Political Bulletin

WASHINGTON NEWS

Bush Presidency At Make Or Break Moment

President Bush will unveil his new Iraq strategy tonight, in what media commentators are terming a make-or-break moment for his beleaguered presidency. In fact, Administration insiders tell the US News Political Bulletin that the White House public relations rollout for the "new way forward" in Iraq is as aggressive as any PR campaign the administration has waged so far. The main reason is that Bush has concluded that his prime time speech tomorrow night will be a make-or-break moment not only for Iraq policy but for the remaining agenda of his presidency. "He sees the urgency, and realizes he must persuade the country that he gets it," says a Bush adviser. For much of the day, Administration officials will be briefing the news media about the speech, trying to shape tonight's coverage. Those briefings will also be conducted by senior officials at the NSC, State Department and the Pentagon. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and new Defense Secretary Robert Gates will be testifying on the war in Iraq and the new plan in hearings on the Hill.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution quotes a longtime Bush media advisor, Mark McKinnon, who says, "This may be the last, best chance to shape policy and opinion on the issue that will define his presidency." Yet McKinnon "is among those, including Bush aides in the White House, who believe that nothing the president says tonight is likely to move numbers in his direction. It's the results that will matter." McClatchy, meanwhile, says Bush "is about to take a gamble that could make or break his presidency and his place in history. ... Some analysts say it could increase pressure for withdrawal if the solutions Bush offers don't bring quick results."

The Los Angeles Times describes Bush spending "hours" yesterday "practicing in front of cameras," quotes members of Congress who have met with him recently saying "he appeared to understand that, after years of upbeat rhetoric and positive assessments that belied a lack of progress inside the country, his credibility was on the line." Sen. Trent Lott "said both Republicans and Democrats would be listening for a note of contrition in the president's voice." The Washington Times reports the White House yesterday conceded that the president "has lost the country's support. 'It's important to bring the public back to this war and restore public confidence and support for the mission,' spokesman Tony Snow said."

A Three-Pronged Strategy The plan Bush will unveil tonight, according to the CBS Evening News, includes a "surge" of up to 22,000 troops and a plan to hand over all security responsibilities to the Iraqis by November of this year. The third aspect in the new strategy, says the Wall Street Journal, is a "modest, relatively inexpensive" job creation campaign, which it considers "a marked shift from the large-scale reconstruction projects and free-market dogmatism of earlier White House efforts." In fact, the Los Angeles Times claims some Administration officials "consider the economic and political aspects of Bush's plan more important than the expected troop increase." However, the New York Times notes that even before the measures have been officially announced, Iraqi "political and business leaders" are "expressing skepticism that any effort to transform a system of state-owned enterprises that has fallen so far into dysfunction could become an engine for job creation in Iraq."

Meanwhile, the AP notes Bush will "ignore" the Iraq Study Group recommendation that he reach out to Syria and Iran diplomatically.

The front-page of today's Post reports that in what might be "a sign of increasing assertiveness" Bush will be "ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against." According to the Post, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have "long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Retiring CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid "said less than two months ago that adding US troops was not the answer for Iraq."

Media Commentators Don't Like It Bush's new strategy is receiving generally negative reviews. An AP analysis piece dismisses it altogether, saying it "sounds a lot like his old one." It "is the latest repackaging of a program that's been wrapped and rewrapped many times." The Los Angeles Times editorial board echoes that sentiment, calling the notion that the strategy is something new "laughable." In the Washington Post Harold Meyerson, writes Bush will "announce that he is sending additional US forces to Iraq, but he's done that before, in almost comparable numbers, to no good effect." Los Angeles Times contributor and law professor Bruce Ackerman suggests that Congress "set a price tag on the long-run cost of the war -- say $500 billion -- and tell the president that he won't be getting a penny more." And in the Boston Globe, MIT Security Studies Program research scientist Cindy Williams warns the surge could push troops to "breaking point."

The Los Angeles Times' neoconservative, Max Boot, takes a unique view of the situation in Iraq, warning that "if we wind up losing the war in Iraq, as now appears likely (though not inevitable), many conservatives know who to blame: the press, or, in blogger-speak, the MSM (mainstream news media). Just as it did during the Vietnam War, a myth is likely to develop in which America's valiant fighting men and women were stabbed in the back by unpatriotic, even treasonous, reporters." Maureen Dowd, in the New York Times, ridicules the president, writing, "With the Surge, as with the invasion of Iraq, W. is like the presumptuous date 'who reserves a hotel room and then asks you to the prom.'"

Also of note this morning is a Wall Street Journal piece by Edward N. Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Luttwak offers a positive assessment of the Iraq war's effects: He claims that that "when the Bush administration came into office, only Egypt and Jordan were functioning allies of the US." However, the Iraq war, he concludes, "has indeed brought into existence a New Middle East, in which Arab Sunnis can no longer gleefully disregard American interests because they need help against the looming threat of Shiite supremacy, while in Iraq at the core of the Arab world, the Shia are allied with the US."

What's In A "Surge"? Hours before Bush's speech, the war over semantics ("surge" versus "escalation") rages on. The Los Angeles Times asks, "Is it harmless semantics? Is it disingenuous spin? One thing is clear: Using the word 'surge' to describe President Bush's forthcoming plan for reshaping US efforts in Iraq has ignited a fiery political brouhaha. ... What infuriates critics of the war, including many liberal Democrats, is that they see 'surge' as a manipulative and deceptive word. It implies a relatively short-term increase in the US military commitment, they say, when the White House intends to keep the additional troops in Iraq much longer, perhaps for several years. Even worse, critics say, the news media have uncritically accepted the word and thus contributed to deceiving the public." The Washington Post considers the "very vagueness" of the term "surge" the attribute which "might make it the politically perfect word for what is likely to be a controversial policy."

While most media outlets are sidestepping the debate by referring to an troop "increase," others are choosing sides: The Washington Post, in a front-page story about Pentagon commanders and their reaction to Bush's proposals, calls Bush's plan a "military escalation." The Christian Science Monitor also refers to Bush's proposed "escalation of the US troop presence in Iraq."

Active-Duty Soldiers Disapprove Of Bush The Dallas Morning News, meanwhile, cites a "year-end" survey by Military Times newspapers which found "more active-duty troops now disapprove of the president's war policies than support them. ... 42 percent of those surveyed disapprove of Mr. Bush's handling of the war, compared with 35 percent who support it." The News adds that the results, "drawn from some of the more conservative career-track military, reflect a growing weariness and frustration over lack of progress in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Democrats Will Put "Surge" To A Vote

Under pressure from their base to confront the President on Iraq, Democrats seem to have decided on their response to Bush Iraq "surge" proposal: They'll put it to a vote but only a "symbolic" one, in what's known as "Senate of the Senate" and "Sense of the House" resolutions. The New York Times says the Democrats' intent is to force Republicans "to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war." The Senate will vote "as early as next week," while the office of Speaker Pelosi, announced that the House will "take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase." In an ominous sign for the White House, the Times says "at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq." Roll Call, meanwhile, estimates nine GOP senators could desert the President. Dana Milbank, in his "Washington Sketch" column in the Washington Post, describes GOP unease over the upcoming votes, saying Republicans "emerged from their weekly party luncheon yesterday displaying more dance steps than the Joffrey Ballet." More bad signs for Bush: Sen. John Warner, a Republican whose opinion on defense matters carries weight in the caucus (and who heretofore had backed Bush) told the New York Times also in an interview yesterday that "he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States."

The President, the Washington Post reports, met with Democrats yesterday and "gravely warned" them "that America's credibility would be shattered if the United States pulled its troops from Iraq, forcing close ally Saudi Arabia to look elsewhere for protection and potentially destabilizing Egypt, the region's most populous country, according to participants in the meeting." The House Democrats "included Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (Mo.), intelligence committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes (Tex.), Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (Calif.), Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (Mich.), Rep. Norm Dicks (Wash.), Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) and Rep. Robert E. Andrews (N.J.). Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten attended the meeting."

Democrats are acting under strong pressure from members of their base and groups such as MoveOn are taking no chances. The Los Angeles Times reports, "It did not take long for Rep. Nancy Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Kansas, to learn the price of defying her party's liberal base. After she said she would support President Bush if he proposed an increase in US troop levels in Iraq, antiwar bloggers fumed and MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group, considered running a television ad attacking her. ... That kind of political pressure is already being applied, not just to junior lawmakers, but also to Democratic leaders."

Democrats Won't Air Rebuttal On MSNBC's Hardball last night, correspondent David Shuster reported that "some Democratic lawmakers believe a Democrat should give a televised response similar to what happens following the State of the Union address to take advantage of the attention and focus by the broadcast and cable networks. But Democratic leaders have not requested air time to make a formal response. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid say it's the President alone who must articulate and implement a policy for Iraq."

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

GOP May Filibuster Minimum Wage Hike

The New York Times reports, "As part of their 100-hour legislative blitz, House Democrats are expected to vote today to increase the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, to $7.25 an hour, in a move that economists say will raise pay for 13 million workers." But the bill's "chances are less certain in the Senate, largely because of friction over a Republican push to include tax breaks for small business in the bill. Senate Republicans have hinted that, without such tax cuts, they will filibuster the measure, a move that the bill's supporters would need 60 votes to overcome." The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and The Hill also run stories on the upcoming minimum wage debate.

House Passes Anti-Terror Bill

The AP reports the first item passed by the House under the new Democratic majority was a homeland security bill, "the first in a string of measures designed to fulfill campaign promises made by Democrats last fall. Patterned on recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the far-reaching measure includes commitments for inspection of all cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft and on ships bound" for the US. The vote "was a bipartisan 299-128."

Despite the bill's easy passage, Republicans weren't pleased with the bill. The New York Times says that "after failing to delay action on the bill, many Republicans felt they had no choice but to vote in favor of it -- and 68 did." Fox News' Special Report reported they "complain that the technology does not exist to inspect passenger jet cargo in a timely fashion." Also, says USA Today, Rep. Jerry Lewis, former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, "chided Democrats for passing a bill 'without any indication as to where the money might be coming from.'"

The Washington Times notes that the Bush Administration said in a statement that the House bill "neither reduces the number of congressional committees with oversight and spending authorization over homeland security matters nor does it do the same for intelligence matters, both steps the September 11 commission has suggested." The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times also report on the House vote.

Bush Withdraws Judicial Nominations

In a nod to the new Democratic majority in the Senate, President Bush on Tuesday withdrew some of his stalled appeals court nominations. The New York Times reports the announcement of the nominees' withdrawal "was widely taken to mean that the president had decided that renominating them would be a needlessly provocative act, one that would anger Democrats without sufficient political payoff from conservatives for sticking by the nominees." The AP reports William Haynes, William G. Myers III and Michael Wallace all "asked to have their appointments withdrawn," while Judge Terrence Boyle "was informed of the White House's decision, according to an ally." McClatchy reports Boyle "refused" to withdraw his nomination, "saying in an interview Tuesday that it wasn't his place. 'I didn't quit,' said Boyle, whose case may be the longest nomination-in-waiting in U.S. history. He was first nominated for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush and was nominated six more times by the current President Bush."

However, says the Washington Post, "Signaling at the same time" that he "is committed to placing more conservatives on the bench," the President "renominated 32 other federal judicial candidates that the previous Senate did not confirm. Bush also nominated a previous candidate for a federal district court to fill one of the four appellate positions." In their editorial pages this morning, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post weigh in on Bush's decision.

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

Top

CAMPAIGN NEWS

Gilmore Kicks Off Long Shot Bid

Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) formed a presidential exploratory committee yesterday, hoping to secure the "Reagan conservative" banner in a field some perceive as lacking a standard bearer for the right. The AP reports that Gilmore said in an interview, "I'm here to offer the right program for the people of the United States. I'm the type of mainstream Reagan conservative that has always kept his promises." The Virginian Pilot adds that after creating the exploratory committee, Gilmore "said he hopes to make a decision soon" on announcing a presidential campaign "after visiting the key presidential caucus and primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina." He "went to those states last year but was barred by federal laws from mentioning his interest in running for president." The Washington Times adds that Gilmore, "a former Army counterintelligence agent," chaired the Gilmore Commission from 1998 to 2002, "which Congress created to assess the nation's ability to respond to a terrorist attack. The commission released a report one week before the September 11 attacks recommending a Cabinet-level office in the White House to combat domestic terrorism and improve cooperation between federal agencies and local law-enforcement authorities."

Gilmore Viability Questioned. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that Gilmore joins "a crowded Republican field as a distinct underdog." Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg said, "There is no one in Iowa or New Hampshire who has ever heard of Jim Gilmore." The Times Dispatch adds, "Rothenberg said he could envision a scenario in which Gilmore's anti-tax philosophy would prevail in a crowded Republican field but said that scenario is highly unlikely."

Bid Could Aim To Boost Senate Candidacy. CQPolitics.com said the Gilmore move "came as a surprise to most observers: He has not run for office since his gubernatorial win in 1997 and has not had a high public profile in recent years, leaving him with much lower name ID than prospective candidates." CQ adds that "some analysts see his presidential exploration as a means for Gilmore to return to political prominence in his home state in time for a possible 2008 Senate bid (should veteran Republican Sen. John W. Warner decline to seek re-election) or for the open governor's seat in 2009."

McCain Secures Backing Of Key GA Republican

The Duluth (GA) Weekly reports that Sen. John McCain's campaign announced that Georgia state GOP Chairman Alec Poitevint "would serve as the Southern Co-Chair for McCain for President should the Arizona Senator decide to run." Poitevint said, "Senator McCain clearly has the track record and experience to lead our nation and he will energize the Republican Party. ... The Senator's commitment to common sense conservatism coupled with his unwavering dedication to winning the War on Terror ensures we will have the right leader at the right time." The Atlanta Journal Constitution adds, "The news isn't much of a surprise, given that Poitevint has long made his sympathies known. But it is significant, because other important members of the Bush wing in the Georgia have already signed on with Mitt Romney." Poitevint's support "is certainly worth some cachet for McCain."

Johnson's Condition Upgraded To Fair

. The AP reports Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson's condition has been changed from "critical" to "fair" and adds that he now no longer requires a ventilator to breathe. Johnson spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said the Senator "remains in intensive care at George Washington University Hospital" but is expected to leave that unit to enter rehab shortly. The AP adds that his office "has said that his recovery is expected to take several months."

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

Top

POLITICAL HUMOR

The Latest From Late Night Comedians

Jay Leno: "Well, congratulations to Florida. They beat Ohio state 41-14 yesterday. ... In fact, it was so bad, I understand today, President Bush offered to send 20,000 additional players to Ohio."

Jay Leno: "To give you an idea how big the game was last night, you know, Congress actually took the day off yesterday so they could watch the game. Now back east, the game didn't even start until 8:30. Congress took the whole day off to prepare to watch the game. Well, that should end the rumors that the Democrats don't have their priorities in order, huh, yeah? Nice to see it's not business as usual."

Jay Leno: "The Democrats say they will harshly scrutinize any new plan by President Bush, unless, of course, there's a big college football game that day. Then, you know -- then, all bets are off."

Conan O'Brien: "This is weird. Al Sharpton is, I guess, getting involved in politics more thoroughly. Yesterday, Al Sharpton was asked about running for president, and he said -- this is an exact quote 'I'm not hearing a lot of meat. When the meat hits the fire, we'll find out if there's some real meat there.' Firstly, I think it's a shame President Bush can't run again because that would be one hell of a debate."

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

Top