advertisement
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
advertisement
Speaker Nancy Pelosi this morning will ask the Democratic caucus to stand behind her new Iraq plan, which establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government but ultimately funds President Bush's "surge." The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that under the plan, the White House "would get a relatively free hand to increase US forces in Iraq by what is expected to be more than 26,000 troops in coming months." With Democrats increasingly divided between liberals who want an outright push for a pullout and those who, as the Washington Post puts it, "worry about the 'soft-on-defense' stigma that has haunted the party," there is a growing chance that the Iraq spending bill may not pass the House.
Republicans have already indicated they will oppose any bill that includes any restrictions on Bush. This morning, Pelosi's attempt to unify her caucus on the issue is being described in media reports as a very tall order. Roll Call reports Democratic leaders last night "remained largely silent" about the "details" of the plan, which the Washington Post calls "a significant gamble for the Democratic majority." The Post adds it is "far from certain" Pelosi "will succeed in bridging the rifts that have opened inside a passionately antiwar and yet determinedly cautious new congressional majority." The disputes are "already posing a major leadership test" for the Speaker. Because Republicans "have stood remarkably united against the Democratic effort, the loss of just a handful of Democratic votes could lead to an embarrassing public defeat." Right now, "at least a dozen of the 43 conservative 'Blue Dogs'...could bolt if Democrats move toward withdrawal too aggressively. But dozens of antiwar Democrats say they cannot support" legislation that is "too meek."
Indications are that antiwar liberals may not support Pelosi's plan. Yesterday, says The Hill, the Speaker "met with members of the Progressive Caucus," and "Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, did not seem keen to endorse the proposal. 'There's no enforcement mechanism,' she said. 'We have had the same thing in place for two years and we're expecting [Bush] to do something, who has no intention of working with us?'" Another liberal lawmaker, Rep. Maxine Waters, announces in a USA Today op-ed that she "will vote against the supplemental unless the additional funds are used to fully fund the safe, secure and timely withdrawal of our troops by Dec. 31." In fact, the AP suggests this morning that Blue Dogs are becoming Pelosi's major source of support within the caucus.
Republicans seem content to sit back and watch the Democrats fight it out. In fact, the US News Political Bulletin has learned Republican strategists in Congress are buoyed by what they consider Democratic missteps. GOP lawmakers will continue to put out their message against any restrictions on funds, but say that the Democrats are helping them a lot, especially Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat atop the defense appropriations subcommittee. "I think John Murtha is about the Republicans' best messenger on this," said one top Senate Republican aide. Republicans continue to talk about the increase in troops in Iraq as "reinforcement" rather than "escalation" and will continue to hammer Democrats on the "slow-bleed" language. The Republican aide said that House and Senate Republican staffs are working together very closely on the Iraq debate, conducting regular press calls to discuss strategy in both chambers.
Meanwhile, the Washington Times reports Bush "summoned congressional leaders to the White House yesterday to discuss the urgency of approving added war funds for Iraq and Afghanistan." A White House spokesman said Bush also "discouraged Democrats' plans to tack domestic spending items onto the military-funding bill."
Republican insiders are deeply worried about the Scooter Libby verdict's political impact -- especially when combined with the rash of other bad news that has erupted recently concerning the Iraq war. A prominent GOP leader, with close ties to congressional Republicans, tells the Political Bulletin: "In spite of President Bush's happy talk abut the progress in Iraq, this is one more minus for the President." Bad as it is, Libby's conviction for perjury and obstructing justice in the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case wouldn't be so devastating if it were taken alone, the insiders tell the Political Bulletin. But yesterday's verdict came at a very bad time for Bush, when several other negative stories are percolating. "It reminds everybody that we went to war without finding any weapons of mass destruction," a GOP strategist tells the Bulletin. "More of our soldiers are being killed in Iraq, including nine on a single day this week, along with many Iraqis. There is a full fledged investigation of Walter Reed and Veterans' Administration hospitals. All this spells a continuing deterioration of the president's position." What the insiders are most worried about, in a political sense, is that Americans and members of Congress will stitch all these developments together and conclude that Bush has shown bad judgment and a lack of management ability -- undermining his credibility even further and emboldening his critics to challenge him on Capitol Hill across the board.
For a second day, editorialists and commentators cast the Libby conviction as yet another negative development for a beleaguered White House. The Washington Post editorializes, "From the Walter Reed story to the U.S. attorney firings to I. Lewis Libby's conviction, one mishandled crisis follows the next piece of bad news." President Bush "in his second term has appeared battered, bruised and often bewildered -- and never more so than this past week."
In his Washington Post column, Jim Hoagland writes, "Is the vice president losing his influence, or perhaps his mind? That question, even if it is phrased more delicately, is creeping through foreign ministries and presidential offices abroad and has become a factor in the Bush administration's relations with the world. 'What has happened to Dick Cheney?'"
In his New York Times column, Bob Herbert writes the trial "opened the window wide on the twisted values and priorities of the hawkish operation in the vice president's office. No worry about the troops there. And President Bush has always given the impression that he is more interested in riding his bicycle at the ranch in Texas than in taking care of his life and death responsibilities around the world."
On the other hand, in his New York Times column, David Brooks says, "Like everybody who knows him, I greet his conviction with a profound sense of sadness. You can convince me that Libby is guilty, but I'll always believe he's a good man."
The Washington Post says the Libby case offered insights "into a White House culture in which even the top aides who surrounded the president were not entirely open with one another. At the Bush White House described in the Libby trial, news media advisers were frozen out of decisions about how to respond to a crisis, colleagues kept from one another which reporters they had talked with, and the president declassified parts of a highly significant national security document without the knowledge of his chief of staff."
Democrats, meanwhile, are seeking to inflict as much political damage on Bush as possible. Roll Call says Senate Democrats "are looking to tie the recent guilty verdict in the Scooter Libby CIA leak trial with the Bush administration's controversial decision to sack a number of U.S. attorneys late last year as part of a broader national attack on what they call a chronic abuse of the justice system for political gain, aides said this week."
In her New York Times column, Maureen Dowd interviews Juror No. 9, Denis Collins, who said, "Libby followed Cheney's instructions to go talk to reporters, but there's no evidence at all that Cheney told him to lie about it. So the question is, was Libby just kind of inept at getting this story out?" And on MSNBC's Hardball, Juror No. 10 Ann Redington said of Libby, "I think he got caught in a difficult situation where he got caught in an initial lie and it just kind of snowballed." Asked if Libby should be pardoned, Redington said, "Whether or not he should get one, I don't know that I have a valid opinion. But I would like him to get one. ... I don't want him to go to jail."
Bush: Talk Of Libby Pardon Premature With more than a day now having passed since the conviction of Libby on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury, media coverage has turned to the possibility of a presidential pardon. President Bush briefly addressed the subject in two interviews though none of the three broadcast networks covered the Libby story Wednesday night. Asked about a possible pardon during an interview with the Spanish-language network Univision, Bush said, "I'm pretty much going to stay out of it until the case has finally run its final -- the course it's going to take." In an interview with CNN En Español, the President made similar comments, saying, "It's inappropriate for me, or the administration, to be issuing comments about this serious matter." The Washington Post runs several additional Bush quotes in an article this morning, and the AP, USA Today and Washington Post describe the expected legal maneuvering from Libby's lawyers.
But talk of a pardon won't go away. The New York Times writes that "if some people imagined a verdict" in the Libby trial "would calm the political passions surrounding his fate, they may have forgotten two words with a combustible history: presidential pardon. The 11 jurors had barely pronounced Mr. Libby guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury on Tuesday when a new donnybrook broke out." USA Today says "some conservatives are urging...Bush" to act now, while Los Angeles Times runs a similar piece under the headline "Conservatives See A Scapegoat In Libby." One such conservative is columnist Robert Novak, who wrote in his syndicated column that Bush "lost control of this issue when he permitted a special prosecutor to make decisions that, unlike going after a drug dealer or Mafia kingpin, turned out to be inherently political."
The Washington Post reports Senate Democrats "are preparing to subpoena five senior Justice Department officials as part of a widening probe into whether eight US attorneys were fired for political reasons." The Senate Judiciary Committee "is scheduled to vote today to authorize subpoenas for Justice officials, including Michael A. Battle, who carried out the firings, and Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales." In addition to Battle, says the New York Times, "one other official on the possible subpoena list was Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general." McClatchy says the vote to authorize the subpoenas could be held immediately or delayed a week, but a majority of the committee is expected to approve them. A spokeswoman said Leahy would prefer to have the Justice Department officials testify voluntarily but he wants the subpoenas in place as a backup option."
In a related development, the Washington Post reports GOP Sen. Pete V. Domenici "hired a top defense attorney to handle a related probe by the Senate ethics committee, which is investigating allegations that he pressured a New Mexico prosecutor to bring indictments against a Democrat just before the November elections." The Los Angeles Times and Christian Science Monitor run similar stories.
The Hill, meanwhile, reports House Minority Whip Roy Blunt "defended Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), who has become entangled in a controversy over the firings of eight US attorneys last year." The Hill continues, "During his weekly meeting with reporters, Blunt said that it was inappropriate for members to pressure U.S. attorneys but added that he did not believe Wilson did anything wrong. ... 'My view is it is inappropriate for any member of Congress or their staff to pressure a person from the Justice Department in any way,' Blunt said. 'But it is also my view that Heather Wilson has made it clear that she didn't do that, and I have confidence in her.'"
Richardson Vs. Domenici? Roll Call reports, "Democrats seem giddy after a week's worth of negative headlines" about Domenici and Wilson, and "some party strategists have gone so far as to suggest that Domenici could be politically vulnerable for the first time in his 35-year Senate career. ... But there is one Democrat in the Land of Enchantment who may not be so happy with the news -- the most powerful Democrat of them all, Gov. Bill Richardson." Roll Call adds "most party leaders agree" that Richardson, who is running for president, would be the strongest Democrat in a race against Domenici.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
A new Wall Street Journal /NBC News poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic primary field nationally, but, as with other recent polls, Sen. Barack Obama has closed the gap in recent months. Clinton leads with 40%, followed by Obama at 28% and John Edwards at 15%. In a December poll, Clinton led 38%-19%. If Obama and Clinton were the only two candidates in the race, the poll shows Clinton's lead narrowing to 47%-39%. On the GOP side, Giuliani leads with 38%, followed by John McCain with 24% and Newt Gingrich with 10%. In the December survey, Giuliani held a much narrower 34%-29% lead over McCain. In a head-to-head match up in the current poll, Giuliani tops McCain 55%-34%.
Bush Woes May Be Boosting Giuliani A USA Today /Gannett News Service analysis piece out this morning says that in a "paradoxical way," President Bush's travails may be benefiting Giuliani, whose "recent surge in national polls so defies conventional wisdom that it may be indicative of important contours in the 2008 campaign, at least as it is shaping up today." The piece adds, "The search for a candidate identified with strong leadership qualities, as Giuliani has carried since 9/11, may be trumping some of the threshold requirements on abortion rights and other cultural issues that have marked GOP presidential primaries for over a quarter century."
McCain Camp Accelerates Campaign Plans Giuliani's surge appears to be forcing McCain to move his campaign ahead earlier than planned. The Wall Street Journal reports McCain aides "vow a faster-paced travel schedule that gets the senator out of Washington and connecting with voters." McCain will head to Iowa and New Hampshire next week to work those vital early primary states. McCain's Team "argues that national polls overstate Mr. Giuliani's power in the race, not only because the New Yorker's social views are out of step with Republican conservatives but because Mr. McCain is stronger in key early-primary states." However, the aides say that McCain won't attack Giuliani in an effort to blunt his momentum, but will instead "aim to protect Mr. McCain's reputation for positive campaigning while hoping the media and lagging Republican candidates -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback -- feel greater urgency to scrutinize Mr. Giuliani's record and stances on hot-button issues."
New state polling out from Quinnipiac University shows potentially very tight contests in three crucial presidential swing states, particularly if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. In Ohio, in which the GOP had a disastrous 2006 election, the poll shows Clinton edging both John McCain (45%-42%) and Rudy Giuliani (44%-43%). However, results are more mixed for Barack Obama in the Buckeye State he leads McCain 42%-39%, but trails Giuliani 44%-40%.
Clinton looks like she might give the GOP frontrunners a run for their money in Florida. She ties McCain there 44%-44%, but trails Giuliani 47%-42%. However, Obama is less competitive trailing Giuliani 48%-36% and McCain 43%-39%.
Pennsylvania, which has not been competitive either of the last two election cycles despite being widely considered a swing state, looks like it could potentially be a pickup for the GOP in 2008. Giuliani leads both Clinton, 51%-40%, and Obama, 48%-36%. McCain also leads both Democrats, although by narrower margins. He leads Clinton 47%-41% and Obama 43%-38%.
Giuliani, Clinton Tops In All Three State Primary Contests In the Democratic primary, Clinton leads in all three states. In Florida, Clinton pulls 38% of the Democratic vote, followed by Obama, 13%, with Al Gore and John Edwards tied at 6%. In Ohio, Clinton tops the field with 32%, followed by Obama, 19%; Edwards, 13%; and Gore, 11%. The tightest race is in Pennsylvania, where Clinton comes in first with 29%, followed by 18% for Obama, 16% for Gore, and 11% for Edwards.
On the GOP side, Giuliani holds wide leads in all three states. Giuliani pulls 38% in Florida, followed by McCain, 18%, and Gingrich, 14%. In Ohio, Giuliani leads with 35%, while McCain pulls 18% and Gingrich nets 13%. Giuliani's widest lead is in the Keystone State, where he is backed by 43%, followed by McCain at 17% and Gingrich at 8%.
Giuliani, Edwards Lead North Carolina Poll; Gingrich Runs Strong Second In GOP Race In its "Under the Dome" column, the Raleigh News & Observer reports that a statewide poll by Raleigh-based Public Policy Polling shows Giuliani leading the GOP field in North Carolina with 32%, but found that Gingrich is nipping at his heels with 26%. McCain trails in third with 17%, followed by Romney with 7%. On the Democratic side, John Edwards, who represented the state in the Senate, leads with 29%; followed by Obama, 25%; and Clinton, 21%.
Sen. Barack Obama's (D) charmed presidential campaign is coming under some fire in the press today. The AP reports that Obama said yesterday "he was not aware he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and said he had done nothing to aid their business with the government." Obama "faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications. Obama set up a trust that gave his broker authority to trade stocks on his behalf without his input, according to 16 pages of documents he released Wednesday." The New York Times reports Obama "said he retained a broker upon the recommendation of a wealthy friend and top contributor, George W. Haywood. The senator said he did not specifically instruct the broker to follow the investment patterns of Mr. Haywood, who along with his wife, Cheryl, has contributed nearly $50,000 to his campaigns and political action committee." Obama said, "I went to that stockbroker and indicated to him that I wanted to set something up. I did not want to know what stocks were involved that we were going to initiate a process to set up a blind trust. And he could direct those funds based on a more aggressive strategy than the normal mutual fund." The Hill reports that Obama said he directed that the stocks be sold in 2005 "to avoid the appearance of a potential conflict of interest after he received a shareholder communication from one of the companies, though he could not recall details."
Likely blunting the ultimate impact of the story, however, is the fact that Obama ultimately lost money on the investments. The Chicago Tribune notes that Obama said "he terminated the investments at a loss of $13,000 in the fall of 2005."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Conan O'Brien were all in reruns last night.
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.
