advertisement
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
advertisement
Media analysts are casting the Democrats' decision to pass an Iraq spending bill without a pullout provision as a win for the White House. MSNBC's Hardball, for example, said "after weeks of refusing to back down to the White House, today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did just that." NBC Nightly News reported, "The Democrats will argue they took a tough stand here, but the reality is that facing a veto threat, they backed off." USA Today describes the Democrats as "flinching," the New York Times calls "the decision to back down" a "wrenching reversal for leading Democrats," and the Washington Times titles its front-page story "Democrats Capitulate On War Funds."
In what could be bad news for the Democrats, their concession to the White House has angered anti-war activists and lawmakers, who are now expected to oppose the legislation. In a bizarre turn, the Washington Post notes even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she "was so disappointed" that she might actually vote against the bill. In fact, it's becoming apparent that GOP votes will be needed to pass it at least in the House. The Los Angeles Times recounts that when House Democratic leaders "presented the plan at their weekly caucus meeting, freshmen and members of the Out of Iraq Caucus complained vociferously." And "antiwar groups that stood behind the Democrats as they pressed for a withdrawal also expressed disappointment. 'It is remarkable that they can't stand up to President Bush and his war,' said Susan Shaer, Win Without War National co-chairman." The Washington Times quotes Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, saying, "It's the president's legislation, not the Democrats." Sen. Russ Feingold, "one of the chamber's loudest antiwar voices, called the benchmarks 'toothless.'" Said Feingold, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action."
Will the plan pass the House without the full support of the Democratic caucus? The Hill reports that if Democrats "are looking for Republican votes, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) thinks they can find them. He says he would be surprised if the proposal cannot garner 10 to 15 GOP votes. 'If the bill is without timelines, there would be a few Republicans who have bases and military retirees in their districts who feel the need to support the troops,' Jones said."
There is, however, a caveat to this White House "victory": A number of reports suggest the move only gains Bush a few months (until September) before members of his own party start demanding that his "surge" show results. NBC Nightly News, for example, reported "the real fight is in September," when "the new authorization happens for the war going forward. That's when [Gen.] Petraeus reports to Congress and says whether the surge has worked." On its website, meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that coinciding with the deal, a new poll shows that "while the largest chunk of Americans is still pessimistic about the war in Iraq, there are some signs -- Bush's recent moves -- such as the surge of additional troops into Baghdad that began in February -- have won back a sliver of support, according to a recent poll from Harris Interactive." The new poll "finds that 30% of Americans rate...Bush's handling of Iraq 'excellent' or 'pretty good,' a slight improvement from 27% in March. The president's positive ratings on Iraq have been south of 50% since March 2004."
What About The "Pork?" Largely unmentioned in this morning's media is the fact that in vetoing the first bill, the President cited not one but two key objections: the pullout timetable (that's now out of the equation) and the unrelated domestic spending included in what was supposed to be a war funding measure. As Congress prepares to send a new version of the bill to the White House, what some have termed "pork" will still be there. As the Washington Post noted, the measure "will be split into two parts when it comes before the House," one dealing with war spending and the other with the unrelated domestic items. Once in the Senate, both parts will be put together and once approved will be sent to Bush as one bill. In addition, the Washington Times reports the Iraq legislation will include a hike in the minimum wage. Unless the President has now accepted the "pork" in exchange for the Democratic concession on the pullout issue, a new clash between Congress and the White House could be right around the corner.
Bush Administration and Pentagon officials are reportedly preparing contingency plans for Iraq policy in the event the troop "surge" fails to achieve its goals. The CBS Evening News reported the surge "has not reached full strength, but the Bush Administration has already begun work on a plan B for after the surge." Field commanders "report modest progress," but CBS News "has been told they have also concluded the Iraqi government will not meet any of the benchmarks for political reconciliation among its warring factions. As Admiral William Fallon, the overall commander for the Middle East, put it, 'reconciliation isn't likely in the time we have available.'" Currently, plan B "is nothing more than ideas about how the US could change course in Iraq, but it's a recognition that both political support and the Army are wearing out." On its front page, the Washington Post says "top US commanders and diplomats in Iraq are completing a far-reaching campaign plan for a new US strategy, laying out military and political goals and endorsing the selective removal of hardened sectarian actors from Iraq's security forces and government." The "overarching aim" of the plan, "which sets goals for the end of this year and the end of 2008, is more political than military: to negotiate settlements between warring factions in Iraq from the national level down to the local level."
Bush May Double Combat Troops In Iraq The San Francisco Chronicle reported the Bush Administration is "quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday." The "little-noticed second surge" could "boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The immigration overhaul bill announced last week continues to be the subject of a barrage of criticism from both the right and left. Roll Call reports backers of the immigration deal "are bracing for what could be a rough recess week, planning daily press conferences and other outreach efforts in the runup to the Memorial Day break aimed at countering withering criticism aimed at the deal." USA Today reports the Senate "turned back" an early attack on the broad immigration overhaul Tuesday, "keeping alive a temporary-worker provision that could bring in as many as 600,000 foreign laborers each year." The 64-31 vote was "the first big test for the improbable coalition that wrote the measure and is struggling to keep the fragile deal from unraveling." The bill "still faces myriad assaults."
The Hill says the guest-worker program in the bill "survived its first test late yesterday but remains under siege." In fact, the New York Times reports that "despite the vote on Tuesday, supporters of the bill were clearly on the defensive." McClatchy notes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "indicated his support for curbing the program, calling the yearly influx of 400,000 workers 'far too much.'" And the Washington Times reports yesterday's vote "did not test the possibility of conservatives and liberals teaming up to kill the measure."
Some of the reporting this morning focuses on divisions on this issue within the Democratic camp. The Los Angeles Times says "the debate laid bare disagreements among Democrats on immigration," and Fox News' Special Report reported "the divisions among Democrats" over the immigration bill "appear about as deep as the division with Republicans." The Washington Post notes Democratic opponents of the guest-worker provision "vowed they would come back to the program again and again, with amendments to cut the guest-worker program's size in half, to add an expiration date, to torpedo the program if workers do not comply with the rules, and to bolster worker protections for participants."
Following a story in Tuesday's USA Today, titled "Kyl Catches Grief Over Compromise," the Wall Street Journal reports that during the 2006 campaign, Sen. Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona, "hurled at his opponent a damaging accusation in the border state: He ran TV ads saying the Democrat supported 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants. Now, as Mr. Kyl backs a bipartisan Senate immigration bill, he is hearing the same charge leveled at him by other Republicans in his state and on conservative blogs and radio shows."
Meanwhile, political strategist Dick Morris, in his column for The Hill, writes the GOP "would be self-destructive (not for the first time, either) if they did not let the immigration compromise negotiated by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) pass and become law. The hopes of the entire Latino community are pinned to immigration reform and, if the GOP is seen as blocking it, the consequences for the indefinite future will be horrific."
Senate Democrats have postponed plans to hold a symbolic no confidence on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, citing a cramped pre-Memorial Day recess calendar. The development comes as the House Judiciary Committee prepares for testimony from Monica Goodling, a former Justice Department official who has been linked to the firing of eight US Attorneys. Roll Call reports, "Senior Democratic sources confirmed on Tuesday that the vote" on Gonzales "probably would not occur until after the recess but insisted they were not giving up on the strategy." Meanwhile, Goodling "is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee," which "granted Goodling immunity to compel her testimony and is hoping she will shed light on the firing process in which e-mails released to the committee show she was heavily involved. But Democrats cautioned not to expect any smoking guns."
The Washington Post claims Goodling "was among a small coterie of young aides to Gonzales who were remarkable for their inexperience and autonomy in deciding the fates of seasoned Justice Department lawyers, according to current and former officials who worked with the group." The Los Angeles Times and The Hill also run stories on Goodling.
House Passes Bill On US Attorneys The New York Times /AP reports, "On a vote of 306 to 114, the House passed a bill that would limit the president's power to appoint prosecutors indefinitely." The measure "would restore the process that was in place before last year, which allowed the attorney general to appoint a temporary replacement who could serve for up to 120 days."
The Wall Street Journal reports Susan Ralston, a former top aide to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, "told Congress she will invoke her right against self-incrimination unless granted immunity to answer investigators' questions about lobbyist Jack Abramoff's contacts with administration officials." It is "the first indication that Abramoff-related probes...may be advancing into the White House." Ralston "previously had served as a top aide to Mr. Abramoff."
House Republicans' effort to reprimand Rep. John Murtha for threatening to block a GOP member's earmarks in retaliation for voting against a drug treatment center in his district failed when the majority Democrats voted to table, or kill, the resolution. While the defeat was expected, Republicans saw the episode as a way to draw attention to what they see as the Democrats' failure to live up to their campaign promise to hold Congress to a higher ethical standard. The AP reports that "before and after the largely party-line vote, which caused some Democrats discomfort, Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress. The House voted 219-189 to kill the Republicans' motion." The Washington Post's Dana Milbank writes that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer "moved to table the anti-Murtha resolution the moment the clerk finished reading it. Republicans erupted in jeers and shouts of 'Debate!' Murtha, in his usual seat in the back corner of the chamber, enjoyed a chuckle and accepted handshakes from well-wishers as they left the chamber." The Hill and Roll Call also recount the episode which prompted the GOP effort to reprimand Murtha.
The Los Angeles Times, in an editorial, writes, "It doesn't help the Democrats' image that this dispute over Murtha's comments originated in an earmark, a special-interest provision widely seen as part of the 'culture of corruption' decried by Democrats in the last election."
The CBS Evening News reported last night that a new Pew Research Center poll "shows most American Muslims are critical of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists." But "there are some disturbing findings as well. One in four American Muslims under the age of 30 believe suicide bombings are acceptable in at least some cases if they're defending their religion. And only 40% of all American Muslims said they believe Arab men carried out the September 11 attacks." The Washington Times also leads with the finding that "Young US Muslims Back Suicide Attacks," reporting that the Pew Poll shows "more than a quarter of those younger than 30 say suicide bombings to defend Islam are justified, a fact that drowned out the poll's kinder, gentler findings suggesting that the community is mainstream and middle class."
Despite the findings on suicide bombings and 9/11, most of this morning's papers emphasize portions of the poll that support the case that Muslims in the US are more assimilated and less radical than Muslims throughout the world. The Financial Times, for example, titles its report on the poll: "Muslim Americans In Line With US Values." Similarly USA Today, under the headline "Poll: American Muslims Reject Extremes," reports, "The USA's estimated 2.4 million Muslims hold more moderate political views than Muslims elsewhere in the world and are mostly middle class and willing to adopt the American way of life." The Los Angeles Times runs a similar story.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The AP reports this morning that Rudy Giuliani "was off Tuesday on a second straight day of campaigning across New York with a message aimed at Republican rivals outside his home state: I can battle them for the blues. The 'them' is the Democrats, who have been making much of picking up a red state or two and winning back the White House -- perhaps riding there with Giuliani's home-state rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton." Lee Miringhoff, head of Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion, said, "One of Giuliani's arguments is that he can beat Hillary Clinton, and as long as Hillary remains strong with the Democrats, that is a good argument for Rudy. Part of his strategy with Republicans in red states is he might be able to challenge Democrats in blue states."
Following his formal entry into the race on Monday, the Christian Science Monitor writes today that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) has "the résumé of a top-tier presidential candidate" and the "potential to win a significant portion of the Hispanic vote." But now, "the ultimate question looms: Can he pull all the pieces together and fulfill his potential? Already, in the most important states in the nomination schedule, there are signs that the picture is shifting." Richardson has reached 10% in polls in key states Iowa and New Hampshire, and "ultimately, Nevada, with a large and growing Hispanic population and perhaps an affinity for a fellow Westerner, could be key to Richardson's prospects, as the state holds early nominating caucuses for the first time, analysts say."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D), whose presidential campaign has so far failed to attract many supporters, is adopting a new tactic with a new ad that target's leading Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Iraq. The Hartford Courant reports that Dodd, "normally reluctant to disparage colleagues publicly, will begin running an ad today that takes aim at Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama." Dodd is "reportedly frustrated by a reluctance in the political world and media to give him attention for his legislative initiatives, last week called on Clinton, Obama and others to join him in supporting a timetable for withdrawing most U.S. troops from Iraq." Dodd's new ad, which is set to run starting today in Iowa and New Hampshire, argues that Clinton and Obama are aping his positions on Iraq because they voted for his amendment that called for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by March 31 of next year.
The AP reports this morning that John Edwards (D) is set to run an ad touting his anti-war credentials in Oregon. The move is aimed at tapping into "anti-war sentiment in liberal enclaves that could boost his fundraising and engage core Democratic voters. The ads, focused on Iraq, are expected to run in heavily Democratic Eugene, Oregon's third largest city, and on local cable stations." The ad buy is expected to cost only about $20,000. Oregon is drawing a bit more attention this presidential election because it has moved its primary to February 5, the new de facto national primary day.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "Well, earlier today, President Bush unveiled his tough new immigration policy. He wants to deport Jimmy Carter."
Jay Leno: "The Democrats announced they're going to have six debates in six different cities all around the country. And the good news, Hillary Clinton will use a different accent for each city."
Conan O'Brien: "President of Iraq Jalal Talabani is apparently dangerously obese, so he came to the United States to check into a weight loss clinic. ... Talabani says he came here because America may not know how to run Iraq, but they sure as hell know how to run a fat camp."
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.
