WASHINGTON NEWS

Dems, GOP Fight About The Children

The House yesterday passed an expansion of the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The bill passed by a 265-159 margin, with 45 Republicans voting in favor and eight Democrats opposing it. The vote is being described as a potential blow to GOP election chances even though the measure is unlikely to become law. President Bush has vowed to veto it, and there were more than enough "nay" votes to preclude a successful override.

However, Democrats and some political analysts believe that by blocking the measure, Bush in fact is handing Democrats a powerful issue for the 2008 campaign. As the AP reports, "Despite the expected veto, many congressional Democrats welcomed the SCHIP debate as a way to open a second political front -- in addition to Iraq -- on which they feel Bush and his allies are out of step with voters." In his "Washington Sketch" column for the Washington Post, Dana Milbank describes the Democrats as "gleeful," and writes that "as a political matter, the SCHIP debate is over, and the president has handed Democrats a generous gift."

McClatchy also says Bush's veto "could prove to be a potent political weapon for Democrats hoping to increase their majority in Congress." Republican pollsters Fabrizio McLaughlin & Associates "found that by a 2-1 margin, (62 percent to 31 percent) GOP voters favor reauthorizing and strengthening SCHIP. The poll was a national sample of 1,000 Republican voters taken on behalf of First Focus, a bipartisan advocacy group for children and families." In another First Focus poll of 800 "very likely" voters, GOP pollster Frank Luntz "found that by nearly a 4-1 margin (66 percent to 17 percent) respondents were less likely to re-elect senators or congressional representatives who oppose legislation to cut the number of uninsured children."

The Washington Post notes "moderate Republicans openly fretted yesterday that the White House had made the House GOP its firewall, to their political detriment. 'I'm a little baffled as to why the Bush people picked this issue to fight it out on,' said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.). 'It's very sensitive. It's about kids. Who's against kids' health care?'" Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "said he will make sure Republicans who oppose the bill pay a political price, and that price could keep growing. Van Hollen said Democrats should keep sending the bill to Bush until he signs it." USA Today, however, reports GOP Rep. Tom Cole, chairman of the Republican congressional campaign committee, "said Republicans will support a less costly compromise. 'I don't think it will be a decisive bill in the 2008 elections,' he said."

Democrats are continuing to press their case and not pulling any punches. USA Today notes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday, "The president is giving new meaning to the words 'suffer little children.'" The New York Times notes Pelosi also said, again referring to Bush, "This legislation will haunt him again and again and again. ... It's not going away, because the children are not going away." CNN's The Situation Room also interviewed Pelosi, who said, "When the President says he's going to veto the bill, what he is saying is 'I forbid health care for 10 million American children.'" Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. John Kerry writes in The Hill that Bush "is putting ideology and political confrontation ahead of the health of our nation's children," and "has unilaterally declared war on SCHIP. ... Under the president's proposal, kids will be kicked off SCHIP, and they will go uninsured."

At UN, Bush Changes His Tune

Media reports last night and this morning indicated that in his address to the UN General Assembly, President Bush didn't talk about Iran, or Afghanistan. In fact, he didn't even utter the phrase "war on terror." Instead, in what's seen as a dramatic departure, he focused on the area of human rights, and announced sanctions on the military rulers of Myanmar. MSNBC's Hardball, usually critical of Bush, put it this way last night, "Amidst ongoing problems in Iraq, and facing an Iranian leader who seems more determined than ever to gain nuclear capability, today President Bush spoke to the United Nations and focused on a country many people have never heard of." Likewise, the AP reports, "While the United States is at war in Iraq, Bush made scant mention of the conflict. Similarly, he barely mentioned Iran, a nation the United States accuses of terrorism, pursuit of a nuclear weapon and assistance for insurgents who are killing US troops in Iraq."

An undercurrent of incredulity runs through most of the coverage. NBC Nightly News, for example, said, "Imagine a speech on the world stage where...Bush never once uses the phrase war on terror [and] doesn't really talk about the war in Iraq or mounting tensions with Iran. That's what happened today." ABC World News reported, "What a difference five years makes. Five years ago, the President's focus was terrorism and his argument that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world." Bush mentioned Iraq "only once, focusing instead on human rights around the world," singling out nations like Zimbabwe, Sudan and Cuba, causing the Cuban delegation "to walk out." However, the President's "strongest words were aimed at Myanmar."

CNN's The Situation Room said the address "was unlike any speech...Bush had given before the United Nations. No mention of evil doers." And the CBS Evening News noted that "instead of Iraq or terror, the President's theme was liberty." McClatchy notes Bush's focus on human rights and liberty, then regrets that Bush "didn't mention the US prisons in Afghanistan or at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the US practice of holding detainees for years without legal charges or access to lawyers, or the CIA's 'rendition' kidnappings of suspects abroad, all issues of concern to human rights activists around the world."

The Los Angeles Times also remarks on Bush's "conciliatory tone...far from his confrontational stance here five years ago when he argued his case against Iraq." Then, in a follow-up analysis piece, the Times offers an explanation for the "shift in tone." It comes, says the Times, "at a time when Bush is struggling in a political world grown increasingly unfriendly, both at home and abroad," as "even international allies are growing skittish." Bush's "history of laying out a hard line and challenging the United Nations to join him frequently has left him searching for friends in an organization that has been described with scorn by the White House." The Christian Science Monitor ventures a different theory: The President's "principal audience may not have been the UN delegates seated before him, anyway, some experts say, but rather the American audience." Jeswald Salacuse, a specialist in international relations at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, tells the Monitor that "this speech and its emphasis 'were really directed at the American people, to show that he is standing firm on the principles of human rights.'"

The Washington Post, Financial Times and New York Times , meanwhile, focus their report on Bush's announcement of new sanctions on Myanmar.

Technical Glitch Tickles Reporters' Fancy The Washington Times reports Bush's speech "had a technical glitch that exposed one of the drafts of the text." The draft "was publicized on the U.N.'s Web site, complete with phonetic pronunciations for names of foreign leaders and locales." In his "In the Loop" column in the Washington Post, Al Kamen has some fun with the glitch, which apparently read: "The United States, salutes the nations that have recently taken strides toward liberty...including Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan [KEYR-geez-stan], Mauritania [moor-EH-tain-ee-a], Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Morocco. ... In Zimbabwe...the behavior of the Mugabe [moo-GAH-bee] regime is an assault on its people." There was also "a tip of the hat to 'French President Sarkozy [sar-KO-see].'" Kamen says "the mix-up seemed to unsettle even the usually mild-mannered" Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. A reporter is said to have asked her, "Does the president have a hard time pronouncing some of these countries' names?" Perino replied, "I think that's an offensive question. I'm going to just decline to comment on it." To which the Post retorts, "What effrontery [eh-FRUNT-er-ee]."

Conyers Seeks Release Of Jena 6 Teen

The AP reports House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said Tuesday "he will press the government for the release of a black teenager," Mychal Bell, "held in the 'Jena 6' case that spurred one of the biggest civil-rights demonstrations in years." Conyers noted that "he will pressure the Justice Department to take a hard look at 'the miscarriages of justice that have occurred in Jena, Louisiana.'" The Washington Times says Conyers, other members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and "the family of one of the six black teens from Jena, La., charged with beating a white student said the blacks were dealt with too severely." Meanwhile, USA Today reports "Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King III will meet today with Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco to ask her what she can do to get Bell released and have the charges against all six dropped."

DA Tells His Side Reed Walters, the district attorney of LaSalle Parish, writes in the New York Times, "I cannot overemphasize how abhorrent and stupid I find the placing of the nooses on the schoolyard tree in late August 2006. ... But it broke no law. I searched the Louisiana criminal code for a crime that I could prosecute. There is none. Similarly, the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, who is African-American, found no federal law against what was done." The victim "in this crime, who has been all but forgotten amid the focus on the defendants, was a young man named Justin Barker, who was not involved in the nooses incident three months earlier. ... Imagine you were walking down a city street, and someone leapt from behind a tree and hit you so hard that you fell to the sidewalk unconscious. Would you later describe that as a fight? Only the intervention of an uninvolved student protected Mr. Barker from severe injury or death."

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

Top

CAMPAIGN NEWS

Clinton Opens Wide Lead In New Hampshire

A new CNN /WMUR poll shows Hillary Clinton opening a wide lead over her rivals in New Hampshire. Clinton is backed by 43%, followed by Barack Obama, 20%; John Edwards, 12%; and Bill Richardson, 6%. The results are a marked change from a similar poll in July, when she had a 9 point lead over Obama. The AP reports that respondents favored Clinton over Obama "as having the best chance to win in the 2008 general election by 54 percent to 13 percent - a 17-point gain for [Clinton] since the question was asked in July."

Clinton, Giuliani In Dogfight In New Jersey Poll

A new poll out this morning from Quinnipiac University shows Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton in a tight race in New Jersey. In a 2008 general election trial heat, Giuliani leads Clinton 45%-44%, down from a 47%-45% lead in a July poll. In other match ups, Giuliani and Clinton both hold wide leads over every other prospective opponent.

Both candidates also easily top their respective primary fields. Clinton leads the Democrats with 46%, followed by Barack Obama, 15%; Al Gore, 11%; and John Edwards, 7%. On the GOP side, Giuliani leads with 45%, followed by Fred Thompson, 12%; John McCain, 8%; and Mitt Romney, 6%.

Obama Likely To Lead "Cooling" Q3 Cash Race

Under the headline, "Obama Leads In Fundraising Again," the Long Island Newsday reports, "The torrid fundraising pace set by Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton is cooling faster than the housing market, with both camps claiming to raise millions less over the last three months than in previous quarters." Newsday estimates Obama's fundraising take at "between $18 million and $19 million," and Clinton's at "between $17 million and $19 million." Notably, "the pace of fundraising has slackened since the second quarter, when the campaigns raised $25 million to $30 million."

Bloomberg reports this morning that even if Obama wins the cash race for the quarter, the money race is still likely to be a plus for Clinton. Bloomberg says both candidates "are set to report about $20 million in donations during the third quarter, which ends Sept. 30," and "a failure to out-raise Clinton would deprive Obama of the momentum he needs to overcome his rival's significant leads in national and key state polls." Bloomberg says "a comparatively strong haul for Clinton would allow her to minimize Obama's argument that his larger list of donors reflects a broader appeal to voters." Notably, "both campaigns said they had tapped new sources of cash."

On the Republican side, Bloomberg reports analysts will be looking to see if Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney is the top fundraiser, and whether Fred Thompson, "who entered the race this month, can compete financially." Also, Sen. John McCain's team "will get a chance to prove he has been able to recover after fund-raising fell short in the first half and he burned through almost all the cash he raised."

Primary Ad Spending Could Top $100 Million Meanwhile, a front page story in USA Today suggests that the candidates are going to need every dime of that money. USA Today says "the political parties and interest groups will spend at least twice as much as they did in 2003-04 on TV ads before nominees are chosen, campaign advertising experts say." A "record $100 million or more will likely be paid to put campaign ads on the air by the time the Republican and Democratic races are effectively over, likely some time in February. And the allure of posting ads for free on YouTube and at campaign websites won't replace broadcast TV because that 'old media' is better suited for reaching voters, the experts say." Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media Intelligence said, "We had $45 million spent on campaign ads in what was the primary race in 2003 and 2004. It's easy to say there will be two times that. It certainly goes to $100 million." USA adds, "One simple reason for the surge is that there are competitive races in both parties."

Giuliani Says His 2nd Amendment Views Have Changed

The AP reports Rudy Giuliani, "who sued firearms manufacturers and called for tough gun control as New York's mayor, said Tuesday the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a recent court ruling framed his current defense of a right to own guns." In an interview with the AP, Giuliani said, "You have to look at all of these issues in light of the different concerns that now exist, which is terrorism, the terrorists' war on us." The AP adds Giuliani "also mentioned immigration and border security." He "said his thinking on gun rights also was influenced by a federal appeals court decision that overturned a 30-year-old ban on private ownership of handguns in Washington on the grounds that the Constitution gives individual citizens the right to own guns." Giuliani said the ruling "sort of maybe even did more to crystallize my thinking on the whole gun issue in light of Sept. 11. I think, after Sept. 11 - I mean I probably would have had the same impression before, I'm not sure - but after Sept. 11, all that seemed much more powerful to me."

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

Top

POLITICAL HUMOR

The Latest From Late Night Comedians

Jay Leno: "Well, as you know, yesterday at Columbia University, it was 'Take Your Insane Dictator To Work' day."

Jay Leno: "There was lot of controversy about letting the Iranian president speak here in the United States, much less at a university. And you know something? I have to admit, I didn't like it. I was bothered by it. I mean, if he wants to condemn this country and our president, you do it the proper way, okay? You win an Academy Award. That's the forum."

Jay Leno: "And I was a little disappointed to hear this. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and John McCain all said they cannot attend the minority debate this week at Morgan State University, because they have scheduling conflicts. They're scheduled to meet with rich white people."

David Letterman: "Did you see Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N.? At one odd moment in the middle of the speech, he took a cell phone call from Mrs. Giuliani."

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

Top