For weeks, the conventional wisdom on the SCHIP debate was that the President's veto of the popular Democratic proposal was an albatross around the neck of vulnerable GOP candidates. But a new Gallup Poll, reported in this morning's USA Today, raises some questions about that analysis. The poll found "52% said they have more confidence in Democrats to deal with the issue" of healthcare, but "majorities also supported two positions at the core of the president's opposition: A slim majority, 52%, agreed with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level -- about $41,000 for a family of four." And "a larger majority, 55%, said they were concerned that the program creates an incentive for families to drop private health coverage for a public program. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care. Only 42% said that wasn't a concern." USA Today adds, "Taken together, the results show that while Bush may be losing the political battle with Democrats, he may be winning the policy debate." Other observers, meanwhile, took the poll's findings to mean the political damage to the GOP may not be as great as many believed.
The poll is being made public against the backdrop of a Democratic attempt to override the President's veto. An attempt which, by all indications, will fail. The AP reports House Republicans "are on track to hand President Bush a victory this week by upholding his veto of legislation expanding children's health coverage," as "not even Democrats predict they will amass the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's veto." Roll Call, meanwhile, says Democrats "plan to keep the issue hanging over the GOP's head between now and the 2008 elections." However, "GOP leaders are confident that they will hold the line and hope that their vote will bring Democrats to the bargaining table."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview on CNBC's Power Lunch, "We have Republicans and Democrats alike to override the President's veto. Every organization you can name, AARP, YWCA, the Catholic Hospital Association, anybody who cares or has anything to do with children's health is appealing to members of Congress to make this change. ... I would hope that we could do that, but we will not rest until those ten million children are covered."
Congress has not passed the spending bills necessary to fund the government and the President has pledged to veto them as soon as they get to his desk. The end result approaching quickly could be an epic battle over taxes and spending which, according to some analysts, may be Bush's last chance to energize both his base and his fledging presidency. Yesterday, the President left no doubt about his intentions. The AP reports Bush "admonished Congress on Monday for failing to send him a single spending bill yet, and warned lawmakers to trim their plans or face rejection." Addressing "a friendly audience" in northwest Arkansas, Bush said, "You're fixin' to see what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington." Added Bush, "The Congress gets to propose, and if it doesn't meet needs as far as I'm concerned, I get to veto. ... That's precisely what I intend to do. ... Congress needs to be responsible with your money and they need to pass these appropriations bills -- one at a time. ... And then we can work together to see whether or not they make fiscal sense for the United States."
Fox News' Special Report said "senior White House officials" see fiscal discipline as "a winning argument for the President. Democrats are looking to spend 22 billion dollars more on domestic programs. And so far, the President is not budging." The Washington Times notes "Bush told the crowd that if he allowed the Democrats to pass a budget that is $22 billion higher than the one he requested, it would cost $205 billion over five years and lead to higher taxes. He then framed his veto threats against 11 of 12 appropriations bills as a way of keeping taxes low." Bush and Republicans in Congress "have said for months that the Democrats' budget would prompt 'the largest tax increase in history.'" But "the president's comments yesterday were one of his first attempts to speak to the public and connect the dots between his veto threats on spending and tax increases."
The Washington Post notes the "fiscal showdown" comes "at a time when the nation's financial health has actually improved for the moment. After years of record-high deficits, both parties are now projecting that the budget can be balanced by 2012." But Bush "has gotten no credit for that with the public, prompting the White House to look for opportunities to fight Congress over spending and reinforce his credentials with a disaffected Republican base. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll found that just 27 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the deficit, matching his all-time low on the issue, compared with 64 percent who disapprove." Adds the Post, "Little wonder, then, that the White House staff made sure to hang two giant banners that said 'Fiscal Responsibility' behind the president for his talk with local business leaders here."
The Pine Bluff Commercial says Bush "was warmly received by about 330 people in the John Q. Hammons Convention Center in Rogers." The audience "was invited by Republicans and the Rogers-Lowell Chamber of Commerce, although a spokesman for US Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark., said not everybody there was a Republican." The New York Times headlines its story "Low In Polls, Bush Makes More Time For Friendly Crowds," and reports, "Out there in the rest of America, polls show that about twice as many people disapprove of President Bush as approve of him. But here in a cavernous convention center hall, Mr. Bush found nothing but admirers Monday when he answered questions during a town-hall-style meeting." The Times adds, "Outside the hall, after lunch at a barbecue restaurant, Mr. Bush and his motorcade passed a few onlookers carrying 'impeachment now' signs and antiwar signs. Inside the hall, the war in Iraq came up only when Mr. Bush talked about it himself."
Congress Shows No Signs Of Backing Down Even as Bush telegraphed his stance on the looming budget showdown, the Los Angeles Times reports, "rather than bow" to him "a defiant Senate today is poised to approve a bill that would increase funding for an anti-crime program that the White House has sought to cut." Senators hope "to add $110 million to funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services program" even after Bush yesterday sought "to rally the public against Democratic efforts to increase spending for domestic programs."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Yesterday's report on the front page of the Washington Post, which indicated the US military thinks it has al Qaeda in Iraq against the ropes, set off the chattering class on cable TV last night. While the story did not merit network TV coverage or follow-up reporting on the major papers, MSNBC's Hardball called the story "dramatic and stunning." But host Chris Matthews saw little to celebrate, "So today's report about al Qaeda in Iraq being crippled means US troops can start coming home, right? Actually, no," he said, "Bush Administration officials say, quote, 'There is definite progress, and that is undeniable good news, but what we don't know is how long it will last and whether it's sustainable.'" Matthews went on to interview Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks, who authored the story. Said Ricks, "The headline is that everybody agrees that al Qaeda in Iraq has been hit really hard over the summer and into the fall. It was described to me by a senior intelligence officer as a cascade of kills and captures that have really surprised al Qaeda, and they think got it on the run. The question, though, is what it means. Is it sustainable?"
The story also came up during Fox News' Special Report roundtable. Morton Kondracke of Roll Call said, "General Petraeus is not declaring victory over al Qaeda and, I think, the CentCom commander is not either, and there are two good reasons why. First, al Qaeda might stage some sort of catastrophic spectacular and discredit any claims of victory. And the second thing is that Congress might say OK, if we have defeated al Qaeda, let's pull out." Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard said, "The real brilliance of the plan and strategy that Petraeus and Odierno carried out, which I was impressed to see on paper at the time, to see it actually carried out according to plan. They had done this very systematically, very thoughtfully, and they have really broken al Qaeda, and now they need to take care of some additional problems with the Shia. But they're working on that too." And Charles Krauthammer said, "The idea of declaring victory is, I think, really a very bad one given our history with declarations of victory."
Other than that, there was little media reaction to the story. In fact, the Washington Post runs an op-ed this morning from "twelve former Army captains," who write, "Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles. ... To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition."
Meanwhile, the AP reports, "Commandant Gen. James Conway said Monday he is concerned about the Marines Corps' ability to respond to security flare-ups around the world on short notice because of the demands put on it by the Iraq war. ... 'I'm a little bit concerned about us keeping our expeditionary flavor. ... We are much heavier than ever before,' he said at a lunch sponsored by the Center for New American Security." Conway's comments "come amid discussion at the Pentagon that the Marines pull its forces from Iraq and send them instead to Afghanistan to take the lead combat role there."
The New York Times reports this morning, "The second-highest-ranking member of the Air Force's procurement office was found dead Sunday in an apparent suicide." Charles D. Riechers "came under scrutiny by the Senate Armed Services Committee this month after reports that the Air Force had arranged for him to be paid about $13,400 a month by a private contractor, Commonwealth Research Institute, while he awaited clearance from the White House for his selection as principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition." The Washington Post notes Reichers "was the subject of a front-page article in The Washington Post on Oct. 1 examining his employment at a Pennsylvania nonprofit group that conducted intelligence work for the Air Force." After the article appeared, "the Senate Armed Services Committee asked the Air Force to explain the arrangement," and "the committee's chairman, Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), criticized the deal during a hearing."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Presidential campaigns were required to file their 3rd quarter fundraising results with the Federal Elections Commission by midnight yesterday. The reports, which are the most detailed view available of the candidates' campaign finances, show Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the clear cash leaders on the Democratic side, with Clinton edging Obama in cash available for the sprint to the first primaries. The AP reports Clinton "ended September with more money in the bank than rival Barack Obama, holding $35 million cash on hand for the presidential primary contests to his $32 million." The Washington Post reports on its front page that Obama "spent $21.5 million between July and September." Clinton "spent more than $22 million, just less than she raised in the period, and finished with the most cash in reserve of any of the candidates for the frenetic run to the primaries." Bloomberg reports, "Clinton reported $2.3 million in debts, compared with $1.4 million for Obama."
Other Democrats trailed far behind the leaders. The Wall Street Journal reports that John Edwards "had $12 million in cash after raising $7 million in the period." The Chicago Tribune reports that Edwards had $10 million available for the primary, plus was expecting another $10 million in federal matching funds. The Politico reports, "Given the yawning gap between the Democratic frontrunners' bank accounts and the rest of the field, it seems likely that other Democrats may soon join Edwards so they, too, will be eligible to receive an infusion of taxpayers' cash in January. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden and Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd reported raising just $2 million and $1.5 million respectively in the third quarter."
Long Island Newsday reports Obama's campaign "had relied on small donors, banking on 365,000 individual contributors since the start of the year, 108,000 new donors in the third quarter alone, according to his campaign. The former first lady signed up about 100,000 new donors, her campaign reported." The New York Post headlines its brief report, "CASH QUEEN CLINTON."
Filing Shows 249 Hsu Donors Received Refunds From Clinton Campaign The Los Angeles Times reports, "The full extent of accused swindler Norman Hsu's political network was revealed for the first time Monday in campaign finance reports filed by" Sen. Hillary Clinton, "who refunded $804,850 in contributions from 249 Hsu associates. The donors came from 22 states and Washington, D.C., but Californians accounted for the largest amount refunded from the Hsu network, $308,000."
On the GOP side, the FEC reports have pointed out a stark difference in strategy between the top Republicans. The AP reports this morning Mitt Romney spent $21 million during the 3rd quarter, "more than twice what he raised during the period and more than what he spent in previous quarters." Romney "raised $9.8 million and lent his campaign $8.5 million over the summer, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission." Rudy Giuliani "reported spending $13 million during the same period, compared to the $10.2 million he raised for the primary campaign. Giuliani also raised about $1.3 million to spend on the general election if he wins the nomination." Fred Thompson, "who didn't officially enter the race until early September, reported spending $5.4 million during the quarter, more than half of it last month." Giuliani "listed $16.6 million cash on hand, $11.6 million available for the primaries with the rest designated for the general election. Thompson, whose report covers fundraising and spending since June, when he began exploring a presidential bid, raised $12.8 million during that four month-period. He reported $7.1 million in the bank at the end of September, as well as $678,000 in debts." Romney had $9.2 million cash in hand, "thanks in large part to the $17.5 million he has funneled into his campaign since the beginning of the year."
Long Island Newsday reports, "Seeking to catch national GOP presidential frontrunner" Giuliani, Romney "spent $6 million on radio and television advertising in the past three months, 12 times as much as Giuliani expended on media, campaign finance reports filed Monday show." The FEC "reports highlight the difference in strategy by the Romney and Giuliani campaigns, showing that Romney has invested much more in television and radio ads, while Giuliani has turned to direct mail, telephone calls and some radio advertising. Romney ran 10,893 ads this year, including 10,199 local TV ads -- nearly half of them in Iowa, the Nielsen Co. reported Monday. Giuliani has run 642 radio ads." The Los Angeles Times reports Romney's "dominance of the airwaves -- he accounted for nearly 11,000 of the GOP spots that ran Jan. 1 to Oct. 10 -- has vaulted him into serious contention in Iowa and New Hampshire, the states planning to kick off 2008 balloting. 'The early ads worked in the sense that it got his [poll] numbers up and got him name recognition in the absence of anyone else on the airwaves,' said Dante Scala, a professor at the University of New Hampshire. 'Now the campaign is looking for some traction, frankly, for the next boost.'"
Rudy Tops Among NASCAR Players The New York Daily News reports, "Who's your NASCAR daddy? According to the latest filings in the White House campaign cash race, it's America's most famous big-city mayor, Rudy Giuliani." The Daily News notes that Giuliani's "NASCAR take suggests he's connecting with an important voter group. 'This is a coup of major proportions,' said Charles Dunn, a professor of political science at Regent University in Virginia and editor of 'The Future of Conservatism: Conflict and Consensus in the Post-Reagan Era.' Giuliani scored high-octane contributions from NASCAR giants Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson, the No. 1 and No. 2 drivers in the nation, as well as 14th-ranked Casey Mears. They all poured maximum $2,300 contributions into Giuliani's tank. In addition, a pack of NASCAR execs turbocharged his campaign with more than $20,000."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The AP reports John Edwards "was endorsed Monday by 10 state chapters of the Service Employees International Union, representing nearly 1 million members and including the crucial state of Iowa, union leaders said." The national SEIU "decided last week not to make a national endorsement in the Democratic presidential primaries, a blow to Edwards who had vigorously sought the support. The union freed its state chapters to make their own endorsements, and on Monday Iowa and nine other states representing 930,000 workers -- half the union's membership -- went with the 2004 vice presidential nominee."
Giuliani Opens Double-Digit Leads Over Rivals Two new national polls out in the last 24 hours show Hillary Clinton continuing as the prohibitive favorite in the Democratic battle, while Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the GOP field as Fred Thompson fades. Under the headline "Clinton Backed By 50% Among Dems," USA Today reports on its front page that Clinton "for the first time wins the support of 50% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and she commands the most enthusiastic backing of any contender in either party." The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, "depicts a landscape for 2008 that seems to be moving toward Clinton in particular and Democrats in general. Democratic voters are more committed to and energized by their field of candidates than Republicans are." USA Today adds, "For Clinton, reaching the threshold of 50% support may have some value. Only once has a presidential candidate received as much as 50% support in a Gallup Poll and then gone on to lose his party's nomination. That was Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy in 1980."
On the GOP side, the Gallup Poll shows Giuliani "continues to lead the GOP field at 32%. Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson has 18%, Arizona Sen. John McCain 14%, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney 10%. Still, 53% of Republicans say they 'might change their mind' about which candidate to support."
A second national poll, this one from American Research Group, shows Clinton opening a wide lead over her rivals for the Democratic nod. She tops the field with 45 percent, followed by Obama at 20 percent and Edwards at 13 percent. No other Democrat tops five percent. Clinton led Obama 39 percent to 21 percent in a similar poll in September. While Clinton's strength has long been her appeal to women voters (among who she leads Obama 50 percent to 21 percent), she is showing strength among men, also she tops Obama with them 39 percent to 18 percent.
On the GOP side, Giuliani leads with 34 percent, but there is no clear second place candidate Thompson comes in at 16 percent, followed by Romney with 15 percent and McCain with 14 percent. While Giuliani has remained steady, Thompson has faded from last month, dropping 7 points, and Romney has picked up 6. ARG surveyed 600 likely Democratic and 600 likely Republican voters from October 9-12.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "They're saying that now that he's won the Nobel Prize, Al Gore has a huge international platform to fight global warming. You know. It's kind of sad, today he stepped onto the platform and it collapsed."
David Letterman: "I hope the show goes well tonight." Last week, "did you hear about this? Retired General Sanchez, he called this show 'a nightmare with no end in sight.'"
Conan O'Brien: "This morning, Senator Hillary Clinton appeared on 'The View.' She was on 'The View' this morning. Yeah. There was an awkward moment when Hillary looked around and said, 'Good Lord, I'm the hottest one here.'"
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Sponsored By: |  |
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.
