advertisement
Sunday, February 12, 2012
advertisement
If media coverage on Iraq over the last few days suggested a possible momentum shift toward President Bush's position, that shift came to a grinding halt yesterday. As the Financial Times reports, GOP Sen. John Warner, "the most influential Republican senator on military affairs, on Thursday called on...Bush to bring some troops home from Iraq by Christmas to send a 'sharp and clear message' to the Iraqi government." The Washington Post notes "Democratic and Republican leadership aides said...that Warner's new stance," coupled with a new intelligence assessment on Iraq out yesterday, "may have stalled any political momentum Bush seemed to have been building in recent days." And the AP, in a widely distributed story, calls "Warner's new position" a "sharp challenge to a wartime president that will undoubtedly color the upcoming Iraq debate on Capitol Hill."
As part of their stories, a few media reports mention that Warner's opposition to Bush's Iraq policies is nothing new. The Los Angeles Times notes Warner "has been critical of the troop buildup ordered by Bush in January," and that yesterday he said "he was not ready to back a Democratic-led effort in Congress to order withdrawals." Likewise, the Washington Post reports "Warner had already broken with Bush's strategy" on the run-up to the "surge." In fact, later in the day yesterday, Warner later seemed to play down the significance of his comments during an interview on PBS's NewsHour, where he said, "This is a suggestion that I've had on my mind for some several months. ... I wasn't trying to surprise anybody." He noted the move would "probably not make any difference whatsoever" from a military perspective, "but it would be a signal."
But by then his remarks had unleashed a media storm. The cable news networks covered the story throughout the afternoon, and the story received more than 600 mentions on local television newscasts across the US last night, in addition to extensive network reports and analyses. Most stories cast Warner's comments as a watershed, calling it a "bombshell" and a major defection. CNN's The Situation Room called his comments "a bombshell on the President," adding that "some are asking, if the President has lost John Warner, who might be next?" On NBC Nightly News, Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said Warner's move was "in a word, very big. Why? Because of the prestige that Senator Warner has amongst his fellow Republicans." On the CBS Evening News, Bob Schieffer said, "I think in this case...it's the messenger, not the message, that is the important thing."
The CBS Evening News led its broadcast reporting on the "major blow" to Bush's Iraq policy, adding Warner has called "on the President to do something he has so far refused to do: set a timetable for starting a pullout of US troops." ABC World News reported it was "a stunning announcement that could have a powerful effect on the war." NBC Nightly News said it was "a major defection from...Bush's camp."
KRON-TV in San Francisco called Warner's comments "a seismic shift in Washington," saying "one of the most influential Republicans on Capitol Hill has broken with the White House on Iraq." WCVB-TV in Boston reported Warner "says it's time to jumpstart the process" in Iraq. KTRK-TV in Houston thought Warner "said it's time to signal a change in direction." And KARE-TV Minneapolis said Warner "is the first leading Republican to tell the President to bring troops home."
Pace Expected To Call For Troop Cut The Los Angeles Times reports, "The outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise...Bush to reduce the US force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders on the course of the war." Administration and military officials "say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns that keeping a force well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 would severely strain the military."
Sen. Warner's comments came on the day of the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate report on the situation in Iraq. While the White House tried to bring to the fore the most favorable parts of the document, media coverage last night and this morning was almost universally negative. The Financial Times titles its story "US Intelligence Is Gloomy Over Iraq," NBC Nightly News said it was "a damning report on political progress in Iraq," and the CBS Evening News reported on the "bleak findings." CBS said the estimate shows "Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively" and "the government headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months."
The Washington Post says the report "concluded that although" the "surge" has "temporarily halted the overall security decline of six months ago, political reconciliation has come to a 'standstill.'" A second Washington Post story says the report "seemed to support an emerging consensus among politicians in Washington that the troop buildup has made a difference in quelling violence in some pockets of Iraq but that the political reconciliation needed for long-term resolution appears broken."
On the other hand, the conservative Washington Times titles its story "US Sees Stability Expanding In Iraq," and says, "Growing Sunni opposition to al Qaeda and in some cases the perception that U.S. troops will leave the country are key factors behind recent and growing stability in Iraq, according to a major US intelligence report based on findings from 16 agencies."
USA Today says the report "appeared to offer comfort to both the Bush administration and advocates of withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq." The Wall Street Journal, under the headline "Iraq Surge Yields Mixed Results," says the surge had led to "some security improvements...but little political progress -- giving fodder to both parties as they head into a pivotal month on the Iraq debate."
The Los Angeles Times reports Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "said the report confirmed that 'our troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and the president's escalation strategy has failed to produce the political results he promised to our troops and the American people.'"
Report Not Kind To Dems Almost ignored in media reports is that, as the New York Times reports on its front page, the intelligence assessment also "implicitly criticizes proposals offered by Democrats, including several presidential candidates, who have called for a withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq by next year and for a major shift in the American approach, from manpower-intensive counterinsurgency operations to lower-profile efforts aimed at supporting Iraqi troops and carrying out quick-strike counterterrorism raids. Such a shift, the report says, would 'erode security gains achieved thus far' and could return Iraq to a downward spiral of sectarian violence." The AP also notes "the intelligence report warns against scaling back the mission of US forces." At the end of its online story, The Hill also reports "the intelligence community...said that the mere perception that US troops could soon begin withdrawing could spur violence as Iraqi groups would try to position themselves to bolster their role in the power vacuum that would be created."
The Wall Street Journal reports the Federal budget deficit "will fall for the third year running, totaling $158 billion in fiscal-year 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Thursday. But the good fortune could very well be temporary, according to the CBO." The new estimate "is a $19 billion improvement in the outlook since March, when the CBO predicted an annual budget deficit for 2007 of $177 billion. It is a substantial turnaround from projections a year ago." The Hill says that despite "the short-term improvement, CBO predicts that, in 2009 and 2010, the deficit will rise again to a greater share of the gross domestic product."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The AP reports John Edwards, in a speech at Dartmouth College, "said Thursday the Washington establishment is corrupt and suggested -- without mentioning her by name -- that rival Hillary Rodham Clinton has been part of that corroded system." Edwards' "new stump speech, centered on a need for change and aimed at his top two rivals, comes just before Labor Day." At Dartmouth College, Edwards said, "Real change starts with being honest, and I want to say something again: The system in Washington is rigged, and I'll say it again, it's rigged and it's rigged by greedy powers." The Los Angeles Times adds that Edwards sharpened "his rhetoric against" Clinton as he "used a combative speech here Thursday to cast his front-running rival for the Democratic presidential nomination as part of a 'corroded' Washington culture that is neglecting the nation's problems and doing the bidding of powerful corporations." Edwards "didn't mention Clinton by name, but he left no doubt he was condemning Clinton-era politics when he said the Lincoln Bedroom should not be 'for rent' and cautioned that 'nostalgia' is no reason to elect someone president."
The Nashua Telegraph says Edwards "offered his most forceful pitch for change with several, veiled references aimed at" Clinton. Edwards "kicked off a four-day bus tour of the state with a town hall-style forum where the candidate said he's the only one willing to take on the entrenched interests that control power in Washington." The Concord Monitor reports that Edwards "stopped short of naming top-polling Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but he criticized policy from the 1990s, when Clinton was first lady, and spoke against energy policy that Obama has supported." The Monitor continues to report that Edwards criticized his rivals' "rhetoric of change" as hollow, painting his own proposals as being more "substantive."
The Chicago Tribune says Edwards "spiked his people-versus-power stump speech with not-so-subtle swipes at the 'third way' politics of Clinton's husband" and "criticized Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, who accept campaign donations from corporate lobbyists and he railed against 'a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia.'" The Brattleboro Reformer reports, "Shedding the sunny optimism of his 2004 campaign, Edwards' combative style at the start of a four-day tour through the Granite State appeared aimed at jump-starting his bid and pushing him higher in the polls than third place." The New York Times runs an excerpt of Edwards' "thinly veiled criticism of" Sen. Clinton.
Clinton Insinuates Edwards Is Politically Naive The Concord Monitor reports that Clinton yesterday challenged Edwards's claims to be able to be able to enact reform at will, writing, "Other Democratic candidates 'say things like, 'We're going to go and make it happen,' Clinton said. 'You've got to get the votes. ... And that very often means you've got to compromise, which is not a word that people in a Democratic primary like to hear, because we all want to think that we can just go in and do exactly what we believe in and make it happen. Well, the fact is, you can't.'"
Sen. Hillary Clinton is again wading into the health care debate, and showing significantly more caution than she did in 1993 or that her chief rivals are showing now. The AP reports Clinton "promised Thursday that as president she would improve health care quality by raising standards for providers, educating patients and requiring insurers to reward innovation." While "rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards have proposed detailed health care overhaul plans, Clinton is taking an incremental approach. She started with a speech in June on reducing costs, followed by Thursday's address on quality, and will outline her plan for universal health care coverage next month." Clinton said, "My order here is deliberate. In order to forge a consensus on universal health care, we need to assure people that they will get the quality they expect at a cost they can afford."
In its "First Read" section, MSNBC wrote, "Using language Clinton has previously reserved for the Iraq war and the military, Clinton said America 'plod[s] along with a 20th-century health-care system unable to take full advantage of 21st-century medical advances, stuck in the same rut of fatalistic thinking that has defined our health-care debate for more than a decade.'"
Mitt Romney on Friday will outline a health-care reform proposal in a speech before the Florida Medical Association today. Romney's plan calls for tax breaks to encourage individuals to purchase insurance and would allow states to enact their own health-care reform proposals. Several media reports note prominently that Romney's federal plan departs from the Massachusetts health-care reform plan. The AP reports that in his speech, Romney "is to declare he wants the government to help states lower premiums by deregulating their insurance industries. Romney says Washington also should make tax changes so all people can use pretax dollars to buy coverage as workers do who get coverage through their employers. And he says the Medicaid program for people with low incomes should be overhauled. The goal should be to provide states with block grants so they can create insurance programs freed from federal mandates that are tailored to their individual needs."
The Boston Globe (8/24, Wangsness, 404K) reports, "Drawing on some aspects of the Massachusetts health coverage law he helped enact as governor, Romney will urge states to redirect federal money that is now spent on expensive emergency room care for people without insurance, putting it instead toward helping low-income people pay for health insurance." However, "unlike the Massachusetts law, Romney's proposal would not penalize anyone for failing to buy insurance, nor would it sanction businesses that do not provide it for their employees. Individual states could set such rules, but the federal government would stay out of such requirements."
The Washington Post notes that Romney "calls for national solutions on issues such as education, but he has argued that health care should be handled state by state. This allows him to avoid answering questions on whether he would require all Americans to buy insurance -- a provision in the Massachusetts law that might not be well received by GOP voters."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The national Democratic Party is set to meet this weekend to decide whether or not to penalize Florida for moving up its primary in violation of party rules, but the state party isn't rolling over. The AP reports, "If the national Democratic leadership takes away some of Florida's delegates as punishment for holding a super-early primary, lawmakers from the state intend to fight back. In a letter to" DNC chief Howard Dean, "Florida congressmen said they would request a probe into the legality of such a penalty, which they say 'assaults' the basic right to vote. The lawmakers cited media reports that the DNC may sanction Florida for scheduling its presidential nominating contest before Feb. 5, in conflict with national party rules, unless the Sunshine State renders its primary a nonbinding straw poll."
The Tampa Tribune reports, "The lawmakers could ask the Justice Department or Congress 'to determine whether any political party rules can trump a citizen's right to vote and have the vote count,' Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin said Thursday. ... DNC spokesman Luis Miranda on Thursday said there is no legitimate basis for suggesting the party would be violating voting-rights laws."
The New York Daily News reports, "Sources expected the Democrats' rules committee will indeed slap Florida, then struggle to find a way to cut some sort of deal to avert a chain reaction that upsets the entire nomination process."
FOX News reported on its website that an Opinion Dynamics national telephone survey of 900 registered voters shows Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential field with 38%, followed by Barack Obama with 25% and John Edwards with 8%. With Al Gore included in the results, Clinton leads with 35%, followed by Obama with 23%, Gore with 10% and Edwards with 6%. On the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani leads with 29%, followed by Fred Thompson with 15%, Mitt Romney with 11% and John McCain with 7%. McCain's "support has dropped to about half what it was last month, and now he is just 2 percentage points ahead of Newt Gingrich."
Mitt Romney's Iowa straw poll win two weeks ago didn't generate him as much positive press as he might have hoped, but a second poll out this week shows that he scored among well among a key group: Iowa's GOP caucus-goers. A Strategic Vision poll of 600 likely GOP caucus goers taken August 17-19 shows Romney on top with 31 percent, followed by Fred Thompson at 15 percent and Rudy Giuliani at 13 percent. John McCain and Mike Huckabee, who placed second in the straw poll, are tied for fourth at 8 percent apiece.
On the Democratic side, the poll of 600 likely Democratic caucus-goers shows John Edwards on top with 23 percent, followed by Barack Obama at 22 percent and Hillary Clinton at 21 percent. Bill Richardson, the only other candidate above 5 percent, pulls 14 percent. A Zogby poll released earlier this week showed similar results for the Republicans, but showed Clinton with a strong lead on the Democratic side.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
David Letterman: "Did you hear about this? Last night, the Texas Rangers beat the Baltimore Orioles 30-3. ... The Orioles were actually ahead 3-0, and then they made the mistake of putting up the 'Mission Accomplished' banner."
David Letterman: "Listen to this, according to U.S. intelligence, they say Iraq Prime Minister Maliki is an ineffective leader" that "is...unable to work with his cabinet, lacks authority with the population, has poor communication skills -- no, wait a minute. That's Bush. I'm sorry, I completely -- forgive me."
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.
