A slew of economic reports out yesterday painted a bleak picture of the US economy, leading some to believe a recession is looming. Congressional Democrats appear to think so. The Hill reports they "will focus on the economy next week in an effort to win political advantage from public fears about an approaching recession." Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel "explained the party's thinking, saying, 'The executive branch gets credit for a good economy and a bad economy. That's how it works.'"
The New York Times, in an article titled, "Home Prices Post Big Drop In Survey," reports that in the third quarter of this year prices of single-family homes "fell 4.5 percent nationwide compared with a year ago," according to the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller National Home Price Index. That was "the largest drop since records for the index began in 1988. A separate survey by S.& P./Case-Shiller of home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas showed a drop of 4.95 percent in September from a year ago, the biggest decline in more than six years. Prices...were down in all 20 areas." Robert Shiller, one of the creators of the Case-Shiller index, is quoted in the Washington Post as saying there is "no real positive news in today's data." The Post notes that the housing slump "has spurred calls for action in Congress and pledges from the mortgage industry that it will make it easier to refinance loans."
Meanwhile, the Financial Times adds that the US Conference of Mayors "released a report by consulting firm Global Insight that forecast US house prices declining by 7 per cent nationwide next year," while Goldman Sachs "released a report arguing that even if the US economy stayed out of recession, house prices would fall by 7 per cent in both 2008 and 2009."
More bad news: The AP says the Conference Board reported yesterday that its Consumer Confidence Index "dropped to 87.3, marking a four-month slide and continuing down almost 8 points from the revised 95.2 in October. It was the lowest reading since 85.2 in October 2005" and "marked the sharpest drop since September 2005." The AP notes, "With consumer spending accounting for two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, any further dropoff of consumer spending increases the risks of a recession." AFP and USA Today run similar reports.
Fed May Not Cut Rates Again And yet, according to the Wall Street Journal, "Some Fed officials are signaling little interest in cutting rates when they meet next month. 'Outside of the financial sector and housing, the rest of the economy appears to have weathered the turmoil relatively well,' Charles Evans, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said in a speech yesterday. Some officials are worried that more rate reductions will fuel inflation expectations. 'If inflationary expectations rise, it could prove very costly to put the genie back in the bottle,' Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser said in a speech." The Financial Times adds that Goldman Sachs "said the chances of a US recession had increased to 40-45 per cent from 30 per cent a few months ago."
Although the various parties, including the White House, have been lowering expectations for the Middle East talks in Annapolis, Maryland, the Israeli and Palestinian delegations have agreed to negotiate a peace deal by the end of 2008. Media reports say the deal falls short of a breakthrough, but it is nonetheless seen as progress in reviving the moribund peace process. And the President, it appears, is eager to seize on yesterday's "joint understanding" deal between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The AP reports this morning, "Just 24 hours after securing an agreement between Israeli and Palestinian leaders to resume long-stalled peace talks," Bush "invited the pair to the White House to ceremonially inaugurate the first formal, direct negotiations in seven years." Bush "planned to meet separately with...Abbas, then...Olmert and finally to get them together for an afternoon session and declaring the talks formally under way." The AP adds, "After meeting their own low expectations for the Annapolis conference amid intense skepticism, Bush administration officials crowed with delight."
In an interview with the AP yesterday, Bush said he's "very engaged" in peace process, and proclaimed Annapolis talks "successful." The President expressed concern Tuesday about the risk of failure in the first major Mideast peace talks in seven years, warning that could spawn a generation of radicals and extremists. Still, he said, 'It is worth it to try.'" Addressing criticism for his perceived disengagement in Mideast peacemaking for most of his presidency, Bush described himself as "very engaged" and "pronounced the Annapolis gathering a 'successful conference'" saying, "A moment like today just doesn't happen. It requires work to lay the groundwork for." The Los Angeles Times notes Bush also said that "the reason to establish a Palestinian state now...is that 'a battle is underway for the future of the Middle East -- and we must not cede victory to the extremists.'" The Financial Times, meanwhile, says Bush's statement confirmed "a widely held perception that containing Iran and its allies was as much an objective at Annapolis as securing Palestinian statehood."
The New York Times says the deal "stopped short of the binding negotiating outline that many Palestinians had hoped for, but it revived a peace process that the United States had left dormant for seven years." The Baltimore Sun notes Middle East analysts "said the agreement fell short of a breakthrough, and Bush emphasized that the pact was only a beginning to further negotiations." The Christian Science Monitor says Bush, "playing down any direct role for the US or any other outside party...spoke of a 'support role' for such parties." USA Today notes that in the document, the US "for the first time agreed to serve as a monitor." The Washington Post reports in a front page story that "a senior US official said that the administration has not decided how to set up the monitoring mission."
As the CBS Evening News reported, the deal appears to have been reached at the last possible moment. "It was handshakes and smiles," said CBS, "but for a time it looked like things might actually fall apart." Secretary of State Rice "pressured the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to come up with something to avoid the appearance of failure. An hour later, Mr. Bush read the hastily drafted pledge by Israel and the Palestinians to try to make peace by the end of next year."
Under the headline "Gathering Israelis And Arabs May Have Been The Real Feat," the Washington Post reports some experts suggest "that getting 16 senior Arab officials into the same room as the Israeli leader might have been the signal achievement of yesterday's peace conference."
In an analysis, the Financial Times says "one question stood out: Why was the Bush administration, which had once scorned Bill Clinton's efforts to broker Middle East peace, risking a high-profile attempt of its own, despite near to rock bottom expectations?" McClatchy writes that the President's "effort this week to jump-start Mideast peace negotiations resembles other presidents' late-term bids to become peacemaking international statesmen."
Faint Praise For Bush In Editorial Pages Editorials in newspapers usually sharply critical of the Bush Administration this morning are offering some praise for the President. The Los Angeles Times editorializes, "It started out like an office party that no one wanted to attend," but "defying rock-bottom expectations, Israelis, Palestinians and...Bush rose to the occasion Tuesday." The Washington Post editorializes that the talks "comfortably cleared the low bar of expectations that had been set for it." The New York Times writes in an editorial, "We are encouraged that...Bush, best known for waging war in Iraq, has finally accepted the challenge of peacemaker."
David Ignatius, in a column titled "How Annapolis Helps," writes in the Washington Post, "Critics talked for months about how the conference wouldn't happen and wouldn't matter anyway. Well, it did, and it does. A peace process, with all its ambiguity and occasional sophistry, is underway." Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times, "The Middle East is experiencing something we haven't seen in a long, long time: moderates getting their act together a little, taking tentative stands and pushing back on the bad guys. If all that sounds kind of, sort of, maybe, qualified, well... it is."
Maureen Dowd, in her New York Times column, remains true to her critical views on Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She writes that "in Annapolis" Rice "is running such a seat-of-the-pants operation, which seems designed to rescue the images of a secretary of state and president who have spent more time working out in the gym than working on the peace process."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The Financial Times reports US public opinion "on military progress in Iraq has improved sharply since the troops 'surge' started in February but a majority of Americans still want soldiers brought home, according to a new poll. Some 48 per cent of Americans now believe that the US military effort in Iraq is going well, compared with 30 per cent in February, according to the latest poll by the Pew Research Center."
The Washington Post, under the headline "Military Progress Doesn't Make War More Popular," also reports the "shift" in public opinion "has strategists in both parties reevaluating their assumptions about how the final year of the Bush presidency and the election to succeed him will play out. If current trends continue, Iraq may still be a defining issue but perhaps not the only one, as it once seemed, according to partisan strategists and independent analysts, particularly if the economy heads south as some economists fear."
Anti-War Coalition's Motives Criticized The Hill reports anti-war Iraq veteran John Bruhns, "who put a military face on the anti-war movement," is "lashing out at the group he once worked for, saying the anti-war lobby is more interested in bashing Republicans than ending the war." Bruhns's "scathing broadside did not name specific anti-war groups. But from May to October he was the legislative representative for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), a coalition of liberal groups including MoveOn.org and unions."
Baghdad Taxi Drivers See Improved Safety The Washington Post reports in a front page story that "some of the most reliable figures on security improvements can be found on the odometers of Baghdad's taxi drivers. After years of sectarian warfare whittled down the list of neighborhoods where they could safely work, cabbies are once again crisscrossing nearly all of Baghdad."
The Los Angeles Times says Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Tuesday "formally relinquished his position as military chief of staff, a role that for more than eight years defined him as Pakistan's leader, but that ultimately led to a popular uprising that threatened to drive him from power." Musharraf "acquiesced at last to demands that he retire from the military if he wished to continue serving as president." The Washington Times says "government sources have hinted" Musharraf "will lift the state of emergency shortly afterward." The AP and Wall Street Journal run similar reports.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Bill Clinton took to the field yesterday to campaign for his wife in Iowa, but inadvertently drew attention to an issue that has dogged his wife's campaign by announcing that he had always opposed the Iraq war. The AP reports that in Muscatine, Iowa, Bill Clinton said his wife "will bring America 'back to the future'" as he promoted "his own legacy in public life almost as much as his wife's presidential campaign." Showing "inconsistency on an issue that has dogged his wife, the former president also told Iowa Democrats that he 'opposed (war in) Iraq from the beginning.'" The Washington Post reports that in his statements, Bill Clinton "glossed over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time." The New York Times reports Bill Clinton's statement on the Iraq war was "more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003." Before the invasion, "Mr. Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein. At the same time, he also spoke supportively about the 2002 Senate resolution that authorized military action against Iraq." Advisers to Mr. Clinton "said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but that it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose - in a direct, full-throated manner - the sitting president's military decision."
The Long Island Newsday reports, "Is Bill Clinton having an I-didn't-inhale-moment on Iraq?" Clinton, "a political titan with a penchant for straying from his wife's careful campaign script -- raised eyebrows in Muscatine, Iowa, Tuesday by telling supporters he 'opposed Iraq from the beginning.'" Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz said, "He has not clearly opposed the war from the start. Like his wife, the former president has been critical of the Iraq war in recent months, but at one time he gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt."
In contrast to the wider national coverage, there was little to no reporting on the war issue in local Iowa papers such as the Des Moines Register, the Muscatine (IA) Journal, the Mason City Globe Gazette and the Iowa City Press-Citizen.
The AP reports that Hillary Clinton was in South Carolina yesterday, where she heralded the endorsement of more than 60 clergy members, almost all black, as she looked to woo a demographic group that represents nearly half of state Democratic primary voters. South Carolina's Greenville News adds that the mass endorsement is "a potentially serious blow to fellow Sen. Barack Obama, the field's lone black candidate in the primary field." The News notes that Clinton "already holds a widening lead over Obama in early-voting South Carolina." The endorsements, the News says, "may have been the outgrowth of a closed door meeting her husband, former President Bill Clinton, held with area ministers prior to an address Oct. 29 at USC-Upstate."
Clinton's campaigning comes as a new poll shows her performing well with black voters nationally. The Politico reports a new poll of African Americans shows that six weeks "out from the first round of presidential voting, Hillary Rodham Clinton gets better reviews than Barack Obama among African-American voters." The survey "of 750 African-Americans, conducted from Oct. 5 to Nov. 2, and released Tuesday found" Clinton "was rated favorably by 83 percent of respondents, while 10 percent perceived her negatively. Obama, meanwhile, garnered favorable ratings from 74 percent of blacks, with 10 percent viewing him negatively." John Edwards "was rated favorably by 45 percent of respondents, while 19 percent rated him unfavorably, found the poll, sponsored by the AARP."
McClatchy reports the AARP/Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies poll finds black voters "may be leaning toward supporting" Clinton over Obama "because they're dubious that America is ready to elect a black president." The poll "confirms that African-American likely voters favor the two leading Democrats, and it underscores the stakes for both in Iowa's Jan. 3 caucuses, where the voting begins. Obama and Clinton are running neck and neck in Iowa, recent polls show, though many voters remain undecided." McClatchy adds if Obama were to win Iowa, "in a nearly all-white state, that might convince black voters that he's electable and persuade them to vote for him over New York Sen. Clinton in later contests where their votes could spell the difference, such as in South Carolina."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The Wall Street Journal reports that "despite reservations," the GOP presidential candidates "will answer questions tonight from the public submitted via YouTube in a two-hour debate to air on CNN. The candidates are preparing for questions like those asked in the Democratic CNN/YouTube debate in July, when they fielded a query from an animated snowman on global warming and a gay couple's question on same-sex marriage. With six weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses, the stakes in this debate are higher," as the GOP candidates "haven't debated in a month." The Journal adds, "Some of the campaigns expressed concern about the debate format, worried that Democratic activists would stack the deck with questions. CNN producers say they have no intention of choosing 'gotcha' questions and plan to put forward questions on issues important to Republican voters, such as national security and health care."
The Miami Herald reports, "Nearly 5,000 people sent in questions, up from about 3,000 submitted through the online video-sharing website for the first debate. There's no shortage of novelty acts, with questions submitted by song, cartoon, and by 'Billiam' the snowman, who tells...Mitt Romney to 'lighten up slightly' for suggesting after the Democratic debate that responding to a snowman would demean the presidency." The Herald notes, "The quirky, in-your-face format may force the candidates to depart from their scripted lines as they enter the crucial homestretch of the primary campaign." Long Island Newsday reports that Romney and Rudy Giuliani "drew the most questions -- both with about 45 each." Rep. Ron Paul "came in third with nearly 40, according to a search of the submitted clips on YouTube. Those clips include dozens of talking stuffed dogs, bears and other animals; animations of Lincoln, Nixon and Bush; as well as charts and pictures. Questions range from the national deficit, abortion and immigration to protecting pets and personal queries such, as 'What is the dumbest thing you've ever done?'"
As the GOP candidates gather in Florida to debate tonight, a new poll shows Rudy Giuliani holding a commanding lead. CNN reported on its website that a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone survey of 300 likely Florida GOP primary voters conducted Nov. 25-26 shows Giuliani leading the Republican presidential field with 38%, followed by Mitt Romney with 17%, Sen. John McCain and Fred Thompson with 11% each, Mike Huckabee with 9% and Rep. Ron Paul with 5%. The survey "asked likely Florida Republican primary voters a number of questions regarding the GOP White House hopefuls, and Giuliani led in all of them, with 61 percent saying Giuliani is the most electable and 44 percent saying he's the strongest leader. A plurality also feel he is the most honest and most likeable."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The late night shows continue to be in reruns due to the ongoing writers' strike.
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.
