advertisement
Sunday, July 6, 2008
advertisement
Most media analysts greeted President Bush's new Iraq strategy with marked skepticism, if not outright hostility. The New York Times says that with his plan, Bush is "ignoring the results of the November elections, rejecting the central thrust of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and flouting the advice of some of his own generals." According to a number of media analysts, the plan is either too "risky" or simply a "gamble" on Bush's part. The new strategy, says the Washington Post, "is likely to touch off a more dangerous phase of the war, featuring months of fighting in the streets of the Iraqi capital, current and former military officials warned." The AP derides Bush's "huge gamble. If it fails, he will have few if any options left." Tim Russert, on NBC, said the President "made it double or nothing. He'll get the escalation in troops, but it really is his last chance." Similarly, CBS' Jim Axelrod said after the speech, "The question you have to ask is, if this doesn't work, where does the President go from here?" The New York Times contends the plan "depends on the good intentions and competence of a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government that has not demonstrated an abundant supply of either." The Wall Street Journal makes a similar assessment.
The AP says Bush's rhetoric last night was "hard to square with facts," while McClatchy reports "many of Bush's new proposals...have been tried before and failed." A second McClatchy analysis adds "many analysts" said "they feared Bush's modified tactics are too little and too late." USA Today calls the plan "not so much a change of direction as an acceleration," adding that "except for the troop increase, none of the ideas is new." The Baltimore Sun sums up the media's doubts when it says Bush "has repeatedly laid out revised goals and strategies for Iraq only to see them crumble amid sectarian violence and a mounting death toll." Reports by the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post express similar misgivings.
The new strategy, moreover, is seen as further weakening the President politically. The Los Angeles Times says the proposals have "further united Democrats," while Republicans "have splintered in the face of widespread popular discontent over the war and Bush's plans to escalate it." Indeed, GOP lawmakers talking to reporters last night were not of one mind. GOP Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham came out strong in favor of Bush's plan, but Sen. John Warner, whose opinion could carry significant sway on undecided Republicans, would only go as far as to say, on CNN's Larry King Live, that it is "the responsibility of the Congress...to give equal study and objectivity to this speech and come up with our own opinions." Other Republican senators openly disagreed with Bush: Sen. Gordon Smith, who had already broken with Bush's Iraq policies, said last night on MSNBC, "The President and I just have a difference of opinion." The Chicago Tribune notes that in addition to Smith and Warner, other senators such as Norm Coleman, Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich have also expressed concerns about increasing troops levels. And USA Today reports "Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, said committing more troops is the wrong answer. 'Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution,' he said."
Editorials in the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times also blasted Bush's speech which found a defender in the conservative Wall Street Journal. Also of note this morning, former Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul Bremer praises Bush's "new strategy" in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Front-page stories in today's New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, among other major newspapers, detail the different elements of the new strategy.
Plans' "Core Elements" Come From November Memo According to the Washington Post, the plan Bush announced last night, or at least "core elements" of it, "were contained in a classified memo" that NSA Stephen Hadley "sent to members of Bush's Cabinet on Nov. 8 -- a month before the bipartisan Iraq Study Group issued its report."
Speech Bumps Bush Approval On Iraq, But Few Have Confidence In Plan. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last night after Bush's speech and released this morning showed a jump in public approval of his handling of Iraq, but few respondents had any confidence that the new plan would shorten the war. In the survey, 34 percent said they approved of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, compared to 28 percent in a similar survey a month ago. In addition, it appears as though the speech and the debate surrounding it have also closed the gap between Bush and the Democrats over who is more competent to handle the war. A month ago, Americans trusted Democrats in Congress more than Bush to better handle the situation in Iraq by a 56 percent to 32 percent margin. In the post-speech survey, that gap is cut to 47 percent to 36 percent.
However, Americans remain opposed to the plan and few think it will shorten the war. 36 percent said they support the plan, while 61 percent oppose it. Only 29 percent think the new strategy will more quickly bring the war to a close, while 19 percent think it will actually make it go on longer. A near-majority (48 percent) think it will make no difference.
The Washington Post reports on its front page that senior House Democrats plan to "attempt to derail funding" for President Bush's proposal to send additional troops to Iraq, "setting up what could become the most significant confrontation between the White House and Congress over military policy since the Vietnam War." USA Today reports House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha said he "plans to use his subcommittee's control over the Pentagon budget to force a new direction in Iraq," using the "Administration's supplemental spending request for Iraq, which is expected to be as high as $160 billion" as a vehicle. Meanwhile, the Washington Times, New York Times and Christian Science Monitor run similar stories on the Democrats' plans.
Editorials in the conservative Washington Times and Wall Street Journal criticize the new Congressional majority party for their reaction to Bush's proposals. In his Roll Call column, Morton Kondracke writes, "Democrats should resist extreme pressure from anti-war forces in their base to undermine what little is left of Bush's popular support and force a withdrawal from Iraq. The reason is that if the United States loses the Iraq War, the consequences will be dire -- and a Democratic president elected in 2008 may well have to deal with them."
In fact, in a sign of what may be coming showdown between liberal and moderate Democrats in Congress, the US Political Bulletin has learned that the antiwar group MoveOn.org has begun mobilizing its three million-plus members to pressure congressional Democrats to go beyond their announced push for symbolic votes opposing President Bush's call for a surge of US to Iraq. "More than opposition, we need [congressional Democrats] to stop escalation," says Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington Director. "It remains to be seen how far they'll go."
MoveOn had previously planned to devote this week to applauding Democrats for passing its "first 100 hours" package of domestic legislation, but it is now emailing members daily -- a pace typically reserved for the week before a national election -- with entreaties to pressure Congress to pass legislation, introduced yesterday by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, to compel Bush to receive congressional approval for sending more troops to Iraq. MoveOn is also planning to launch TV ads later this month in Iowa and New Hampshire, two key primary states in 2008, attacking Republican presidential hopeful John McCain for supporting a surge in troops.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Bloomberg runs a piece this morning that says Bush's plan could make it tougher for the GOP to regain the House and Senate in 2008 and retain the presidency if it does not produce results. Among those the piece says may face tough challengers in 2008 and are distancing themselves from Bush over the troop surge are Sens. Norm Coleman (R) and Gordon Smith (R) and New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson (R). Nathan Gonzales, "an analyst at the Rothenberg Political Report...said Republicans' plans to regain power in Congress and hold onto the presidency could be undermined by a continuing focus on the Iraq conflict." Gonzales said, "If we're still talking about Iraq...Republicans are long shots to keep the White House." And an analysis on CBS News says a non-binding resolution on Bush's proposal planned by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will "put the 21 Republican senators who are up for re-election in 2008 on the spot, giving those who vote against it an opening for their opponents next year."
House Democrats chalked up another victory for their "100 Hour" agenda as the chamber passed a bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour by a vote of 315 to 116. The CBS Evening News noted the bill "faces opposition in the Senate, where Republicans want any wage hike tied to tax cuts for small businesses." But the AP notes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "has already signaled that Democrats will accept pro-business changes. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters that he and other lawmakers are working on between $8 billion and $10 billion in relief over 10 years." USA Today, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times and McClatchy, among other media outlets, report on the House vote.
The New York Times reports the Bush Administration "jumped back into the bitter debate surrounding embryonic stem cell research on Wednesday, urging lawmakers to vote against House legislation to expand such research and calling for a new focus on scientific studies that would not harm embryos." The legislation, sponsored by Reps Diana DeGette, a Democrat, and Michael N. Castle, a Republican, "would permit federal financing of studies on stem cells derived from embryos at fertility clinics that are scheduled for destruction." The Times adds, "Supporters of the House bill acknowledged, however, that they did not expect to have enough votes to override a presidential veto." The Washington Post, however, reports "members of Congress and aides from both parties said supporters have many options not available to them last year. They range from subtle moves that could enhance the odds of overriding a veto to heavy-handed tactics such as attaching the bill to must-pass budget legislation. 'I'm confident we'll have a veto-proof bill this time,' said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)." USA Today notes that last year, the bill passed the House 235-193. According to Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, "a veto-proof majority is more likely in the Senate" this time around.
USA Today reports the Supreme Court "appeared ready Wednesday to uphold a Washington state law that restricts when unions can use fees collected from non-members for political purposes." McClatchy says the Supreme Court "already has said non-members must be able to 'opt out' of paying for political activity; the Washington law went further, saying unions must get them to 'opt in' before pursuing political causes with their money." Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito seemed to agree with the law. Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also "hammered the union's lawyer with questions that reflected serious doubt about his arguments." The Washington Post and New York Times run similar stories.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Veteran Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) announced a presidential bid on Don Imus' radio show this morning a little after 7am. The Hartford Courant says Dodd, "who starts the 2008 race as a barely known long shot, announced he will forgo forming an exploratory committee and will officially enter the race." Both the AP and New York Times questioned the timing of Dodd's announcement, noting that it comes at a time when the media is fixated on reaction to President Bush's Iraq speech. The AP adds that Dodd, describing himself as a dark horse, said that despite that fact, "I know how to do this. I know what has to be done. I'm going to get out and make my case." Dodd plans to make a campaign swing through Iowa later today.
The AP reports that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D) said yesterday that he "wants to help Sen. Barack Obama's possible presidential bid by moving up the state's primary, figuring it will give the Democrat an early win." Madigan is proposing moving the vote to February 5, which would make it the fifth Democratic nominating contest, after Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Madigan said, "These states are not representative of mainstream America. They're clearly not as representative of America as Illinois would be. ... But if Barack is a candidate, recent history tells us the selection process may be finished before it reaches the Illinois primary."
Florida Officials Also Considering Moving Primary. The Miami Herald reports that Florida legislative leaders are looking at a proposal to move its 2008 presidential primary to January 29, which would make it the fifth contest in the nation. The state legislature is scheduled to hold hearings on the bill today, which the Herald describes as having "fast-track status."
The New Hampshire Union Leader reports this morning that Gary Hirshberg (D), CEO of yogurt juggernaut Stonyfield Farms, says he is seriously considering a bid against New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu (R) and expects that he'll make a final decision by the end of this month. Also looking at the race: state sen. David Gottesman (D), Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand (D), and former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D).
Roll Call reports this morning Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D) is giving "serious consideration" to making a gubernatorial bid in California once Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is term-limited out in 2010. She plans to spend the next two years traveling throughout California meeting with constituent groups to assess her prospects.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "I guess you heard, now, the government can now go through your mail, open your mail at any time without a warrant. You know, I had an idea this happened when I got this in the mail. You probably got one. See, it says 'you may already be a winner.' See, look in the corner, it says -- see, 'I checked, you're not, President Bush."
Jay Leno: "Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for universal health care coverage for all Californians. He came up with this idea while falling down the hill in Idaho, breaking his leg. Nothing like a week of dealing with your HMO to convince you you need universal health care coverage."
David Letterman: "Earlier tonight, ladies and gentlemen, there was a big policy address from President Bush about the war in Iraq, and President Bush revealed his new strategy for that war. So, ladies and gentlemen, time to dust off the old 'mission accomplished' banner."
Conan O'Brien: "Big news, earlier tonight, President Bush addressed the nation about his new Iraq plan in a live speech broadcast from the White House library. Yeah, he gave it in the White House library. Or as President Bush calls it, 'my books on tape room.'"
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Copyright © 2008 by the Bulletin News Network, Inc.
11190 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 130 • Reston, VA 20191
advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Best Careers 2008
In a shifting job landscape, we've identified where the growth lies.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
