USNews.com: Political Bulletin: Friday, March 9, 2007

Friday, March 9, 2007

WASHINGTON NEWS

Media Discount Democrats' Ability To Get US Out Of Iraq

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate yesterday unveiled proposals to withdraw US troops from Iraq and the White House wasted no time in announcing the President would veto any such plan. In the media, the Democratic initiatives received generally favorable coverage, but much of the reporting also casts doubt on whether the plans actually have a change of passing. In fact, USA Today reports the Democratic leadership faces "the possibility of a highly embarrassing defeat when the...legislation reaches a vote, likely later this month." The CBS Evening News said chances of passage in the Senate are "very tough," as even "some of the better known moderate Republicans" who sided "with the Democrats in the past, Olympia Snow and John Warner," will not support them this time. The New York Times also calls chances of such a plan passing the Senate "slim."

But the situation may be not be much brighter in the House. As the Financial Times cautions this morning, the Democratic initiatives "may...unravel over differences between moderate and liberal factions" in the caucus. Last night, ABC World News noted the Democrats' "internal divisions threaten these bold bills," as "some moderates say they go too far" and "some liberals say they do not go far enough." And NBC Nightly News showed snippets of Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Jan Schakowsky announcing their opposition the plan. The AP reports Rep. Maxine Waters of California said she told" Speaker Nancy Pelosi "she intended to vote no, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas said she 'would have a very difficult time' supporting it." Democrats, the AP notes, "can afford only 15 defections and still be assured of passing their legislation in the House," as "few Republicans are expected to vote in favor."

The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, The Politico, and the Christian Science Monitor all offer pessimistic assessments of the House bill's prospects, while in her Wall Street Journal column, Kimberley Strassel predicts Pelosi won't be able to pass her plan. She writes, "The meltdown among House Democrats over Iraq is rightly being described as the first big test of...Pelosi's leadership. It's also an early example of just how much political damage the antiwar left is capable of inflicting on their new speaker."

Along those lines, Democratic strategists are increasingly concerned that their party's anti-war legislators are becoming too impatient with the slow pace of congressional efforts to stop or limit the Iraq war. It's estimated that the "get-out-of -Iraq-now caucus" includes about 75 members of the House and a number of them have been circulating a letter calling for bolder action to stop US involvement. This is making pragmatic and centrist Democrats nervous. "It's unclear whether they [members of the anti-war faction] will cool their jets," a Democratic insider who advised President Bill Clinton told the US News Political Bulletin. "And if they don't, that will make things much harder for Pelosi" in trying to put together Iraq legislation that stands a chance of passage. "There could be a real long-term split in the party on this, and that would be bad for the Democrats," who need to show they can govern and that they are not weak on national security.

The Los Angeles Times, however, suggests Republicans could have a change of heart:, saying "all Republicans" face the following "dilemma": "to vote for a bill criticized for tying the hands of the commander in chief in wartime, or to vote against a bill that provides the troops already in Iraq with needed equipment." The Times paints an optimistic picture of the House bill's prospects, reporting that "a group of liberal House Democrats put forward their own bill today, one that would bring all the troops home by the end of this year. But if these Democrats had to choose between the leadership's plan or no troop withdrawal at all, there was little doubt which way they would lean." Equally favorable to the plan was a second Los Angeles Times story which says the "Democratic leadership, after weeks of a shifting intramural argument, has decided that the best indicator of America's mood came in the November election."

Some stories this morning focus on the White House's strongly-worded response to the Democratic plans. For example, noting comments by White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, the Washington Post says the Administration "escalated the fight over a new spending package," the AP refers to a "blunt veto threat," and the Financial Times notes "senior White House officials described the Democratic proposal as a 'charade' and a 'comedy,'" in "language that has not been used since Mr Bush promised to work towards a new era of bipartisanship following the Republican party's defeat in midterm congressional elections last November." The central message of Bartlett's comments was that the House bill "would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, and it's safe to say it's a nonstarter for the president."

The White House also tried to call attention to the issue of Democratic divisions. The Chicago Tribune says the White House "dismissed" the House move "as an attempt to find comity among the various Democratic Party factions." Bartlett also "said the newest plan is little more than a 'political compromise in the Democratic caucus of the House' and would have a dire effect on the security of Iraq if it is passed."

MoveOn Polls Key House Districts The Politico reports this that as House Democrats "coalesce around a plan to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by August 2008, a poll commissioned by the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org shows such a proposal has broad support." The survey "showed that a majority of Americans in competitive, conservative-leaning House districts approve of setting a date for troops to withdraw from Iraq." The poll, which "gives liberal activists added ammunition against vulnerable Democrats who have been hesitant to support a withdrawal date or place conditions on funding," found "67 percent of respondents favor a plan that would allow American troops to 'be out of Iraq by early 2008.' ... Of the 50 congressional districts surveyed, 35 were carried by Bush in 2004. Democrats carried the districts by four points overall in 2006, and that lead has expanded to 11 points in head-to-head polling."

Leaders Add Minimum Wage Increase To Iraq Spending Bill The Washington Post reports "House leaders have added legislation raising the federal minimum wage to an emergency spending bill for the Iraq war." They "hope to break a logjam with the Senate over the wage bill, a top Democratic priority that was once seen on Capitol Hill as a relatively easy compromise."

Petraeus May Need More Troops NBC Nightly News reported General David Petraeus "admitted it will be a long haul for US troops in Iraq, that even more troops may be called on to serve and that there is no purely military solution to Iraq's problems." ABC World News noted Petraeus "refused to put a deadline on the US commitment in Iraq" when speaking with reporters. Moreover, the Los Angeles Times says Petraeus "acknowledged...that US-led forces could not protect all Iraqis from 'thugs with no soul' bent on reigniting sectarian warfare." The New York Times notes Petraeus "repeatedly stressed the long-term nature of the troop increase, but his assertions about the need for open-endedness in the American commitment came as Congressional Democrats in Washington worked toward a fixed date for withdrawal." The Christian Science Monitor runs a similar story under the headline "US Commander In Iraq: I Need More Soldiers, More Time," while the AP reports Petraeus said "the US must talk to insurgent groups -- an old idea that's been tried before but has in the past faltered in the complex web of Iraqi politics."

Media Focus On Libby Verdict's Impact On Cheney

While no real news came out of the conviction of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Thursday, the subject continues to get extensive media play, with the impact on the Bush Administration in general, and Vice President Cheney in particular, a popular subject. On the cover of its issue hitting newsstands today, Time shows the Vice President standing beneath a cloud, beside the headline "The Verdict on Cheney." The magazine's Michael Duffy refers to this week's decision as "the Libby verdict. Or, to be more precise, the Cheney verdict."

However, when asked about prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's closing argument discussion of a "cloud" over Cheney, Libby trial juror Ann Redington, again appearing on MSNBC's Hardball, said, "I think he was trying to sort of indict the whole Administration, but it wasn't the point. We were there for one very narrow job, and that was to determine whether or not Scooter Libby lied to the grand jury and whether or not he lied to the FBI and, in doing so, did he obstruct justice. ... I think everybody has an agenda, but I can't speak to what his reasons are." Meanwhile, the AP reports former CIA operative Valerie Plame, the woman at the heart of the original inquiry, "will testify next week before lawmakers probing how the White House dealt with her identity," as will Fitzergald, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said.

Three Washington Post columnists discuss the Libby verdict in their pieces today. In his Washington Post column, headlined "Fitzgerald's Folly" with the sub-headline "A Textbook Case for a Speedy Pardon," Charles Krauthammer writes, "There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten. Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for...what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife. Think about that." E.J. Dionne writes that "when an impartial judicial system does something that conservatives don't like, the will of conservatives, not the rule of law, should triumph." And Eugene Robinson says the White House "would like to strip the guilty verdicts against Lewis Scooter' Libby of any larger meaning. The White House also would like to change the subject." But "did George W. Bush and his Cabinet lead the nation into war on false pretenses? ... That historical question was the context for Libby's trial."

In addition, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, University of California Irvine professor of psychology and criminology Elizabeth Loftus and criminal defense lawyer Richard Steinberg write that while Libby "stands convicted of serious felonies," there "is one big problem: The absence of expert-witness testimony may have contributed to an unjust verdict."

Justice Backs Down Over US Attorneys

The Washington Post reports in a front page story that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales "agreed yesterday to change the way U.S. attorneys can be replaced, a reversal in administration policy that came after he was browbeaten by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee still angry over the controversial firings of eight federal prosecutors." Gonzales "told Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and other senior members of the committee that the administration will no longer oppose legislation limiting the attorney general's power to appoint interim prosecutors."

The AP reports the Bush Administration, "bowing to an uproar over its firing of eight federal prosecutors, agreed Thursday to tightening the law for replacing U.S. attorneys and letting Congress hear from senior officials with roles in the ousters." But McClatchy reports, "The administration's retreat isn't likely to end the controversy, however. Two top Democrats on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department demanding documents on the prosecutors' ousters and interviews with department officials."

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

Top

CAMPAIGN NEWS

Gingrich Was Cheating During Lewinsky Probe

The AP reports that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering a presidential bid, "acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group." Asked about it in an interview with Focus On The Family founder James Dobson to be aired today, Gingrich said, "The honest answer is yes," adding, "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards." The AP adds Gingrich "argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity." Said Gingrich, "The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge."

Hagel Expected To Announce Bid On Monday

The Washington Post reports on "speculation" about "just what" Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) will announce at a news conference on Monday. The Post writes that while Hagel may simply be announcing his Senate reelection bid, "most Republican observers believe that Hagel will announce a bid for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday in Omaha, but warn that he largely keeps his own counsel, making it difficult to predict his plans."

Questions About Viability The Post adds a cautionary note on a Hagel candidacy, writing, "A major problem for Hagel is that while he may be some Democrats' favorite Republican, it remains unclear whether he could seriously compete for the Republican presidential nomination given his ardent opposition to the Bush Administration's Iraq strategy." Similarly, the Washington Times says, "The question on nearly every Republican's lips yesterday was whether Mr. Hagel can raise the $100 million-plus that campaign analysts say will be needed by the end of this year to be a serious 2008 nomination contender."

McCain Praises Giuliani

Campaigning in New York yesterday, Sen. John McCain had nothing but good things to say about primary rival Rudy Giuliani. The AP reports that McCain, in Manhattan, was asked about Giuliani's surge in the polls, and said, "This is early in the campaign. We've got a lot of work to do. We are doing very well in the early primary states. This campaign...is still in spring training." McCain said of Giuliani, "He's an American hero and I can certainly understand why people would admire him very much."

Caucus Creep Continues

More states are moving up their nominating contests. The Washington Post reports this morning that Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and leaders in both houses of the state legislature said yesterday that they back a plan to move their primary to February 12 from its current date of March 4. That would make it the same day as neighboring Virginia's, and also the date being considered by the District of Columbia, creating the potential for a mini-regional primary.

The Nevada GOP is also looking to move up its caucus. After the national Democrats made the Nevada caucus the second Democratic nominating contest overall, the state GOP opted to not to follow suit. However, the AP reports that they may be reconsidering that decision, driven by "concern that Nevada Democrats were reaping a windfall of media and candidate attention." While the state GOP isn't looking to match the Democrats early date (January 19 as it currently stands), they have now approved a plan to move up their caucus by six weeks to February 7.

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

Top