advertisement
Monday, November 9, 2009
advertisement
As reports come in suggesting the "surge" is producing some military but not political results, some conservatives are raising the possibility that Democrats will face a backlash from the voters for their staunch opposition to the Iraq war. Those hopes could be bolstered by a report in the Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire" column, which notes that by "50%-45%, Americans express confidence the U.S. commander in Iraq," Gen. David Petraeus, "will provide an objective assessment of situation on the ground. By 36%-13%, public holds positive rather than negative view of Petraeus. Proportion saying the troop 'surge' is helping grows to 29% from 24% in April."
The conservative New York Sun says this morning that "leading Democrats have seen little risk in demanding a withdrawal of American troops, buffeted by polls that show as many as seven in 10 voters are on their side." But "what if the military situation in Iraq turns around?" Some "are advising caution, warning that Democrats could lose the high ground if they are perceived to be ignoring evidence that President Bush's troop 'surge' is achieving success." In a column appearing in today's Washington Times, Cal Thomas writes, "Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no 'Plan B,' which would be success." Thomas goes on to note comments by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, reported Tuesday on the Washington Post's website. Clyburn "said a favorable report from Gen. David Petraeus could lead 47 moderate-to-conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass such legislation. '[It would be] a real problem for us,' said Mr. Clyburn."
Thomas goes on to cite the New York Times op-ed by Brookings scholars Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack. The authors, who have been critical of Bush's conduct of the war, concluded that "there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008." Thomas says the op-ed is "bad news for Democrats; so invested are they in defeat." The O'Hanlon-Pollack piece continues to generate commentary. This morning, USA Today runs a digest of editorial reaction to its conclusions.
Meanwhile, The State of Columbia, SC, notes GOP presidential hopefuls, campaigning in South Carolina, are using Clyburn's comments as a campaign issue. Mitt Romney said Clyburn's comment was "not encouraging," adding, "I hope we recognize that if Iraq goes well, that's good news for Iraqis, for Americans, for our soldiers and for the world." Sen. John McCain "told The State in an interview Wednesday that Clyburn's comments represent 'some pretty badly skewed priorities.'"
Pelosi: "Surge" Has Failed During an interview with PBS's NewsHour, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last night, "The purpose of the surge was to create a secure environment in which political progress could be made. That has not happened. The President's own benchmarks are not being met. They weren't met in July by the President's own admission. It's hard to see how they will be met in September with the Iraqi government already on vacation there while our soldiers are fighting their fight."
The AP reports President Bush "ridiculed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday -- though not by name -- for saying that the $22 billion that separates congressional Democrats from the White House on spending bills is a 'very small difference.'" Bush said, "Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a 'very small difference.'" The AP adds Bush's "tough talk in the steamy Rose Garden was his latest attempt to frame his side of the debate with the Democratic-led Congress over a dozen spending measures needed to fund federal operations after the current fiscal year ends on Sept. 30."
The Washington Times notes Bush "said the Democrat-controlled Congress wants 'to raise your taxes.'" The president "said yesterday he already has proposed increasing discretionary spending by 6.9 percent, but that Democrats want to add $205 billion in additional spending over the next five years." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday "charged that the president is 'more interested in picking fights than problem-solving.'"
The Washington Post reports Bush "taunted Democrats yesterday for not passing the annual spending bills, even though the next fiscal year will not begin until October. He hosted" Speaker Pelosi "and her husband at a private dinner at the White House on Tuesday, yet Bush took a veiled shot at her in the Rose Garden yesterday."
Major Democratic Provisions Hike Taxes Following a critical story on yesterday's front page, in which it portrayed the Democratic-controlled Congress as largely ineffective, USA Today this morning says "Democrats who took over Congress this year are learning that they can't pay to expand or create programs without increasing taxes." Long "cast as tax-and-spend liberals by the Republican Party," the Democrats "are raising taxes to comply with their self-imposed pay-as-you-go rule that requires tax hikes or spending cuts in order to pay for new spending. That, however, has resulted in veto threats by President Bush and partisan attacks."
Even as the recovery effort continues in Minneapolis, McClatchy reports this morning the disaster is triggering "political finger-pointing over the need for greater infrastructure spending." The Washington Post says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the bridge collapse "a 'wake-up call.'" Reid said, "We have all over the country crumbling infrastructure -- highways, bridges, dams -- and we really need to take a hard look at this." The Politico says "Reid and other Democratic leaders" later "went a step further, bashing Republicans for failing to pass a water resources and development act...for seven years, saying that the bill was essential to investing in American infrastructure."
And on Fox News' Your World, Rep. Dennis Hastert, the former House Speaker, said, "One of the problems here is that we are doing so much nitpicking -- one day you have Gonzales up, you have somebody else in the Administration -- and you're doing all this infighting. We ought to be looking at the bridges." Over on MSNBC's Hardball, House Financial Services Barney Frank placed the fault elsewhere, saying money to make improvements will come "from taxation. And one way we can do that, frankly, in my judgment, is end the war in Iraq."
The three broadcast networks each devoted 15 to 16 minutes of their Thursday newscasts to the bridge collapse, while national newspapers run front-page stories and many related features. Television reports dealt mostly with the personal tragic elements, as well as recovery efforts and details on bridge safety protocols, while print sources also examine policy and political aspects. President Bush "promised federal help to rebuild the bridge" and said he will visit the site on Saturday, ABC World News reported. NBC Nightly News said Bush said "the feds are going to step in and help in any way they can." On MSNBC's Hardball, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Treasury Secretary Mary Peters "already pledged the initial $5 million and pledged to give more." And during an interview with PBS's NewsHour, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress will "vote $250 million from the Special Highway Emergency Fund in order to help rebuild."
Recovery Efforts Continue Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty gave an update on the situation on CNN's The Situation Room, saying, "There is an underwater search taking place with divers, there's a safe zone that has been established that we know there are some vehicles on both sides of the bridge that are submerged, some that are partially submerged. We also know that there are, or suspect there are, some vehicles underneath the bridge that we are not going to be able to get to until those sections of the bridge can be lifted. So it's going to be a slow process but they're getting to those vehicles in the safe zone."
The Washington Post reports police "said the death toll was certain to rise with the recovery of bodies trapped in vehicles under tons of concrete or in the murky river. The recovery effort proceeded slowly, impaired by strong currents, stiff winds and perilous wreckage, including chunks of concrete, mangled steel, and a jumble of cables and electrical wires." The New York Times also says the search for other survivors "was halted repeatedly as currents picked up, debris shifted and the waters grew impossibly cloudy." The Chicago Tribune also says the "search missions bogged down in hazardous conditions Thursday," and added that officials said "the going will be slow." The CBS Evening News said the "dangers divers face are extreme -- avoiding mountains of twisted steel and concrete and cars. A massive debris field that has created pockets of fast-moving water, small whirlpools that can pull a diver to his death. But still, they try."
The Los Angeles Times says "as gawkers took to the city's rooftops to get a look at the wreckage, relatives of the missing waited in numb exhaustion at the Holiday Inn Metrodome, on the north side of the river. They prayed or wept or simply dialed, calling their loved ones' cellphones again and again." The Boston Globe says the "somber relatives sat quietly at the center set up by the American Red Cross, and were greeted occasionally by politicians and officials, as divers prepared to search submerged cars for more victims." The New York Times says some "held out hope that their missing sons, mothers or cousins had simply lost their way, or were alive but unconscious in a hospital."
Bridge Had Been Rated "Structurally Deficient" ABC World News said the bridge "was rated structurally deficient on the federal bridge inventory, a rating it first received in 1990. It now carries a score of only 50 out of 100." Secretary Peters: "What that rating of 50 means is that the bridge should be repaired, should perhaps be considered for replacement in the future. It was by no means an indication that this bridge was not safe." The New York Times says that while the bridge "had been diligently inspected for years and had always passed," it did not "get stellar grades for its condition." The Minneapolis Star Tribune says the Minnesota Department of Transportation "last winter considered bolting steel plates to its supports to prevent cracking in fatigued metal," and "went so far as to ask contractors for advice on the best way to approach such a task." The Duluth News Tribune says Pawlenty ordered the state DOT "to hire an independent firm to conduct the new inspections, which he said would be completed within days on the three bridges similar to the one that collapsed."
The Financial Times says the "disaster appeared certain to intensify calls for increased investment in US transportation infrastructure as it comes under strain from rising levels of traffic." USA Today says the "same federally mandated inspections that show one-quarter of U.S. bridges to be 'structurally deficient' or 'functionally obsolete' also indicate they're in very little danger of collapsing. Of course, that's what the same experts would have said about the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis before it crashed down."
The Christian Science Monitor says the American Society of Civil Engineers "gave the nation a D" for maintenance and inspection of critical infrastructure in 2005, "after assessing 12 categories of infrastructure ranging from rails and roads to wastewater treatment and dams." On CNN's The Situation Room, Sen. Chuck Hagel said, "We've got over 160,000 bridges that are in some need of maintenance. And it's going to require a vast amount of resources to fund not just the maintenance but staying ahead of our competitors and making sure that the needs of our society are met with infrastructure." Major newspapers across the country, including the Arizona Republic, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, New York Times, Newark Star-Ledger, San Francisco Chronicle, and the Washington Post, run stories on the conditions of bridges in their own areas.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Sen. Barack Obama's forays into foreign policy continued yesterday. A day after taking heavy fire for saying he would invade Pakistan if he had "actionable" intelligence on al Qaeda leaders there, the AP reports Barack Obama said yesterday "he would not use nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance' to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, drawing criticism from Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democratic rivals. 'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,' Obama said, with a pause, 'involving civilians.'" Then he "quickly added, 'Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.'" The AP added Obama was "responding to a question by the Associated Press about whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden." The New York Times reports Obama "found himself on the defensive again yesterday about his views on foreign policy, this time over a comment he made about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan. ... American officials have generally been deliberately ambiguous about their nuclear strike policies." The New York Post (8/2, 648K), under a headline suggesting that Obama "fumbled" his response, reports that he "stuck his foot in his mouth once again."
Obama's presidential rivals, particularly Sen. Hillary Clinton, were quick to jump on him for the comments. The Washington Post reports Clinton "drew another distinction between herself and Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan." By the afternoon, Clinton "had responded with an implicit rebuke. 'Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons,' she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force." Said Clinton, "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse."
Long Island Newsday adds that after Obama "was caught off guard Thursday" and "appeared uncomfortable" when asked about nukes, but "A smile darted onto [Sen. Hillary] Clinton's face Thursday when she was read Obama's comment during a Capitol Hill news conference several hours later. 'I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,' she said. 'And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. But I think we'll leave it at that, because I don't know the circumstances in which he was responding.'"
The New York Sun adds that Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd "also escalated their criticism. 'Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused,' Mr. Dodd said in a statement."
Obama's Foreign Policy Rhetoric Seen As Either Inexperienced Or Original In a post on the politics blog of The Politico, Ben Smith writes that Obama's comments about the use of nuclear weapons "like the dictator remarks, doesn't seem to be a calculated, on-message foray. It's an authentic answer, and a huge departure, if he means it, in which the point of having nukes is that you could use them. But it's also probably pretty close to the way a lot of Americans, and Democrats, actually think about nukes." Smith suggests that this joins the other segments of Obama's tête-à-tête with Clinton as being about whether Obama is inexperienced or an inspired outsider.
In a blog posting on the website of the Washington Post, Dan Balz writes that "Obama's warning" to Pakistan "continues to reverberate. Does it prove he's tough and smart, as his advisers claim, or naive and irresponsible as Sen. Hillary Clinton put it a week ago?" Balz continues to suggest that if nothing else, Obama is framing the Democratic debate, but that the specificity of his expressed plans is the trigger for his rivals' ire.
The AP reports John Edwards "criticized Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company's Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company." Edwards "led the Democratic candidates' boycott of Fox's plans to host a Democratic presidential debate," and he is now "objecting to News Corp.'s purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. and highlighting the relationships that Clinton and other rivals have with the company's executives." Edwards "challenged his rivals to refuse contributions from executives of News Corp., and return any they had already received. The Edwards campaign said it would return less than $1,000 in donations from three Fox employees - a worker at a local Fox station in Florida and two staffers from Fox Cable Networks - even though they are not executives."
The Chicago Tribune reports YearlyKos is "one of the more colorful and politically powerful conventions to make its way to Chicago. And anyone who doubts blogger clout should consider this: seven presidential candidates, the two top congressional leaders and the Democratic Party's chairman will all stop by to pay their respects." Even before Saturday's candidate forum, "at least four presidential candidates were wooing the bloggers with convention booths, including one sponsored by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who featured inflatable plastic chairs and couches for the weary." Sen. Hillary Clinton's booth, meanwhile, "stood strangely empty for part of the day, as those for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson buzzed with activity." The presidential candidates "have agreed to attend a roughly 90-minute forum on Saturday afternoon, and will also spend another 40 minutes answering questions in individual breakout sessions."
The Washington Post focuses on Clinton, saying her "attendance underscores two seemingly contradictory realities: the growing influence of blogs as a powerful backroom player in Democratic circles and the fact that they don't reflect the views of most Democrats, much less the general public." If there's "one unifying issue that the Net roots can agree on, it's getting out of Iraq, sooner rather than later. For months now, Clinton's unwillingness to apologize for her vote to authorize the war had made her persona non grata in the Net roots, especially on Daily Kos." But in the "past few months, however, Clinton's campaign has actively reached out to the Net roots."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The AP reports that a Pew Research Center national telephone survey of 1,503 adults conducted July 25-29, which included 623 Democrats and 546 Republicans, shows Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential field with 40%, followed by Sen. Barack Obama with 21%, Al Gore with 12% and John Edwards with 11%. On the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani leads with 27%, followed by Fred Thompson with 18%, Sen. John McCain with 16% and Mitt Romney with 10%. The AP notes, "Clinton has doubled her margin over Obama since the last Pew Research Center poll in April, making gains among younger voters and Democratic-leaning independents who have been a source of strength for Obama. Giuliani and McCain have seen their support fall since April, but Thompson has nearly doubled his strength."
The Washington Post reports in a front page story that, "Less than six months before Iowa voters open the 2008 presidential nomination battles, the Democratic contest in the Hawkeye State is a deadlock, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards in a virtual tie for first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." The poll of 500 likely Iowa caucus voters, conducted over July 26-31, shows 27% would vote for Obama; 26% would vote for Clinton; 26% would vote for Edwards; 11% would vote for Bill Richardson; 2% each would vote for Sen. Joseph Biden and Dennis Kucinich, and 1% would vote for Sen. Christopher Dodd. As is "the case nationally, Clinton gains from being seen as the strongest leader and the most electable contender. But in a state where retail politics can be crucial, she lags far behind her main rivals in voters' rankings of the most likable candidate."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said today that he would not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. ... I didn't realize his battle with Hillary had escalated to this level."
Jay Leno: "Well, in what's being called the most sweeping reform since Watergate, the House just passed an ethics bill, 411-8. You know what this will mean in terms of fighting corruption? Nothing."
Jay Leno: "But here's my question. They passed the ethics bill, 411-8. Who are the eight people who voted against it? Are they 'You know, there's way too much ethics. We need to get a little more dishonesty back in government, huh?'"
Conan O'Brien: "It was reported today that things are going so badly for Senator John McCain's campaign, McCain has to carry his own luggage. Yeah, meanwhile, things are going so badly for Dennis Kucinich's campaign, he has to carry Barack Obama's luggage."
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.
