advertisement
Monday, February 13, 2012
advertisement
While President Bush devoted much of his State of the Union speech to domestic policy proposals, national media stories focused on his comments about Iraq. A major theme in the coverage is Bush's political "weakness" as he enters the final two years of his presidency. In that context, the speech is being generally portrayed as an attempt to revive a Bush presidency against very tough odds mainly the unpopularity of his Iraq policies. Yet early indications suggest Bush may have had some success in gaining popular support for his proposals: The AP reports that a "CBS News poll conducted by Knowledge Networks immediately after the speech found that 82 percent of viewers generally approved of the president's proposals while 18 percent disapproved. However, 68 percent of viewers said Mr. Bush will not be able to accomplish his goals, while 32 percent think he will." The AP goes on to say that according to the poll, Bush "rallied some support for his Iraq plan among those who watched the speech." Before the State of the Union, "43 percent of them backed the plan, while 52 percent of them supported it after the speech."
Media coverage of the speech, however, is once again very negative toward the President. For example, under the headline "A Bid To Rescue A Presidency," the Los Angeles Times asks, "Can this presidency be saved? That's the question that loomed Tuesday." The "broader challenge facing Bush" is "how to rescue the last quarter of his presidency from irrelevance and patch his tattered legacy." Because Bush, adds the Times, "is trying to regain his footing when Iraq is littered with carnage." The Washington Post, in a front-page story titled "The State Of The President: Beleaguered," says Bush faces "what may be the greatest odds any chief executive has faced in a generation," and his "problems all stem from the same issue. The public has lost confidence in his Iraq war policy." On its editorial page, the Washington Post restates that point, writing the state of Bush's "presidency has never been worse."
The Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun noted Bush tried to shift the debate to domestic issues. Indeed, says the Tribune, "the president was more than 3,100 words into his speech before his first invocation of Iraq." But Bush confronts a "formidable reality. No matter the merits of his plans offered Tuesday night, his presidency almost certainly seems destined to be defined by his stewardship of the war in Iraq." Along similar lines, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, AP and McClatchy all refer to Bush as "politically weak." The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times and Washington Post, meanwhile, run stories noting that the President's domestic proposals seemed tilted toward Democratic "priorities" and "themes."
But McClatchy is critical of Bush's call for bipartisanship, arguing Bush "tried to go home Tuesday night," to what "he thought he left behind in Texas when he was a Republican governor with a Democratic legislature," the "mythical bipartisan place he tried to reach out to in his State of the Union address Tuesday was never like the one he romanticized in Texas. It's not what he's built in six years in Washington. And today it's as elusive as Oz." In an editorial, the New York Times echoes that theme: "The problem...was obvious last night -- in six years, Mr. Bush has shown no interest in bipartisanship, and his domestic agenda was set years ago, with huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans and crippling debt for the country."
A markedly harsh assessment of the speech appears in this morning's Washington Post. Under the headline "President's Portrayal of 'The Enemy' Often Flawed," the Post takes issue with Bush's "arguably misleading and often flawed description of 'the enemy' that the United States faces overseas, lumping together disparate groups with opposing ideologies to suggest that they have a single-minded focus in attacking the United States. Under Bush's rubric, a country such as Iran -- which enjoys diplomatic representation and billions of dollars in trade with major European countries -- is lumped together with al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ... Similarly, Bush asserted that Shia Hezbollah, which has won seats in the Lebanese government, is a terrorist group 'second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.'" USA Today, meanwhile, puts some of Bush's statements last night "in context.," taking issue with this assertions on a number of topics, from Iraq to budget policy.
Wide Variety Of Pundit Reaction Commentators disagreed on their assessment of the President's performance. On the positive side, on CBS, correspondent Bob Schieffer said "this was a much better speech and a much better argument for his position than he made when he made the speech announcing the troop increase two weeks ago." The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, appearing on Fox News, thought "it was a good night for the President. I think the foreign policy part of the speech was very strong. I think he is going to win this debate on Iraq." Likewise, GOP strategist Mike Murphy, on CNN, contended the "elephant in the room" was Iraq and the President "did a good job of trying to explain the consequences of immediate failure in Iraq, and thereby make the case for give his plan a chance to work. I think he bought some time, not much." In the Washington Post, media critic Tom Shales writes Bush "flirted with eloquence only at the end of his so-so, nuts-and-bolts State of the Union speech last night," adding that "as seen on all the major and minor networks, the speech was workmanlike and the presentation presentable. Bush seemed determined to keep it low-key."
But Roll Call's Mort Kondracke, on Fox News, said it was "clearly not one of" Bush's "great nights. ... The White House put out a talking points memo to Republican supporters saying that the President tonight would be 'exuberant and determined.' I think the determined part was right but I didn't see much exuberance from him. ... I thought the President's delivery was tepid until he got to his foreign policy section." The Los Angeles Times says in an editorial that Bush "seemed at times to be going through the motions," and on NBC, Washington bureau chief Tim Russert thought the speech was "somber. It really did not have the energy or enthusiasm or passion that we have seen" from Bush "in previous years." The New York Times thought the speech "was limited in ambition and political punch," and the Financial Times calls it "pessimistic."
Webb Tears Into Bush Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, a former Republican elected only two months ago in Virginia, delivered the Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union speech. The AP reports Webb challenged Bush "to redeem the nation's credibility -- and his own -- with an immediate shift toward a diplomatic end to the bloody conflict in Iraq." Said Webb, "The president took us into this war recklessly ... We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed." The Washington Post, McClatchy and USA Today run similar accounts of Webb's nine-minute address.
The senator's performance got generally positive reviews. The New York Times' David Brooks, appearing on PBS, characterized Webb's speech as "intense," "eloquent," "forceful" and "well executed." However, Brooks noted, "There wasn't a hint of bipartisanship" in Webb's speech. On CBS, Katie Couric said "the Democrats picked...Webb for, I think, very obvious reasons. His military credentials are above reproach." CBS correspondent Bob Schieffer added, "Absolutely. He has a son in Iraq. They did not want the President to draw attention away from the war." On NBC, Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said Webb "threw down the gauntlet." Webb countered the President's speech "by saying, you brought us there recklessly, now it's time to get us out. If you don't do it, we're going to do it."
The Financial Times says Webb "holds the ideal credentials to criticise Mr Bush's 'escalation' of the Iraq war while insulating the party against any charge of being soft on national security." The New York Times reports this morning, "In a commanding voice, the senator chastised the administration for its economic and foreign policies, but said Democrats would try to work with Mr. Bush to change course."
In his State of the Union address yesterday evening, President Bush offered a new Federal healthcare plan based on tax incentives as part of his domestic agenda. USA Today reports Bush's healthcare proposal "couples an old idea, capping tax-free benefits for health care, with a new one: a standard deduction for all who buy health insurance. If approved, and the plan faces a chilly reception in the Democrat-controlled Congress, the administration says it would give people who buy their own health insurance equal tax breaks with those who get coverage through their jobs." Several reports go further than characterizing the Democratic response as "chilly." Under the headline "Bush's Insurance Plan Looks DOA," Roll Call says the Bush proposal is "unlikely to see much, if any, action in the Senate this year in the face of near-universal opposition from Democrats and a GOP base still stinging from the Social Security debacle in the 109th Congress." USA Today notes Rep. Pete Stark, "chairman of a key health subcommittee in the House, said he would not even consider hearings on the proposal." The Washington Times adds Stark's dismissal of the proposal was "evidence of the partisanship in the House." The New York Times says "congressional Democrats described the plan as a middle-class tax increase." The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Chicago Tribune offer similar accounts of the proposals' prospects.
Editorials and op-eds this morning offer a range of reaction to the plan. But significantly, some commentators in the Washington Post rap the Democrats for their immediate opposition to the president's plan. In a column appearing in the Washington Post Business section, Steven Pearlstein says, "You'd think Democrats would have welcomed a politically courageous proposal to put a cap on one of the biggest and most regressive features of the individual income-tax code. But instead, they've shifted reflexively into partisan attack mode." And also in the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus writes, "Listening to Democratic reaction to Bush's new health insurance proposal, you get the sense that if Bush picked a plank right out of the Democratic platform -- if he introduced Hillarycare itself -- and stuck it in his State of the Union address, Democrats would churn out press releases denouncing it. This sad situation is largely of Bush's own making." The Washington Post editorializes, "As written, the proposal has flaws, but those can be addressed -- if Democrats are willing to do more than hurl criticism." Meanwhile the New York Times and Detroit Free Press, among other newspapers, criticize the plan from the left.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush also called for reducing the United States' demand for gasoline by increasing the use of "renewable" fuels and higher mileage standards. The Chicago Tribune reports, "President Bush sought Tuesday night to counter criticism that he has failed to do enough to tackle global warming and energy security as he unveiled a 10-year plan to slash US gasoline consumption by 20 percent." The Los Angeles Times says the proposals "to reduce US gasoline consumption...include more specific and ambitious new goals than in previous White House statements, but they also appear to rely on assumptions about energy markets, politics and technology that some experts say are debatable, and include some apparent contradictions." Stories in the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and Washington Post also examine Bush's proposals.
Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the Princeton Ph.D. chosen by President Bush to implement his so-called "surge" proposal in Iraq, enjoyed nearly universal adulatory coverage of his appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday. Predictably, however, the praise for the general was in stark contrast to the disdain heaped on the strategy he has been tasked with carrying out. As the AP puts it this morning, Petraeus "was warmly received" but Bush's plan "faced a rougher reception." Reinforcing that portrayal of the hearing, the New York Times' Maureen Dowd laments that the senators "happily blew a chance to grill...Petraeus...on whether those 21,500 additional troops will be cavalry to the rescue or lambs to the slaughter."
According to the Washington Post, Petraeus "promised simply to provide 'the best leadership and direction I can muster' and 'forthright' military advice, even if he concludes the mission is lost. 'Should I determine that the new strategy cannot succeed, I will provide such an assessment,' he said, reassuring senator after senator that he would speak up if he believed U.S. civilian leaders were making false statements about Iraq." The Christian Science Monitor contends Petraeus "was bluntly critical about the current situation in Iraq perhaps more so than any Bush administration or military witness, ever." The general, says the Los Angeles Times, admitted the situation in Iraq is "dire" and predicted "tough days" ahead, but "he pleaded for time to begin executing a new strategy." The Times characterizes Petraeus as "forthcoming and occasionally blunt." ABC World News' viewers were reminded that Petraeus "warned it will take months to know if the mission is successful" and the AP notes Petraeus "cautioned...against expecting quick results and used bleak terms to describe" the current situation in Iraq. The New York Times and Washington Post run similar reports.
During the hearing several senators supportive of the president's decision to increase US troop levels in Iraq succeeded in eliciting quotes from Petraeus which suggested he took a dim view of bipartisan efforts to pass one of several "anti-surge" resolutions currently circulating in the Senate. The Los Angeles Times reports that when he was asked by Sen. Joe Lieberman if "passage of a resolution denouncing the new Bush strategy would show the enemy that the American people are divided, Petraeus answered yes, it would." However, the Times adds that "after other senators -- both Republicans and Democrats -- objected, Petraeus backed away." Sensing the general needlessly was setting himself up as a target for partisan sniping, former Armed Services chairman Sen. John Warner, who came out against the president's plan yesterday but who has been a steadfast White House ally in the past "cautioned General Petraeus to be sure that 'this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret,'" according to the New York Times. No immediate harm seems to have been done as Sen. Carl Levin, current chairman of the panel, "said later that he was satisfied that the general had not intended to involve himself in the debate." The Washington Post put together a short piece on the exchange between Warner and Petraeus, while the Washington Times and The Hill carry similar accounts of the hearings.
The New York Times reports that as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepared to consider the resolutions in opposition to the surge today, "both Democrats and Republicans said the two bipartisan resolutions were in fundamental agreement on objecting to the troop increase." Majority leader Sen. Harry Reid "said a hybrid version of the resolutions would produce a clearer sign of the depth of opposition to the president's plan than either of the proposals could individually." However, GOP Sen. John Warner "said he saw important distinctions between them. He said he was not prepared to enter any negotiations until after he saw wording approved by the Foreign Relations Committee." The Times notes that the proposal from Mr. Warner, and Sens Susan Collins and Ben Nelson, "declares that the president is the commander in chief and that it is not the Senate's intent to contravene his authority - wording that drew the attention of some lawmakers." The Hill notes the Democrats' work "to bridge the gap between the chamber's two resolutions," while in an op-ed for the USA Today, Sens. Biden and Hagel outline their proposals and blast the President's strategy.
The Politico succeeded in generating a fair amount of blogosphere buzz on its first day of operation yesterday, with an article in which Sen. John McCain "blamed Vice President Cheney for what McCain calls the 'witch's brew' of a 'terribly mishandled' war in which U.S. forces are on the verge of defeat." The Politico reports that Although McCain "had once lavished praise on the vice president, he said in an interview in his Senate office: 'The president listened too much to the Vice President...of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.'" McCain added that Rumsfeld "will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald opened his case against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, saying the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney repeatedly lied in his investigation into the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. However, Libby's defense charged that in fact, he was made the fall guy for the controversy by the White House. The Washington Post reports on its front page that according to his defense team, Libby was "'put through the meat grinder' by the White House shortly after the Iraq war began, scapegoated to conceal the fact that Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, helped disclose an undercover CIA officer's identity." The New York Times says that line of defense "was the first indication that Mr. Libby, who is facing five felony counts of lying to investigators, would seek to deflect some of the blame onto his former White House colleagues." The Wall Street Journal also muses that yesterday's opening statement "shows that Mr. Libby is willing to part ways with his former colleagues at the White House." The Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Washington Times reach the same conclusion.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call's "K Street Files" reports that Sen. Barack Obama's exploratory committee has said that in addition to running down funding from Political Action Committees, it will not accept cash from registered lobbyists. An unidentified lobbyist "said Obama can likely succeed in raising the $50 million he'll need to be competitive in early primaries through online donations and grass-roots support from beyond the Beltway," but other, less well-known Democrats such as Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden probably cannot afford to do so.
Wasting no time following her presidential announcement last weekend, Sen. Hillary Clinton is heading to the key early state of Iowa this week, where recent polls have her trailing several other Democratic candidates. The Des Moines Register reports that Clinton announced yesterday that she will campaign in Des Moines on Saturday, while the Quad City Times reports that she will also be in Cedar Rapids on Saturday, and in the Quad Cities region on Sunday. The AP reports that Clinton is also slated to spend some time in New Hampshire in the next few weeks, with a two-day trip planned in the state for the February 3 and 4. The New Hampshire Union leader reports this morning that Clinton will head to the Granite State under the shadow of Sen. Barack Obama, who drew 1,500 people to an event there in December and was greeted like a rock star. However, a Clinton backer in the state says she may be better served by holding smaller events, more focused on retail politicking.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has picked up a key backer for his Senate bid former House Speaker Denny Hastert. The AP reports that Hastert said in a statement released by the Romney campaign, "Our nation needs proven executive leadership. Whether in business or public service, Gov. Romney has demonstrated a unique ability to inspire people to go further and reach new levels of accomplishment." The Boston Globe says that the announcement of Hastert's support is "a continued sign that Romney is building credibility in Washington. Hastert is probably the most prominent current member of Congress to announce his support for Romney."
In Israel, Romney Talks Tough On Iran The AP reports that Romney is looking to burnish his foreign policy credentials a traditional challenge for a governor seeking the presidency. In Israel yesterday, he called for economic sanctions against Iran "at least as severe" as those placed on South Africa during the apartheid era. Romney also said that if Iran continues on its current course, "The military option remains on the table." The Boston Globe adds that over the past year, Romney "has responded to questions about his lack of foreign affairs experience by making high-profile trips to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reports today that national GOP leaders are pushing Rep. Richard Baker (R) to challenge Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu in 2008. Although Landrieu is considered one of the most vulnerable Senate incumbents in 2008, Baker is non-committal on a run, with a spokesman saying, "He's grateful and encouraged that there are those who would support such an effort, but at this point he hasn't yet had a chance to devote a lot of thought to the opportunity."
Columnist Peter Blake writes in the Rocky Mountain News (1/24) that while a "job in President Bush's Cabinet may not be a good steppingstone to elective office these days," a spokeswoman for Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson (R) says he is "intrigued" by Colorado's open seat Senate race. Sen. Wayne Allard (R) is honoring a pledge to serve only two terms and will not run for reelection, setting up one of the most competitive Senate races in the country.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "Do you know the Constitution does not specify how long the State of the Union address must be? You know who gave the longest State of the Union address ever? Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton. You know who gave the shortest? George Washington, just a couple of minutes. Well, sure, when a politician can't tell a lie, it limits how much they can say, you see."
Jay Leno: "As you know, Hillary Clinton announced she's running for President of the United States, which isn't a surprise to many people, except maybe those who just voted for her for a second term as senator. Well, she put in a good, solid 20 days before she decided to do something else."
Jay Leno: "Beginning today -- beginning today, citizens of the United States will be required to show passports when re-entering the country from Mexico. Mexican citizens, of course, will still be allowed to use the hole in the fence."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5Embed exclusive U.S. News headlines, rankings, columns, and blog postings to your Web site, blog, or social network.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
