your only dark horse that's got any kind of chance is my former governor, Mr. Huckabee. He's the best speaker they've got" ("This Week," ABC, 9/30).
Asked about HRC's answer on torture at the Dem debate: "I think she's right. That is I think America's policy should be to oppose torture, to honor the Geneva Conventions for several reasons. One is, it's almost always counterproductive. If you beat somebody up, they'll tell you what they want to hear. Two is, it, it really hurts us in the rest of the world and helps to recruit other terrorists. And thirdly, it makes our own people vulnerable to torture. You know, there's a one in a million chance that you might be alone somewhere, and you're Jack Bauer on '24.' ... If you have a policy which legitimizes this, it's a slippery slope and you get in the kind of trouble we've been in here with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with lots of other examples. ... If we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don't know what you would do, and you have to -- but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to ... torture, and that if you're the Jack Bauer person, you'll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. ... But I loved how she handled this whole thing."
On HRC saying she'd talk to him later: "She had a chance, because of this moment, to demonstrate what I know to be the truth, which is she's perfectly comfortable making these national security calls and others even if she has to disagree with me and other people with whom she has broad agreement and for whom she has great respect. That's what you want a president to do. You want them to listen to everybody then decide, and you want to have confidence that they will execute their decision with conviction. And I just loved it. Plus, it was funny. ... But I was really proud of her. It was good."
Asked if they're establishing a dynasty: "I think the real question here is not whether she's establishing a dynasty, but almost whether we should eliminate her because she happens to be my wife if she is otherwise the person who would be the best president. I don't like it whenever anybody gets something they're not entitled to just because of their families. ... I think she's the best suited, best qualified nonincumbent I've had a chance to vote for for president for this moment in time. So I don't want to see her eliminated because we've been together for so long, and we've had a life we enjoyed immensely. ... I knew in 1971 that she had the ability to do this. I knew that. And she did not decide for sure to run until New Year's Day this year because she's always felt ambivalent about running for office. It's very interesting. So I just don't want to see her eliminated because she's my wife. As she said, she's going to have to stand or fall on her own merits."
Asked if donors to his library and foundation should be disclosed: "There is ... an act being debated in Congress which would require not only future presidents, but current, former presidents to disclose all their contributors from the effective date of the act. And it's fine with me. If it passes, I'll fully comply. If she gets elected president, whether or not it passes, I will disclose the contributions that people make from there going forward because I think it's very important for people to know that. Because I just don't want there to ever be a question in anybody's mind that someone helped me -- even though I don't touch any of that money personally -- that somebody helped me to do my public work in hopes of currying favor with her. I don't think it would happen, and I know it wouldn't work, but people are entitled to know. You're entitled to know it, ask questions about it and evaluate it. So that's what my policy's going to be."
More: "For example, a lot of Republicans have supported me, and I don't want it to cause them embarrassment or the candidates they are supporting embarrassment in a Republican primary. And that's the sort of thing there are lots of other things where people thought they would be anonymous. As far as I know, none of them are inappropriate in any way, and if, if anything like that comes up, I would feel a duty to disclose or disgorge the contribution."
On the GOPers who didn't show up for the PBS debate: "I don't know what they're doing, but I think it was a mistake" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 9/30).
THE OTHER BILL
Bill Richardson was on "Face the Nation":
On the situation with Iran: "I believe it would be enormously unwise for the Bush administration to start another war before ending this tragic war we're in today. And it does sound like the administration is ramping up. You can just see it. Resolutions in the Senate. And I regret senator Clinton voted for this resolution labeling the Revolutionary Guard terrorists. This was provocative. It didn't need to happen."
On saying he would take all U.S. troops out of Iraq: "I believe that presidential leadership is about character. We have to tell the truth. We have to get out of Iraq. And I have differentiated myself also from Senators Obama and Clinton by having a plan to get out, by getting all residual troops out. Not until all our troops are out would we be able to have a reconciliation, a political settlement, a possible partition, an all-Muslim peacekeeping force headed by the U.N., a donor conference, stability in the region" (CBS, 9/30).
THE VIEW FROM THE EARLY STATES
On "Fox News Sunday," Des Moines Register's Yespsen and Boston Globe's Pindell handicapped IA and NH:
Yepsen: "Mitt Romney is way ahead. And I think there's a lot of Republicans who are trying to sort out who else either might be in the race -- Fred Thompson is now in. He's trying to sort of restart himself here a little bit in Iowa. There's a lot of Republicans who are -- they're not happy with this field and they've been looking for another candidate. Now with Newt Gingrich out of the race, they're going to have to focus on this field that's here."
Pindell: "We are in a very intense three-way primary, and the bottom line also is that if anyone tells you who's going to win the New Hampshire primary, they have no idea what they're talking about on the Republican side."
Yepsen: "John Edwards has lost some altitude, as you put it. ... Senator Clinton, Senator Obama have moved up. But here in recent weeks, this race has been static. All these polls essentially show a statistical tie for first place. And I think that's because the Democratic caucus-goers generally like their choices and they're really struggling to sort out who they might be. I don't count out Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd or Joe Biden from this mix either, because all of them have got a good game going in this state."
Pindell: "The bottom line here for Democrats is that Hillary Clinton is dominating nearly every local metric you can have. Even other campaigns concede that she has the most endorsements, the most powerful endorsements. She has the most experienced staff. She not only has a lead in the polls, but she's growing on that lead. That said, there still is a chance for Barack Obama to come back, particularly in this state. And if everything goes well, John Edwards also has a shot."
More Pindell: "Hillary Clinton really trying to focus and target a Democratic base, while Barack Obama has been really setting his sights on these independent voters and seeing that as his base."
Yepsen, on Thompson: "I don't think he's shaking the GOP race up at all. I think he had a bad rollout on his first big trip here. Even some of his own people weren't that happy. It was about a B-minus-type rollout. He's back in the state now and trying to sort of redo this and get the thing jump-started a little bit. But conservatives were putting a lot of hope on him as someone who could unify and really lead them, the next Reagan, and so far he's not met that standard."
Pindell, on Thompson: "He was built up to be the next Ronald Reagan, and I'm not sure Ronald Reagan could live up to those expectations in '76 or 1980" (9/30).
ROUNDTABLE ROUNDUP
The "Meet the Press" roundtable discussed WH '08:
Pat Buchanan: "It's interesting that the Romney vote is soft. But this thing almost looks like it was scheduled by the Mormon Church. Look the primaries, Iowa's coming in at the 5th of January as of now, New Hampshire's the 8th, three days later. That's not enough time to slow down the winner. Then you got Michigan seven days later. Now, I think the real question is, if Romney can run those three, does he go up enough in the national polls that he can take the negative attack ads? Who's got the money for negative attack ads? Right now, nobody but Rudy. So he's going to have to, I think somebody's got to take down Romney, otherwise I think it goes into a Romney-Rudy race. You go to South Carolina, though, that's going to be Fred Thompson's one shot."
More Buchanan: "If I were Rudy, I'd get a lot of money somehow into Huckabee in Iowa so he knocks off -- you got to slow down Romney from three straight victories. You can't let him go 3-and-0."
Washington Post's Balz, on HRC: "There's two things about Iowa that are a problem for her. One is the strength of John Edwards, which, because he is a factor in there, you have a different kind of race than you have anywhere else in the country at this point. And the second is, she has no long history in Iowa."
The "Fox News Sunday" roundtable discussed WH '08:
NPR's Liasson, on if she's surprised Gingrich chose not to run: "In the end, I guess no, because he kind of waffled about it for so long."
Weekly Standard's Kristol: "Maybe it was a tease all along, you know? It's quite possible, I think. Maybe he never intended to run and just thought it would help get his ideas out to have it be thought he was running." More: "The field is now complete, and one of the four frontrunners, possibly with the exception of Huckabee, is going to be the nominee."
The "This Week" roundtable discussed WH '08:
George Will: "The Republican field is set. Newt's idea, I think, was not to win the White House but to run a Goldwater campaign. Goldwater knew after the Kennedy assassination he wasn't going to be president. He ran anyway to have a purposeful defeat, and that would have been Newt's rationale."
The CNN roundtable discussed WH '08.
The "Face the Nation" roundtable discussed Iran [EMILY GOODIN].
Posted at 08:45 AM
Comments
Nobody cares anymore what Newt Gingrinch thinks. Same old pity party for Newt, I can't run for president and raise tax exempt dollars at the same time. It's criminal. Boo hoo!!!
RiverRed | 10.02.07 08:06 PM
 |
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
