The eight Republican candidates met for another debate on Wednesday night, sponsored by CNN and YouTube and moderated by CNN's Anderson Cooper. The St. Petersburg event featured questions submitted via video rather than coming from the moderator, but the real difference between this debate and those that came before was the tone as CNN reports, "With five weeks to go until the first contest of the 2008 nominating season, the Republican candidates engaged in a full-fronted free-for-all, trying to differentiate their views on immigration, the Iraq war, abortion, gun control and even whether they believed every word in the Bible was true. Unlike previous debates in which the candidates focused most of their attacks on Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, Wednesday night's attacks were launched at each other."
The Washington Post reports in a front page story that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani "clashed sharply at the opening" of the debate, and "within minutes," Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul "joined the battle, centered around immigration, Iraq and foreign policy." The exchanges "underscored the concerns of all the leading candidates as they jockey for advantage with only five weeks remaining until the Iowa caucuses, and no contender with a clear edge in the battle for the GOP nomination."
The biggest headlines this morning are being generated by early sparring between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani over immigration. The AP reports Giuliani and Romney "scornfully debated immigration" as Giuliani "accused Romney of employing illegal immigrants at his home and running a 'sanctuary mansion.' The testy personal exchange came after Romney said Giuliani had retained New York's status as a sanctuary city while he was mayor." Romney said it "would 'not be American' to check the papers of workers employed by a contractor simply because they have a 'funny accent.' He had landscapers at his Belmont, Mass., home who turned out to be in the country illegally." The New York Daily News reports, "A voter from Dyker Heights, Brooklyn, named Ernie Nardi, started the slapfest by asking Giuliani if he would continue to 'aid and abet' illegal immigrants as he did as mayor -- kicking off two hours of often raucous confrontations in the CNN/YouTube debate. 'The reality was, New York was not a sanctuary city,' replied Giuliani, saying that he allowed illegal immigrants access to city schools, hospitals and police stationhouses as a way to ensure the city's broader health and safety. 'If we didn't allow the children of illegal immigrants to go to school, we would have had 70,000 children on the streets.' Romney pounced, saying Giuliani had 'absolutely' run a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants - to which Giuliani countered that Romney had run a 'sanctuary mansion' by allowing undocumented immigrants to tend his home's lawn outside of Boston while governor."
The New York Times reports in a front page story the debate "reflected a new reality in the Republican race: Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, played a central role, demonstrating how he had come from behind to show strength in several recent polls of Iowa caucusgoers." Many candidates "had high points: Mr. Giuliani with his line about Mr. Romney's mansion; Fred D. Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee, giving a spirited defense of gun control; Mr. Huckabee, when asked how Jesus would feel about the death penalty, responded, 'Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office'; and Senator John McCain of Arizona in highly emotional terms condemned torture."
The Los Angeles Times reports as the debate "continued over two hours, the most frequent target was...Romney, who has been a leader in the two states that loom largest in the early voting -- Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney was attacked from all sides, on multiple issues."
General Who Asked About Gays In Military Linked To Clinton Campaign One potential controversy is emerging from the event. The Politico (11/29, Vogel) reports a retired general "who asked about gays and lesbians serving in the military at the CNN/YouTube Republican debate on Wednesday is a co-chair of Hillary Clinton's National Military Veterans group. Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was named a co-chair of the group this month, according to a campaign press release." Kerr, who "attended the debate in Florida, identified himself in his video only as being from Santa Rosa, Calif. and as a 43-year veteran." In his question, Kerr "asked candidates 'why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.'" The Washington Times reports, "The general identified himself in his question as 'an openly gay man' but remained in the closet about his ties to the Clinton campaign. After the debate, an embarrassed Mr. Cooper said that CNN did not know of the Clinton ties and that 'had we known that...we would have acknowledged that if we used the question at all.'"
The Los Angeles Times reports, "The executive producer of the debate, CNN Vice President David Bohrman, said the cable network had taken some precautions, verifying Kerr's military background and that he had not contributed to any presidential candidate. 'We regret this, and apologize to the Republican candidates,' Bohrman said. 'We never would have used the general's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.'"
Survey Shows Huckabee Viewed As Debate Winner The Orlando Sentinel reported on its politics blog that Huckabee "won the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate, according to a survey by Insider Advantage and Southern Political Report. The instant survey of 341 undecided Florida Republicans found 44 percent called Huckabee the winner," followed by Giuliani with 18%, Romney with 13%, McCain with 10%, Thompson with 5% and Paul with 5%.
The Politico reports that as New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani "billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records." The documents, "obtained by Politico under New York's Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants. At the time, the mayor's office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing 'security.'" The Hamptons visits "resulted in hotel, gas and other costs for Giuliani's New York Police Department security detail."
The New York Times reports the "unusual accounting practices highlighted by the Politico Web site, in which the costs for the security detail's travel expenses were billed to small agencies, had not before been reported. The disclosure served to refocus attention on that period of Mr. Giuliani's life with just over a month before the first votes are cast in the Iowa caucuses. The report also comes as one of Mr. Giuliani's rivals for the presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, has been questioning his fiscal stewardship of the city."
The AP reports Giuliani "dismissed a report Wednesday that he expensed the cost of his security detail to obscure city offices for trips to" the Hamptons. In response to a question from moderator Anderson Cooper at the GOP YouTube debate, Giuliani said, "First of all, it's not true. I had 24-hour security for the eight years that I was mayor. They followed me everyplace I went. It was because there were, you know, threats, threats that I don't generally talk about. Some have become public recently; most of them haven't." The AP adds, "Neither he nor his aides, however, offered an explanation for why the tens of thousands of dollars in costs, which they say were routine expenses for protection for the mayor, were billed to city offices like the Office for People With Disabilities."
The New York Post reports, "Privately, some Giuliani aides believe officials within the Bloomberg administration had a hand in leaking the damaging details."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Romney Up Big The AP reports a Suffolk University Political Research Center for WHDH-TV of 300 likely New Hampshire primary voters from each party, taken November 25-27, shows 34% would vote for Hillary Clinton; 22% would vote for Barack Obama; 15% would vote for John Edwards; and 9% would vote for Bill Richardson. On the Republican side, 34% would vote for Mitt Romney; 20% would vote for Rudy Giuliani; 13% would vote for John McCain; 8% would vote for Ron Paul; and 7% would vote for Mike Huckabee. The AP adds that "compared to a June poll by Suffolk University, Clinton appears to be losing ground to Obama. In the earlier poll, Clinton had an 18-point lead over Obama compared to a 12-point spread in the latest poll. On the Republican side, Romney is pulling away from Giuliani." In its coverage of the poll, the Washington Times notes that Fred Thompson is backed by just 2%, down from 13% in June.
GOP Race Remains Fluid The State reports that this morning that a Clemson University Palmetto Poll of 450 "registered and likely" South Carolina Democratic primary voters conducted Nov. 14-27 shows Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential field with 19%, followed by Barack Obama with 17% and John Edwards with 12%. On the GOP side, the poll of 450 South Carolina Republican primary voters shows Mitt Romney leading with 17%, followed by Fred Thompson with 15%, Mike Huckabee with 13%, Sen. John McCain with 11%, Rudy Giuliani with 9% and Rep. Ron Paul with 6%. The State notes that Giuliani "enjoys just half the approval he did in an August Clemson University poll, when he claimed 18 percent of voters. Likewise, Clinton's double-digit lead has narrowed, down 7 percentage points, from 26 percent, since August." The Greenville News adds, "The biggest shifts came among undecided voters who accounted for 28 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats, up 8 percentage points and 14 percentage points, respectively. Adding even more fluidity, 65 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of Democrats said they were likely to change their minds before the Jan. 19 and Jan. 26 primaries."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
More indicators on economic growth and the housing market are being read as signs of a looming recession, though Wall Street continues to march to its own drummer. While the Wall Street Journal says the Federal Reserve's Beige Book shows "home sales, construction and prices are sliding" and the financial sector is in peril due to the "subprime debacle and subsequent credit crunch," the CBS Evening News said Wall Street "just had its best two days in five years. The Dow shot up 331 points today on top of yesterday's gain. That's a two-day total of 546 points, or 4.3 percent." NBC Nightly News added, "The past five days, 100 points up or down in either direction, so safe to say the roller coaster ride will likely continue."
On its front page, the New York Times says credit flowing to US companies "is drying up at a pace not seen in decades, threatening the creation of jobs and the expansion of businesses, while intensifying worries that the economy may be headed for recession." The combined value of outstanding commercial and industrial bank loans, and short-term loans known as commercial paper has fallen nearly nine percent since August. The Washington Post, also on its front page, says the "the widening credit crunch is making it harder for cities and school systems to get money for buildings, ballparks and other vital projects from the $2.5 trillion market for municipal bonds, a sector of Wall Street that rarely sees trouble." Also causing concern: On its front page, USA Today reports the National Association of Realtors said Wednesday that the "median price for an existing home slid a record 5.1% last month to $207,800, bringing values back to March 2005 levels."
Asked on PBS's NewsHour to sum up the state of the US economy, Senate Banking Chairman and presidential candidate Christopher Dodd said, "I think it's very fragile right now. And I think many people feel as though the future doesn't look good for them."
The expected "scramble for Senate Republican leadership positions" in the wake of Minority Whip Trent Lott's surprise decision to resign may not turn out to be "as much of a fight as expected," The Politico reports. With Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee opting to seek the Senate Republican Conference chairmanship instead of the whip spot, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl has Lott's job "wrapped up without any opposition." The "No. 4 and No. 5 positions within Republican leadership may also be determined without much of an internal struggle." The real fight could be for the conference chair, where Alexander will face off against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and possibly North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr.
Why Is Lott Resigning? Meanwhile, speculation continues over why Lott is leaving now. In his Washington Post column, Bob Novak echoes the most common assessment, that by "getting out now," Lott "can collect big lobbying money in one year instead of having to wait two years, as he would under new congressional ethics regulations." (The New York Times and The Hill both say Lott may hook up with ex-senator John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, in a new lobbying shop. The Washington Post editorializes that Lott should not rush through the "revolving door" by quickly returning to lobby his current colleagues.) But Slate reports on the rise of the "the Scandal theory" to explain Lott's resignation announcement, which is "suddenly gaining traction" among bloggers. The "Scandal theory, which is admittedly speculative," is that current Mississippi legal proceedings involving Lott's brother-in-law "are about to expose improper behavior by Lott."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
President Bush yesterday hosted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House. Bush told them he is "personally committed to their mission of peace, urging them to stick with it and not lose sight of their goal," the AP reports. The CBS Evening News reported that at the White House, the President "said the agreement by Israeli and Palestinian leaders to resume peace talks is a 'hopeful beginning.'" Bush also "said the United States will play an active role as the parties try to reach a peace agreement by the end of next year." NBC Nightly News also noted "Bush called the agreement to try to reach a peace settlement a hopeful beginning." Similarly, ABC World News said Bush was "full of optimism today. But he acknowledged, this is only a beginning."
The President discussed his efforts during an interview to CNN's The Situation Room. Said Bush, "Any deal that gets done has to be agreed on by the parties. In other words, America can't impose our vision on the two parties. If that happens, then there's not going to be a deal that'll last. So my job is to facilitate the negotiations that were agreed upon yesterday. Yesterday was a hopeful beginning. But as I said in the statement here in the Rose Garden with Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas by my side, it was a hopeful beginning, and it was important, but not nearly as important as the days that are to come. And so our job is to facilitate those discussions, is to make sure that they stay on track, that there is a focused effort." Asked if he would consider personally traveling to the Middle East, Bush said, "Going to a region in itself is not going to unstick negotiations. It is working with the principals. ... That's how you get things done. Now, if I have to call them together, I will. But this idea that somehow you're supposed to travel and therefore good things are going to happen is just not realistic."
Further underlying the US role in the process, the Financial Times reports that when Bush "this week read out the words of what historians will no doubt come to call the Annapolis Declaration, the Israeli and Palestinian leaders peered over his shoulder as if trying to read for the first time the terms of the contract they had just signed. Low down in the fine print was a clause that handed the US president ownership of the peace process as monitor and judge of their performance during the remaining year of his term." The Times adds, "The question now is how he will choose to exercise that ownership in order to shepherd the two sides towards a final peace settlement by the end of next year." The New York Times also reports that the agreement "put the United States in the position of judging whether the two sides comply with their commitments." USA Today reports said Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars said about the US role that "if Bush is serious about holding Israelis and Palestinians accountable 'then that is something I have not heard before.'" Philip Wilcox, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, "said the Bush administration must be an 'honest broker' and cannot be effective 'if we defer to Israel's policies, as we usually have in the past.'"
The Washington Post reports on its front page that "Russia and the United States are tentatively planning a second Middle East peace conference, in Moscow in early 2008, with major parties hoping to begin a comprehensive peace effort that would include direct talks between Israel and Syria, according to US, Russian, Arab and European officials." The Post adds, "Syria's delegate to this week's talks in Annapolis said yesterday that Damascus wants a Moscow gathering in order to begin negotiations between Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights, a border region seized by Israel during the 1967 war."
Rice Links Own Experience To Crisis The Washington Post, in a positive review of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's performance, reports, "When the cameras were turned off at the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis on Tuesday and the media were hustled out of the room...Rice and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni provided some of the most arresting moments of the private gathering of top international officials." According to the Post, Livni "opened her speech with a challenge" to her Arab counterparts present, saying, "Why doesn't anyone want to shake my hand? "Why doesn't anyone want to be seen speaking to me?" The Post moves on to Rice, who "brought the meeting to close with highly personal and reflective comments that connected her childhood in the segregated South with the challenges facing Israelis and Palestinians." To the Israelis, Rice spoke of the experience of having local black churches bombed by white separatists, and to the Palestinians, she said "I know what it is like to hear to that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are Palestinian. ... I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness."
Palestinian Negotiator Upbeat A number of media reports on the budding Mideast peace process appear to reflect the cautious sense of optimism of the participants in the Annapolis conference. Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat, for example, said on PBS's NewsHour, "After seven years of stalemate, seven years of killing fields between Palestinians and Israelis, President Bush managed to provide this opportunity for us, the Palestinians and Israelis. ... The difference between yesterday and Camp David so many years ago was the Arabs were here, all of them, and the Syrian presence was very significant, and the Saudi presence was very significant. ... Nobody could have done what happened in Annapolis but President Bush. Now, people can say, 'Why did he wait seven years? Why did he do this?' But I believe that, in the last two years, Secretary Rice, to her credit, has done a fantastic job, in my opinion. She went all the way. She got the knowledge of all the little issues. She's very, very well aware now."
Pervez Musharraf has dropped the title "general" but renewed the title "president." The AP says a "tearful" Musharraf ended his "four-decade military career Wednesday, giving up his army commander's ceremonial baton." Today, he was sworn in for a third term as Pakistan's president. The Wall Street Journal says Musharraf "is likely to soon lift the widely criticized state of emergency" he imposed nearly a month ago. One official said the "decision to cancel the measure may be announced by the end of the week," while the Los Angeles Times reports Musharraf himself said the announcement of a date for the end of the emergency "could be announced as early as today." USA Today reports Musharraf, "known for his daring as a soldier and politician, might be making his boldest gamble. ... Without the uniform, he's a civilian in a country where the armed forces are the most powerful institution and have a history of shoving civilians aside." The Washington Post reports "the change of command" came as Pakistani troops "reported important gains against radical Islamic insurgents in the far north's Swat Valley. The military said that 220 militants were killed and that troops seized key ground."
The new head of Pakistan's military is Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, a former head of Inter-Services Intelligence, "Pakistan's premier intelligence agency," the New York Times says on its front page. The Washington Times describes Kayani as "a pro-American general."
Saudis Seeking Influence Via Sharif? The Wall Street Journal reports, "Saudi Arabia blindsided the Bush administration in rapidly returning former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to Pakistan last Sunday -- a reflection of how regional powers are subtly jockeying for influence in Pakistan as its leadership looks shaky." Saudi Arabia's "actions 'surprised' the White House and State Department, said a US official, as Washington hadn't expected Mr. Sharif's return ahead of National Assembly elections scheduled for Jan. 8 in Pakistan." US and Pakistani officials "said they viewed Saudi Arabia's action as a clear sign that the Middle East power is beginning to position itself for political influence inside Pakistan."
The Christian Science Monitor reports Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway "is pushing hard to deploy marines to Afghanistan as he looks to draw down his forces in Iraq." But his "proposal, which is under discussion at the Pentagon this week, faces deep resistance from other military leaders." Conway wants to "deploy a large contingent of marines to Afghanistan, perhaps as early as next year. The reinforcements would be used to fight the Taliban, which US officials concede is now defending its territory more effectively against allied and Afghan forces." But Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen "has already recommended against the proposal, at least for now, a military official said Tuesday." That "leaves the decision up to Defense Secretary Robert Gates."
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
Copyright © 2008 by the Bulletin News Network, Inc.
11190 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 130 • Reston, VA 20191
advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Best Careers 2008
In a shifting job landscape, we've identified where the growth lies.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
