John McCain is the Republican front runner. And many conservatives are not too happy about it.
Columnist Robert Novak writes that there was much talk among conservatives in the days before the Florida primary about comments that McCain reportedly made disparaging Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for being too conservative (McCain says he doesn't recall making any such remarks) and other comments he made about not necessary blocking a tax increase if he was president.
"McCain as the Republican nominee would need those 'very conservative' voters," writes Novak. "He will encounter some of them at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington Feb. 7-9. His campaign Wednesday asked for McCain to speak there after rejecting an invitation to last year's meeting. At CPAC, he might well consider providing "straight talk" about Samuel Alito and promising to veto any tax increase by a Democratic Congress."
Talk-show host and columnist Hugh Hewitt has been a consistent critic of McCain and has written "I cannot understand any serious conservative supporting Senator McCain's candidacy," saying McCain that the candidate is running as "an anticonservative."
The Wall Street Journal notes that conservative talk-show host and author Michael Graham blogged after the Florida Republican primary, ""So it is over. Finished. In November, we'll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate."
But the Journal says McCain is a lot more conservative than some give him credit for being. And as Sen. Lindsey Graham, a longtime friend and supporter of McCain notes, ""There's a level of practicality among Republicans I haven't seen in a long time, a focus on winning I haven't seen in a long time."
And as the paper notes "he is the candidate many Democrats least want to face, the one who would best remake his party's battered image and draw independent voters needed to win in November" despite his problems with conservatives in his own party.
8:52 PM ET | 01-31-2008 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
It may or may not be a trophy that he wants to pick up right now.
The National Journal is out with its 27th Annual vote ratings and it ranked Sen. Barack Obama as the most liberal Senator in the entire Senate. (His first year he was 16th, and last year he was 10th.) But he wasn't alone in his shift to the left. Sen. Hillary Clinton was 16th herself in 2007 after being 32nd in 2006.
And there really wasn't much room between them. The Journal notes of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10.
The ranking can sometimes be used as a weapon by opponents. In 2004 Republicans used Sen. John Kerry's liberal rankings against him. And some Republicans are attacking Obama now for being too liberal.
At a January 16 Republican National Committee meeting, Karl Rove, President Bush's former campaign architect, called Obama "a straight-down-the-line United States Senate national Democrat." Rove pointedly added: "Nonpartisan ratings say that he has a more liberal and a more straight-party voting record than Senator Clinton does. Pretty hard to do."
But the liberal ranking also comes after a prominent British magazine labeled Obama the ideal "conservative" candidate for America, and after several prominent conservative pundits have tossed bouquets his way.
4:10 PM ET | 01-31-2008 | permalink | comments (29) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
It was a sunny day for John McCain in California.
He toured a factory in Los Angeles that makes solar panels, then enjoyed some of the reflected star power of Arnold Schwarzenegger. The California Governor endorsed McCain five days before his state's primary. That's the biggest of more than 20 nominating contests on Super Tuesday.
"He's a great American hero and an extraordinary leader," Schwarzenegger said. The governor praised McCain for his efforts to promote alternative energy and combat global warming. "He's a crusader. He has a great vision in protecting the environment and also protecting simultaneously the economy," Schwarzenegger said.
Schwarzenegger said he had remained neutral in the GOP presidential race until now to avoid choosing between two friends, McCain and Rudy Giuliani. The former New York Mayor dropped out of the race Wednesday and threw his support to McCain, clearing the way for Schwarzenegger's endorsement. "It's all Rudy's fault," the governor quipped.
Given his appeal to political independents, Schwarzenegger's endorsement may be more valuable in the general election than the primary, which is open only to registered Republicans. McCain still faces stiff competition among more conservative Republicans from former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
-- Scott Horsley
3:32 PM ET | 01-31-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
Now that is a hunk of change. The Barack Obama campaign confirmed today that it raised $32 million in the month of January alone.
The Associated Press reports that Obama is advertising in all but two of the Feb. 5 states and plans to begin advertising in states with upcoming contests, including Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. - which means that he believes that there will still be a very tight battle with Hillary Clinton taking place after Super Tuesday.
And there's another reason that he's spending it quickly on advertising. NPR's Peter Oversby says it's almost all money for the primaries and can't be spent in the general election. Peter also pointed out that neither Obama or his rival Hillary Clinton has filed their year end report for 2007, which must be done by midnight tonight.
"We think that the strength of our financial position and the number of donors does speak to financial sustainability if it ends up going through March and April," campaign manager David Plouffe said of the race. "We think we will have the financial resources to conduct vigorous campaigns in the states to come."
The campaign attracted 170,000 new donors last month, for a total of 650,000 over all ...
Another fundraising facts: As Peter also noted yesterday, John McCain was in the red when he won the New Hampshire primary. In his report filed Wednesday, it shows he ended the ended the year with only $2.95 million cash on hand, and $4.52 million in debts
2:23 PM ET | 01-31-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
If you've been by the blog anytime we do a posting about Republican Texas Rep. Ron Paul, you know that there is almost always a flurry of comments that follow it. Many of these posts castigate the media for willfully ignoring his campaign, often accusing them of conspiring to keep the truth of the "Ron Paul revolution" from Americans.
Well, it's probably true that the media doesn't pay as much attention to Paul as it should, but there's not much evidence of a conspiracy to do so, says NPR Ombudsman Lisa Shepard in her recent column on the subject.
This note from Corey Salomon of San Antonio, Texas is typical of the kind often posted here in the blog in response to a piece about Paul.
"I'm 22 now and I am very ashamed of the way NPR has handled the coverage of this year's presidential election," said Salomon in an email. "A second place finish for the Republican nomination in Nevada should be enough for you to see that Dr. Paul is a very viable candidate that is worthy of as much coverage as you have given to the other candidates."
Experts disagree on the coverage of Paul. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who teaches in the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, said after the Iowa caucuses that it was an "injustice" for the media not to give more coverage to Paul. But Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia was more skeptical of the Paul supporters' claims.
"Yes, Paul has raised lots of money and has many dedicated supporters," he said. "That's all good, but even Ron Paul realizes he is not going to be the GOP presidential nominee. There is a happy golden mean of major and minor candidates somewhere. No one ever finds it's to everyone's satisfaction. The good news is that news organizations don't conspire."
NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving says that it's likely Paul will get a lot more media attention when he is no longer only polling in the single-digits in most of the Republican caucuses and primaries "When and if he becomes an independent or third party candidate," said Elving, "he may become a far larger factor in the eventual general election outcome. At that point, news coverage will increase appropriately."
1:52 PM ET | 01-31-2008 | permalink | comments (42) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
Evangelical Christians are a bit like a ship without a port this election cycle. Unlike 2004, when they definitely saw President Bush as "their guy," the choice is not quite so clear this time. Mark Rozell, professor of public policy at George Mason University, told Renee Montagne on Morning Edition that the largely conservative group of voters (which comprise between 13 and 19 percent of the population) like Mike Huckabee, but know now that he won't win the Republican nomination.
That leave Mitt Romney, who has made some in-roads among evangelicals although many still don't like his Mormon religion, and John McCain, who has a long history of animosity with the religious-right, although he has tried to patch that relationship in recent years with mixed results.
Rozell says that means the religious right might not turn-out in the numbers they have in past elections to support a Republican candidate. The one thing that would probably bring them out in huge numbers?: The idea of Sen. Hillary Clinton being president. The group's animosity towards the Clinton's is so strong, stopping her from being elected would be the one thing that would drive them to the polls.
11:50 AM ET | 01-31-2008 | permalink | comments (51) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
Let's see ... economy .. check. The success of the surge ... check. Renewing No Child Left Behind ... check. Nasty Iranian rulers ... check. Shot at Bill Clinton's remark about his willingness to pay more taxes ... check.
President Bush's checklist-like State of the Union speech covered a lot of important ground. But it seems like there was something missing, something really big ...
Oh yea, the farm bill.
No where in his speech did the president mention the multibillion-dollar measure now pending in Congress. In fact, he never mentioned "rural" once, and the only time he talked about agriculture was in the context of overseas producers. And as Politico reports, the U.S. agricultural community is not happy about being left out.
"Rural Americans are the genuine forgotten people, and you have just underscored that," William Greener, a longtime Republican political consultant who has focused on rural voting patterns, told Politico.
"As someone who has a passion for rural America, I certainly wish the president had given it more attention. And I would advise my fellow Republicans: to take any voter group, most especially rural Americans, for granted is at our own peril. It's not a good idea."
While the Bush administration may have stayed away from mentioning the expensive bill at a time when the president wants to reestablish credentials as a budget-hawk, it provides an opening for Democrats - for instance, as we mentioned yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama is campaign aggressively in normally red-state Kansas.
10:21 AM ET | 01-31-2008 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
And then there were four.
Republicans Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul held their last debate before Super Tuesday next week, and they clashed over Iraq, the economy, global warming and campaign tactics. (Rudy Giuliani had dropped out of the race earlier in the day and had endorsed McCain.) The two front runners, McCain and Romney in particular exchanged harsh words.
As NPR's Mara Liasson reports, Romney went after McCain right away. He said that McCain is a good Republican but he wasn't a "real" conservative, helping to author the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, that he opposed the Bush tax cuts and that he co-authored the McCain-Kennedy Bill on immigration reform that infuriated many conservatives. And, of course, he was endorsed by The New York Times.
McCain defended his conservative principles and had a quick comeback about the Times endorsement. He pointed out that "your two hometown newspapers who know you best" had also endorsed McCain, including the very conservative Boston Herald.
The other candidates tried to get a word in edgewise. Huckabee reminded the audience it wasn't a two-man contest, and that when it came to conservative credentials, he could hold his own. Ron Paul argued passionately against the war in Iraq, pointing out again that Iraq was not a threat to our national security when it was invaded and that it is basically an illegal war because Congress had not voted to go to war there.
McCain is expected to receive another important endorsement Thursday. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is expected to offer his support at an event in Los Angeles.
8:00 AM ET | 01-31-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
This is an interesting, and kind of unexpected story - Sen. Barack Obama's campaign in the state of Kansas.
Kansas, as you may know, has a reputation as a red-state. But the state's largely conservative-leaning reputation hasn't slowed down the Obama campaign. He actually has the biggest operation in the state, Democratic or Republican.
KCUR's Frank Morris visited the state for Day to Day and found a number of Obama fans discussing their political leanings a bit like its an addiction.
5:15 PM ET | 01-30-2008 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
Jim Ogonowski, the Republican farmer and retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who gave Niki Tsongas (the widow of Paul Tsongas) such a tough battle for a Massachusetts Congressional seat last year, says he's going to run for the Republican nomination to battle Sen. John Kerry. Kerry has been in office since 1985.
The Boston Herald reports that Ogonowski, the brother of the pilot of an American Airlines flight that was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, says he will fight illegal immigration, reduce US military presence in Iraq, and wean the nation off oil imports. He will also strive to return government to the people and stand up to special interest groups and Washington insiders.
"With the lowest approval ratings in history, it is clear that Washington is broken and the people of Massachusetts are demanding a new voice that will fight for their interests. No one represents the status quo, business as usual mentality in Washington, more than John Kerry," said Ogonowski, 50, in a statement.
But Kerry's office shot back immediately with a statement saying that he has always fought for change and will continue to do so when he is re-elected.
Ogonowski joins Jeff Beatty, a military veteran who ran unsuccessfully in 2006 against US Representative William Delahunt, in the hunt for the GOP nomination.
2:12 PM ET | 01-30-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
LITTLE ROCK - Hillary Clinton didn't expect to meet Elvis at the Kitchen Express in Little Rock.
But as she was beginning to greet supporters at the restaurant this morning, she whirled around to find him.
"Woah," the former Arkansas first lady said. "The king has arrived."
Sort of.
Dwayne Turner introduced himself as "Belvis, the Black Elvis." He was playing the part in a white jumpsuit with gold and red jewels.
"That is some suit," Clinton said. And then Belvis burst into song.
"One for the money two for the show, three to get ready, go go Hillary, go!"
Turner's full-time job is as a cook at another restaurant. But he says he performs Elvis songs around the city, often for patients in nursing homes.
Arkansas is one of the 22 states holding Democratic nominating contests Tuesday. Clinton is hoping her years as First Lady here won her affection that still remains.
For Turner, it's an affection for Bill Clinton that drew him to Senator Clinton.
He says he was 12 years old in the early 80s, and liked to play hide-and-seek at the state capitol, where he met then-Gov. Bill Clinton.
"Everybody say, why don't you support Barack Obama?" Turner said. "I don't know him. It's like if you was my friend, and you was there for me when I needed you, I'm gonna support you."
Turner said he hopes this wasn't the last time he gets to see Hillary Clinton.
"When she gets elected, Belvis needs to perform at the inauguration."
In fact, he wasn't done performing at the Kitchen Express. He went at it again as Clinton was finishing her visit.
"Don't let them give you the blues," Belvis belted out. "You can do anything. But don't step on her --"
...And he paused to let the senator finish.
"Black suede shoes!" Clinton said with a smile.
-- David Greene
12:52 PM ET | 01-30-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
It was a primary that didn't really mean anything. That's because the Democratic National Committee had stripped Florida of its delegates for moving the primary up before Super Tuesday. But 1.7 million Democrats still voted Tuesday and there are signs in Hillary Clinton's victory here that point to possible trouble ahead for her main rival, Senator Barack Obama.
Clinton's 17-point victory in Florida (50 to 33 percent) came as a result of the strong backing of women, Latinos and seniors - the first two groups are key voting blocs in the big prize next Tuesday, California. Women, for instance, made up 60 percent of the Democrat voters in Florida and Clinton dominated this group, with 55 percent, compared to 29 percent for Obama. While none of these Democratic primaries and caucuses are winner-take-all-delegate states, Clinton could do well in these states if these two constituencies continue to strongly support her.
Obama once again dominated the African-American demographic taking about 70 percent to Clinton's 27 percent. But African-Americans comprised only 18 percent of those voting, as opposed to almost half in South Carolina.
In California, according to the 2006 census, Hispanics/Latinos are 35.9 percent of the state's population, while African-Americans are about 6.7 percent. (This why the endorsement of former candidate New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the Democratic Party's highest ranking official of Hispanic origin, has been so aggressively sought.)
The one-factor that could help Obama in California is his support among those 30 and under. This group makes up only 10 percent of the population of Florida, while seniors (another big Clinton group) comprise 60 percent. In California the gap between the two groups won't be as large, which should help Obama.
11:42 AM ET | 01-30-2008 | permalink | comments (12) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
The Associated Press is reporting that former Senator John Edwards will end his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination today.
Edwards is expected to formally announce his withdrawal at 1 p.m. EST in New Orleans. His decision leaves Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama in the running for the Democrats. At this point in time, Edwards will apparently not endorse either of the two remaining candidates.
11:19 AM ET | 01-30-2008 | permalink | comments (8) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
After a disappointing third place finish in Florida primary, NPR's Robert Smith reports that Rudy Giuliani - the one-time national front runner for the GOP presidential nomination - will end his campaign and endorse Sen. John McCain. The endorsement could come perhaps as early as today in California.
Giuliani had built his campaign around a big victory in Florida. He has stayed away from many of the early caucuses and primaries, or made token appearances, in order to focus on the big states that go to the polls on Super Tuesday - like New York, New Jersey and California. But that strategy also depended on winning Florida the week before.
Three months ago, Giuliani was so sure of victory in the Sunshine State that his campaign manager told The New York Times that it was "locked up" and he could go and campaign elsewhere.
The Boston Globe reports that Giuliani appeared last night in front of about 200 supporters. While he didn't say he was leaving the campaign trail, he did talk about it in the past tense.
"I'm proud that we chose to stay positive and run a campaign of ideas," he said. "We ran a campaign that was uplifting," in keeping with what he said was a desire of Americans for "a return to honesty and substance in our political discourse."
11:18 AM ET | 01-30-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
In a close contest, Sen. John McCain has won the Florida Republican primary. NPR and other news organizations called the election for McCain in the past few minutes.
With more than 60 percent of the polls reporting, McCain has 36 percent of the vote to former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney's 31 percent. The victory is an important one for McCain, who also won the South Carolina and New Hampshire primaries. It puts him in position to win big next week on Super Tuesday when 21 states will hold Republican primaries or caucuses.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is in third place with 15 percent, followed closely by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 13. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was a distant fifth with 3 percent.
The poor result may end Giuliani's campaign. He hinted Monday that if he lost, he might not continue. Time magazine reported that Giuliani has been negotiating with McCain and will endorse him as early as Wednesday in California.
9:27 PM ET | 01-29-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
NPR has called the Florida Democratic primary for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. She currently has 49 percent of the vote. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is in second with 30 percent.
There are no delegates at stake currently. The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates when it moved its primary to January. None of the candidates campaigned in Florida. Sen. Clinton has said she will fight to get the delegates eventually seated at the convention.
8:38 PM ET | 01-29-2008 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
It doesn't get much closer than this.
With a third of the polls reporting, Sen. John McCain is leading former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney 34 percent to 33 percent (or about 14,000 votes out of around nearly a million votes cast so far. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is in a distance third place at 15 place.
The winner will gain all 57 national convention delegates at stake, the biggest prize so far in the early round of primaries and caucuses.
8:20 PM ET | 01-29-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
More than half of California's Super Tuesday votes will be mail-in ballots. That's an amazing number in a large state like California and it truly does mean that the outcome of this election may have already been decided - we just haven't counted the already cast ballots yet.
KQED reporter Tamara Keith spoke to some of those voters for Day to Day and asked them why so many of them opt not to go to the polls.
The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month (the mail-in ballots went out on Jan. 8) on why these voters are so attractive to the candidates. "By harvesting permanent absentee voters, you're harvesting the most frequent and most likely voters," Stephen Weir, president of the state association of registrars, said of the campaigns' efforts to entice them.
3:12 PM ET | 01-29-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
If there is one thing that Republicans and Democrats can agree on, it's that women voters will determine who will be the next president.
Rep. Kay Granger, a Republican from Texas, and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake talked to Morning Edition's Lynn Neary today about the women's vote, and it's a bit surprising how much they agree on.
Both told Neary that across the board, women care about the economy. They also comprise 80 percent of all "health care" voters. And they see job security - coming back to work after having children, for instance - as a major issue.
For women voters, stage of life is more important than age. Their different concerns are more based on what's happening in their lives: A 32-year-old single woman has different concerns than a 32-year-old mother of three or than a 32-year-old woman with children and ailing parents.
Lake said the one big difference between Democratic women and Republican women has been the war in Iraq. Democratic women have been opposed to the war for some time and were the first in the party to voice disapproval.
But there are also class and ethnic differences in Democratic women themselves that are reflected in their political choices. College-educated women favor Barack Obama. Women over 50 are much more aware of the historic nature of Hillary Clinton's challenge for the Oval Office because they are more aware of the glass ceiling than younger women.
Latino and Anglo women tend to favor Clinton, while African-American women support Obama.
And here is something else Granger and Lake agree on - women will stay undecided about their vote longer than men. And they won't base it on party line, but much more on the likability factor.
12:22 PM ET | 01-29-2008 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
It's one of the ironies of life that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is probably being courted more ferociously this week than anytime when he was actually running for president. That's because he is seen as a key to the Latino vote. And now that Sen. Ted Kennedy has thrown his support to Sen. Barack Obama, Richardson is one of the last prominent Democrats to endorse someone.
Richardson's endorsement is being eagerly sought because of Super Tuesday, when several large states with significant Latino populations (like California) will vote.
In a conversation with the Washington Post, Richardson admits he's torn. He served in the Clinton White House and likes Sen. Clinton. But he also regards Kennedy as a mentor, and his opinion about Sen. Barack Obama carries a lot of weight.
If he endorses anyone, it will come at the end of this week.
"If I do endorse, it's going to be a gut feeling. It's not going to be about statistics, about past ties," Richardson said. "I've been on the campaign trail with both of them. I feel that I know them. I feel I know the issues. I feel I know what makes them both tick."
10:32 AM ET | 01-29-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were in Washington last night for President Bush's final State of the Union address. (Although Obama reportedly gave Clinton the cold shoulder.) But the other member of the Senate running for the presidency Sen. John McCain was in Florida, getting in one more day of campaigning in what is an extremely close race with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Several of the polls taken in the past few days have the race a tie, or with a slight two- or three-point lead for McCain, who seemed to get a small bump over the weekend after an endorsement from Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.
But the real story of Florida may be the end of Rudy Giuliani's campaign. The former New York mayor had pinned all of his chances on winning this state after ignoring the early caucuses and primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina. After leading in pools for months, Giuliani is now looking at a third or fourth place finish.
Yesterday he seemed to hint that he knew the end was near. The New York Daily News reports that Giuliani hinted Monday that he could end his presidential bid as early as Wednesday if he loses Florida.
"When it's Wednesday morning, we will make a decision," he said when asked about what he would do if he loses. "The reality is that voting hasn't even started yet. I believe we are going to win."
He also declined to say if he would take part in a debate in California tomorrow.
9:27 AM ET | 01-29-2008 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
The National Right To Life Committee, one of John McCain's most ardent foes in Washington and on the campaign trail, is dropping its opposition to him. Now it says it's "grateful" for McCain's "strong pro-life" record.
Yes, this is the same John McCain who's been trading insults and accusations with NRLC since the late 1990s, when he took up the cause of campaign finance reform. When he ran for president eight years ago, he called single-issue anti-abortion voters "otherwise intelligent people." When he pushed the McCain-Feingold bill through the Senate in 2001, the committee's lawyer called it a "pernicious attack" on grassroots organizations.
As the committee gained strength in Washington, it became a leader in opposing limits on political spending by outside groups -- groups like itself. Its state affiliates have frequently challenged, and often won, court challenges to McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance laws.
NRLC endorsed Fred Thompson for president last fall. Hadn't he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold? Not a problem, the committee said, reminding its members that McCain backed embryonic stem-cell research. So when McCain won the South Carolina primary last week and Thompson dropped out, the committee had to readjust.
Monday it urged anti-abortion voters "to do what is necessary" to elect a president who opposes abortion rights. NRLC endorses no candidate specifically, but praises all of them -- except Rudolph Giuliani. He hasn't changed his pro-choice stance, and the Right To Life Committee hasn't changed its opposition to him.
-- Peter Overby
8:00 AM ET | 01-29-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
Among bloggers, the overall reaction so far to President Bush's final State of the Union address appears to be that it gets a passing grade but was nothing special. Many described it as a conciliatory speech, especially considering that he will need to work with a Democratic Congress to achieve many of the goals of his last year in office.
Ed Morrissey of the conservative Captain's Quarters wrote:
"It didn't move me much. He had his moments; his slam on earmarks was much appreciated, even if he didn't take the action we wanted. It's a huge improvement over where we were at just two years ago on the subject. His promise to veto any new taxes also satisfied me. The recitation of the success in Iraq was, I thought, particularly effective. However, most of the rest of the speech seemed boilerplate and rote, and not particularly well delivered. Bush has been a mostly mediocre speaker, with a couple of moments in his terms where he seemed moved to eloquence. We know he can reach those heights when circumstances demand it, but otherwise he just sounds either diffident or annoyed."
Matt Lewis at Townhall.com writes that many conservatives aren't sure what to think of the speech and of the president himself:
"President Bush did [acknowledge] problems in the economy, including a housing crisis. My guess is that he fears being seen as out-of-touch, the way his father was in 1991, when a recession hit and probably cost him re-election. While most conservatives are less than thrilled over the currently proposed stimulus package, most conservatives will applaud his call to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. The real question is whether or not this is simply rhetoric -- or if he's willing to fight for them."
Even A.J. Rossmiller of the liberal AMERICAblog couldn't get very worked up:
"Look ma, no legacy! As far as I can tell, the big goals for this year are (1) reducing earmarks, and (2) scaring people. On the one hand, it's not very ambitious. On the other, he might actually be able to handle those goals. But none of our big problems will be helped. 2009 can't come soon enough."
Just a note: Please continue to post your comments. If we miss any tonight, we'll post them first thing in the morning.
11:05 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "We have other work to do on taxes. Unless the Congress acts, most of the tax relief we have delivered over the past seven years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800."
Analysis: The president's use of averages is misleading and masks who actually benefits most from his tax cuts. The Citizens for Tax Justice estimate that the middle 20 percent of Americans will receive 11 percent of the Bush tax cuts between 2001 and 2010, while the top 1 percent will receive 36 percent. That means the middle 20 percent would lose about $540 a year in tax breaks if the Bush tax cuts are not renewed. The top 1 percent would lose an average of $34,000 a year.
- John Ydstie
10:08 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (14) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America has added jobs for a record 52 straight months, but jobs are now growing at a slower pace. Wages are up, but so are prices for food and gas. Exports are rising, but the housing market has declined. And at kitchen tables across our country, there is concern about our economic future."
Analysis: President Bush acknowledged the economy faces difficulties, but glossed over the seriousness of the problem. Some economists believe the U.S. is already in recession. The situation in the housing market is especially difficult. Today, the Commerce Department reported a record drop in new home sales in 2007 — they fell more than 26 percent. As a result of the bursting of the housing bubble, millions of Americans face foreclosure and could lose their homes. The troubles in the U.S. housing market have spread to the rest of the world through complicated securities that included subprime U.S. mortgages. There is fear that ultimately the global economy could fall into recession.
10:00 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (5) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "One of the most important tools we can give them is the ability to monitor terrorist communications. To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning. Last year, the Congress passed legislation to help us do that. Unfortunately, the Congress set the legislation to expire on Feb. 1. This means that if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. The Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We have had ample time for debate. The time to act is now."
Analysis: The Protect America Act, passed by Congress last August, expires on Feb. 1. That legislation expanded powers available to the administration under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, especially with respect to the monitoring of electronic communication (e-mails, for example) between suspected terrorists who are outside the United States but whose communications pass through switching networks in U.S. territory. Under existing legislation, the attorney general has to certify that the surveillance meets the legal conditions. Those certifications will not expire on Feb. 1. There will be no disruption of current monitoring. The wiretapping can continue regardless of what Congress does. It is true, however, that the executive branch will not be able to make new certifications and therefore open new surveillance cases.
- Tom Gjelten
9:54 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you, we respect your traditions and your history, and we look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home and cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf."
Analysis: President Bush, who in a previous State of the Union address labeled Iran as part of an axis of evil, has adopted the language of United Nations Security Council resolutions, saying negotiations can begin once Iran verifiably suspends nuclear enrichment. The Bush administration is in the midst of difficult diplomatic negotiations on another sanctions resolution at the U.N., hoping to build up pressure on Iran. However, news that the U.S. intelligence community believes that Iran suspended a nuclear weapons program back in 2003 has made the sanctions debate more complicated, according to diplomats.
- Michele Kelemen
9:53 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "We are also standing against the forces of extremism in the Holy Land, where we have new cause for hope. Palestinians have elected a president who recognizes that confronting terror is essential to achieving a state where his people can live in dignity and at peace with Israel. Israelis have leaders who recognize that a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state will be a source of lasting security. This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year. The time has come for a Holy Land where a democratic Israel and a democratic Palestine live side-by-side in peace."
Analysis: In addition to the many troubling questions in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, a new one has emerged, one President Bush has not addressed. Hamas, which doesn't recognize Israel, controls Gaza, and in response to Hamas rocket attacks, Israel has tried to seal off the region. Now, the U.S. is hoping forces loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas can help, but Abbas has little, if any, control over Gaza and his Security Forces are still weak. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that there can be no peace without Gaza as part of the package.
9:52 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "In Iraq, the terrorists and extremists are fighting to deny a proud people their liberty and to establish safe havens for attacks across the world."
Analysis: True. But al-Qaida is just one problem in Iraq. So, too, is the sectarian division -- another serious problem. The National Police, for example, are rife with Shiite death squad members and many commanders have had to be fired.
From the speech: "And today this grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists."
Analysis: True, but few of those so-called Concerned Local Citizens, who are essentially an armed neighborhood watch, are being absorbed into the Iraqi Security Forces. And the U.S. taxpayer is paying $300 per month for most of those citizens. The Shiite-dominated government doesn't trust them because most are Sunni and some were former insurgents. Now, the Americans are working on a plan to hire the bulk of those who aren't allowed into the security forces for public service jobs.
From the speech: "Our objective in the coming year is to sustain and build on the gains we made in 2007 ... American troops are shifting from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to a protective overwatch mission."
Analysis: The real question is, as American surge troops draw down, will the Iraqi forces be able to pick up the slack? Most of the gains in 2007 were the result of 30,000 more American troops. And as far as that shift, it will take many years. Maj. Gen. James Dubik, the top American trainer of Iraqi forces, told Congress that the Iraqi defense minister had estimated when the Iraqis could reach that "overwatch" phase where Americans would be in a supervisory role. The minister estimated that the Iraqis could take control of internal security sometime between 2009 and 2012, and external security sometime between 2018 and 2020.
From the speech: "Progress in the provinces must be matched by progress in Baghdad."
Analysis: That's the rub. There is reconciliation going on at the local level, but little at the national level in Baghdad. There is little movement on the "benchmarks" on political reconciliation that the president outlined last year.
From the speech: "The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces."
Analysis: True, but no oil law has been passed. A key sticking point? The Kurds in the north want more control over the oil in their area and are balking.
From the speech: "The parliament recently passed both a pension law and de-Baathification reform."
Analysis: The de-Baathification law passed was more restrictive than the one that the U.S. wanted. It may worsen sectarian problems by forcing out many Sunnis in the government, especially officials in the security forces. And there are concerns about how the law will be implemented by the Shiite-led government and how many pensions will be forthcoming for Sunnis.
From the speech: "Now they are debating a provincial powers law."
Analysis: And they have been debating it for more than two years. Sunnis want provincial elections so they can have a greater say in how they are governed. But the Shiite government is balking. Many in the Sunni enclave of Anbar Province have little trust in the government. One Marine general told NPR in the fall of 2006 that if provincial elections were not held in 2007, we will have "problems." President Bush last January said he expected the elections "later this year."
- Tom Bowman
9:51 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "Every member in this chamber knows that spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is growing faster than we can afford. And we all know the painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits."
Analysis: What Bush didn't say is that he will soon have to propose another bill with painful choices. Under the terms of the 2003 law that created the Medicare prescription drug benefit, Bush must propose in the next three weeks a bill to bring Medicare spending that comes from general tax revenues (as opposed to the Medicare payroll tax) back down to 45 percent of total Medicare spending. And by law, those cuts can't come from increased taxes. That will mean some combination of cuts in benefits, payments to doctors and other providers of health care, and beneficiary premiums. Not likely to be popular in an election year. And also under the terms of that 2003 law, Congress will be required to debate (although not necessarily to pass) that legislation this year.
- Julie Rovner
9:50 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago."
Analysis: True, the surge has achieved results. There is unquestionably better security throughout the country, although there are now dangerous pockets of insurgent activity around the northern city of Mosul. But the "enemy" the president refers to apparently means al-Qaida. He fails to mention the rampant sectarianism, including the Shiite militias who have worked their way into the security forces, particularly the National Police. That is a serious threat to reconciliation among Shiites and Sunnis. He talks of the Iraqi "surge," which includes both the Iraqi army and police, but fails to say that the National Police are both corrupt and undermanned. Many leaders have had to be replaced.
From the speech: "Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al-Qaida is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated."
Analysis: There's no question that al-Qaida is on the run, heading into northern Iraq around the areas of Mosul or south of Baghdad into Arab Jabour. But the whole point of the surge was to create what administration officials called "breathing space" for reconciliation. And on that point there has been little progress.
9:45 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace. In the last seven years, we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty. We have seen citizens in Georgia and Ukraine stand up for their right to free and fair elections. We have seen people in Lebanon take to the streets to demand their independence. We have seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban to choose a new president and a new parliament. We have seen jubilant Iraqis holding up ink-stained fingers and celebrating their freedom. And these images of liberty have inspired us."
Analysis: President Bush often talks about what he calls his "freedom agenda" in the Middle East, arguing the U.S. relied on a false stability in the region in the past. But the democracy agenda took a hit when Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, won elections in the Palestinian territories two years ago and when the Muslim Brotherhood made gains in elections in Egypt before that. The president never mentions those elections, though the U.S. had been encouraging both votes to take place. The president has also toned down his criticism of key Arab allies. When he met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and other leaders during a recent swing through the Middle East, Bush did not openly criticize anyone's rule, but rather gently nudged for reforms and talked about the long term rather than the near term.
9:35 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride."
Analysis: The Bush administration has been discussing such a fund with Japan and the United Kingdom, to be used to help developing countries enhance energy efficiency and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Such a proposal, pegged at $2 billion, could face tough going in Congress, however, from members who insist that the larger "developing" countries be required to reduce their own emissions as part of any international climate agreement. The administration is sympathetic to that view, signaling so in the address tonight with the words that "This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride." Even if that much money can be raised, it amounts to 1 percent of what the United Nations has estimated to be necessary to develop the technology worldwide to hold warming to acceptable levels.
As for an international agreement to slow and reverse growth of greenhouse gases, the president has never supported the Kyoto Protocol, the only international agreement so far with specific limits and mechanisms for reducing warming — one that every industrialized nation except the U.S. has signed onto. The Bush administration began a parallel process last year, inviting major economies, including China and India, to Washington to talk about encouraging technological innovation to reduce warming. This "major economies" initiative is viewed by the rest of the industrialized world as a U.S. alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, and most are very skeptical. The second major economies meeting is scheduled for later this week in Hawaii, but so far the White House has indicated there won't be specific proposals laid on the table. Moreover, the target for any agreement to emerge from it is 2009 — after Bush leaves office.
- Christopher Joyce
9:28 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps. Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future."
Analysis The legislation President Bush is talking about is the new energy law, passed last December. It probably did more for the climate than anything the White House has conferred its blessing to: it raised fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for the first time in 32 years. It failed on other counts, such as extending tax breaks for wind and solar power, however. Clean coal has been a familiar favorite of this White House, since the U.S. is rich with coal reserves. The biggest item on this count is Futuregen, a project to build a model coal-fired electricity plant that captures climate-warming carbon dioxide. It's late, over budget and stalled by paperwork hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency. As for renewable fuels, the White House has pressed hard every year to demand more biofuels, mostly from corn to make ethanol that replaces gas in cars. That policy has succeeded in getting more ethanol into pumps, but the increased demand has also raised the price of corn. President Bush has encouraged scientists to learn how to make ethanol from other feedstocks, like prairie grass. That technology is several years in the future.
9:25 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
From the speech: "Now we must work together to increase accountability, add flexibility for states and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts and provide extra help for struggling schools. Members of Congress: The No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan achievement. It is succeeding.
" ... I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential. Together, we have expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let's apply that same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools."
Analysis: President Bush is proposing two education initiatives tonight that have two chances of being enacted — slim, and none. The president is asking once again for Congress to support a federal voucher program, proposing a $300 million program to help poor children in underperforming schools attend private or religious schools. The program has a new name, "Pell Grants for Kids," but it is likely to meet the same fate as other vouchers proposals: Democrats will shoot it down, arguing that vouchers take money away from public schools that are already starved for funds.
Ditto for the other proposal: reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. This initiative was one of the biggest successes of President Bush's first year in office, but last year, the president's efforts to reauthorize the program in its current form ran into a Democratic brick wall. Democratic leaders wanted to make substantial changes, and the administration refused to budge. This year is an election year, so it's even less likely that Congress will take up this controversial law. Most education watchers say nothing will happen until 2009.
- Larry Abramson
9:21 PM ET | 01-28-2008 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)
