Bush Endorses Energy Plan; Effect on Republican Candidates

In a speech today at the United States Agency for International Development, President Bush announced a plan for his administration to engage on the climate change issue in upcoming G8 talks.

From the New York Times:

Mr. Bush pledged to convene a series of meetings, beginning in the fall, with 10 to 15 countries that produce the most greenhouse gas emissions, including China and India. Each country would establish midterm national targets for reducing emissions over the next 10 to 20 years, while working together to set a longer-term goal.

The talks also would bring together industry leaders, Mr. Bush said, so that the countries could work together to pool their knowledge and promote investment in energy-efficient technologies, including solar and wind energy, clean-coal technologies and nuclear power. But each country would be free to set its own national goals, and there would be no binding international framework for enforcement.

Now, other analysts will describe how this will actually effect policy in the future, and what it means. That’s obviously not for us at this site to tackle.

But we can tackle what this means for Republican presidential candidates. If Bush had continued to hold out, Republicans who advocated making changes in this area (such as Sam Brownback, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and even Duncan Hunter) risked making themselves look incredibly (and needlessly) liberal.

Now, GOP candidates can look to engage the issue with conservative principles instead of risking anything simply by acknowledging that climate change is a problem.

Sphere: Related Content

Bob Shrum Blasts Edwards In New Book

“Kerry said that he wished he’d never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut.”

Time Magazine published a very interesting excerpt from Bob Shrum’s upcoming book, No Excuses.  It’s definitely worth a quick read; I hope the entire book is as interesting as this excerpt.  Here are the highlights…

Shrum describing a conversation between John Kerry and John Edwards during Kerry’s running-mate search, where Edwards shocks Kerry:

Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he’d never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he’d do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn’t pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

Shrum discussing Kerry’s request from Edwards that he not run against him in 2008 should they lose the general election in 2004:

Kerry tried to get a better personal feel for his potential number two; as rivals for national office since 2000, shortly after Edwards had entered the Senate, the two men hadn’t spent a lot of time together. Kerry also wanted a specific reassurance. He asked Edwards for a commitment that if he was chosen and the ticket lost, Edwards wouldn’t run against him in 2008. Edwards agreed “absolutely,” as Kerry recalled him saying.

Shrum noting the abrupt end of Kerry and Edward’s relationship after the election:

Kerry’s relationship with Edwards would sour after the election—and mine would simply fade away. When Elizabeth discovered she had breast cancer, John and Teresa reached out to help the Edwardses find the best doctors they could. Marylouise and I called—but afterward, never heard from John again. Maybe we shouldn’t have expected to. Kerry told me that the Edwardses simply stopped returning calls or talking to him and Teresa. Within months, Edwards started preparing for a bid in 2008. Kerry said that he wished he’d never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut.

The Washington Post reports another excerpt from Shrum’s book and the Edwards campaign’s response to the specific allegation…

Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, “What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?”

“I’m not comfortable around those people,” Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate’s wife, Elizabeth, told him: “John, you know that’s wrong.”

Edwards’s pollster, Harrison Hickman, who was in the room during the discussion, says Shrum “is sensationalizing and taking out of context what was an honest discussion about [Edwards's] lack of exposure to these issues and openly gay people. I don’t remember anything that expressed any kind of venom or judgment about gay people.”

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz says Shrum “has a very casual relationship with the truth. Bob is obviously more interested in selling books than reporting honestly and accurately about what happened.”

Needless to say, the aforementioned information could lead to some rocky times for Edwards in the near future.  Although, there are at least two conditions that would need to be met in order for Shrum’s words to have a chance of adversely affecting Edwards:

1. First and foremost, it’s necessary to keep in mind that Bob Shrum is a political strategist, who worked for John Kerry back in 2004.  Accordingly, the veracity threshold for matters relating to the Kerry-Edwards dynamic is, or at least should be, much higher than if Shrum was a well respected journalist/author unconnected to either campaign.  He would need to meet this standard by providing strong evidence for his claims or additional similar examples substantiated by well regarded third party.
2. These, and other allegations in the book will need to grow legs.  Meaning: This book will need to create an incentive for others to start piecing together Edwards’ comments about his deceased son.  If it turns out to be the case, that Edwards ended up delivering the “I’ve never told anyone this before” story on several occasions to various audiences or to various people, then he’s going to be in for some trouble.  It’ll certainly turn off many voters to him.  Moreover, it’ll make people reevaluate and further scrutinize his conduct relating to Elizabeth Edwards’ most recent cancer announcement.

Sphere: Related Content

Kucinich Attempts To Resurrect Campaign By Committing to CBC/Fox News Debate And Attacking Clinton, Edwards And Obama

The Congressional Black Caucus Institute (CBC) and Fox News  announced a while back that they would be co-sponsoring both a Democratic and a Republican primary debate; the Democratic debate is scheduled for September 23, 2007 and the Republican debate is scheduled for Fall 2007 (a date has not yet been set).  Following this announcement John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton issued statements indicating that they would not be participating in the debate.  Since then, talk of the debate had remained quiet and the CBC continues to indicate that the debate is still on.

Last week, Joe Biden announced that he would participate in the CBC/Fox News Debate.  [Kudos to Sen. Biden for agreeing to participate in the debate]  This in turn led to fresh questions about who will be participating in the debate.  Sen. Dodd and Rep. Kucinich did not respond to requests regarding their status last week.

Then, this past Sunday (5/27/07), Dennis Kucinich decided to shake things up a bit by confirming that he would participate in the CBC/Fox News Debate.  About participating in the debate, Rep. Kucinich said:

“America needs a President with the ability and willingness to unite people of diverse political views.  Let us never forget that the symbol of our country, the American eagle, needs two wings to fly — a left wing and a right wing. I’m prepared to reach out to all Americans. We all deserve to be heard. and we all deserve to be represented.”

“Certainly many Fox viewers are not part of the traditional Democratic base, but they have a right to hear from the Democratic candidates and we as candidates have an obligation to reach out to them. Families who view Fox News have lost loved ones in Iraq, lost their jobs to NAFTA, and lost their homes to medical bills, just as have the viewers of other networks.”

Dennis Kucinich also took issue with Edwards’, Obama’s and Clinton’s refusal to participate, saying:

“This is particularly troublesome because the concerns of African Americans should take precedent over what network is broadcasting the debate,” Kucinich said, “There are matters relating to employment, health care, education, jobs, rebuilding our cities, environment and civil rights that all presidential candidates have an obligation to address and debate. Those candidates planning to skip this debate clearly are trying to avoid a forum where there will be hard-hitting questions from people who may not agree with them. But taking questions from all sides is part of politics, and part of being President. I’m running to be President for all people in this country.” 

“…First Sens. Clinton and Edwards were tricked by George Bush into voting for the war. Then they and Sen. Obama voted most of the time to support funding the war. All three have said all options are on the table with Iran, meaning they are ready to go to war against Iran. This raises questions about their judgment, about who they are they, who they represent? African-Americans —  and Fox viewers — have a right to know.”

I’ll commend Rep. Kucinich for agreeing to participate in the debate as I am strongly opposed to the idea of withdrawing from a debate simply because Fox News will be hosting it (especially after seeing their first Republican debate, which was pretty good aside from some very silly questions).  I just find myself wondering why it took him so long to act on his strong feelings about this debate.  It seems to me, given what he believes and what he said that he should have committed to the debate immediately after it was announced or at the very least respond to press inquiries about it (I can think of another recent example of Rep. Kucinich’s rhetoric not corresponding to his actions - his handling of the “Eyes And Ears Project”).  So why wait until the beginning of this week and why launch strong criticisms against other candidates about this issue?  Here are my thoughts…

• First and foremost, Kucinich has been off the radar for a while.  After the first Democratic debate, Mike Gravel cut in on the the little attention that used to be given to Kucinich.  Beyond that, he hasn’t really done much.  So, he needs to shake things up a bit in order to get some attention.
• Aside from the need to keep his campaign fresh and in the press, it’s also important to keep in mind that CNN’S Democratic Debate is scheduled for this Sunday (6/3/07).  Getting a media bump prior to the debate will enable Kucinich to receive maximum exposure during and after the debate.  I’d also like to point out that prior to MSNBC’s Democratic Debate last month, Rep. Kucinch attempted to create buzz by filing Articles of Impeachment Vice President Dick Cheney just two days before the event.
• Committing to the Fox News debate offers Kucinich ammunition during this weekend’s debate.  If an opportunity arises to challenge the other candidates on this issue, Kucinich will certainly capitalize on it.  Thus, his attempt to make this an issue leading up to this weekend’s debate only increase the chance of the issue being raised during the debate.

Other candidates have been chiming in on this issue too…

• Sen. Chris Dodd has announced that he will not be participating in the debate (which seems odd given that he did just appear on Fox News Sunday).  His refusal to participate is most likely the result of pressure from far left parts of the Democratic party.
• Yesterday, Gov. Bill Richardson announced that he would not be participating in the debate.  Several hours later, Richardson withdrew his statement that he would not participate and instead indicated that he was undecided.  Today, his campaign confirmed that he would not be participating in the debate.
• Mike Gravel has not committed to the debate yet, although it seems likely that he would.

In all, I don’t imagine Rep. Kucinich will gain much from this.  Even if he goes on a charge against the other candidates during the debate.  If this issue has any teeth (and I don’t really think it does…at least not amongst Democrats), Sen. Biden will be the one to gain from it, since he was the first candidate to clearly state that he would participate in the debate.

You May Have Missed…

• Hillary Clinton Backs Out Of CBC/Fox News Debate (4/10/07)
• Obama Backs Out Of Debate Co-Sponsored By Fox News & The Congressional Black Caucus (4/9/07)
• Edwards Backs Out Of Another Debate (4/8/07)

Sphere: Related Content

When’s The Slumber Party?

This is just weird…

Sphere: Related Content

The Ad Hoc Nature of Giuliani Campaign Stops

 Most candidates either list their campaign stops online, whether on their main page, as a press release, or in an ‘events’ section of their site.

Rudy Giuliani seems to be a notable exception. The only way to get any updates on where he is on his website is if you sign up to join his email list, and even then it does not give you everything (yours truly signed up, to no avail). It’s not a coincidence his calendar on our site is the most empty.

An AP story about a campaign appearance today in California illustrates part of the problem:

Giuliani stepped off a plane at San Francisco International Airport and promptly went to the Broadway Grill a few minutes away to chat with customers. His campaign ensured the lunchtime visit was stacked with supporters, sending out an e-mail Wednesday morning urging them to stop by the cafe en route to the fundraiser.

Those crowded into the restaurant appeared to be a mix of regulars in T-shirts and committed supporters clad in suits and ties and bound for the fundraiser, which cost $250 and up.

That’s not how most candidates organize their events - morning emails to people already attending an event asking them to attend another one. I have to wonder how much of this is avoiding potential sticky protests by the the IAFF outside his events, as mentioned earlier.

If anyone has any confirmation on how Giuliani schedules events in early primary states - where he would probably want to reach out to more undecided voters than in northern California events - please forward them along to us using the email addresses to the right.

You May Have Missed…

• Criticism Over Giuliani’s Handling Of 9/11 Continues To Heat Up While McCain Capitalizes On Rudy’s Weakness (5/30/07

Sphere: Related Content

Fred Thompson to File Initial Papers Next Week; Make Official in July

Following up on our post of earlier this week, Fred Thompson is now poised to file FEC papers next week to officially form an exploratory committee.

From the New York Times:

In a conference call on Tuesday, 75 to 100 Republicans who had offered to back the Tennessee politician better known for his acting career were urged to raise roughly $50,000 each to provide the financial underpinnings for a Thompson candidacy that has been in the making for months.

Participants on the call said Mr. Thompson, currently in the cast of NBC’s “Law and Order,” was enthusiastic about becoming an alternative to current contenders led by Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney but was not ready to officially enter the field without evidence he could draw the necessary financial support.

“You have to raise money to be competitive even if you are Fred Thompson,” said Representative Zach Wamp, a Tennessee Republican who has headed up an effort to draft Mr. Thompson.

Although Mr. Thompson planned next week to create what is known as a “testing the waters” committee that would allow him to raise money and take other steps toward a full-blown campaign, members of his inner circle cautioned that he had not yet made a final decision. But if the next few weeks were successful, they said, he could officially enter the race as early as July.

Forming the committee will allow Thompson to begin fundraising and paying a staff, who can begin organizing on the ground in the early states, and begin to capitalize on the momentum of his announcement. This won’t be the official announcement, though; as mentioned it will probably come in July.

Sphere: Related Content

Criticism Over Giuliani’s Handling Of 9/11 Continues To Heat Up While McCain Capitalizes On Rudy’s Weakness

Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani participated in four fundraisers in New York.  Aside from receiving approximately $500,000 in donations, Giuliani was also on the receiving end of strong criticism for his handling of 9/11.

Fire officers association chief Peter Gorman, who was involved in yesterday’s protests as well as others in the past had the following message for Giuliani: “Rudy, we ain’t going away.”  Gorman went on to say:

“We’re trying to peel him back like an onion, layer by layer. Our message to Rudy is that we’re going on your home turf, in any state and we will continue to tell the truth about Rudy Giuliani.”

Giuliani’s tension with firefighters was put on display back in March during a scuffle with the International Association of Firefighters after they did not extend an invitation to him to participate in their bi-partisan Presidential Forum.  Of note, they invited John Edwards, John McCain, Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, Hillary Clinton, Jim Gilmore, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Duncan Hunter, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, George Pataki, Mike Huckabee and Tommy Thompson. Despite their initial refusal to invite Giuliani, the IAFF eventually invited Rudy; Giuliani accepted the invitation and then subsequently declined.  This situation resulted in an explanatory letter from Harold A. Schaitberger, IAFF’s General President, that concluded with Schaitberger saying:

The fundamental lack of respect that Giuliani showed is unforgivable. Our disdain for him is not about issues or a disputed contract, it is about a visceral, personal affront to the fallen, to our union and, indeed, to every one of us who has ever risked our lives by going into a burning building to save lives and property.

We have heard from some affiliates that Giuliani’s campaign is beginning to reach out to our locals, looking to build support. If you are contacted by Giuliani, Von Essen or a representative of the Giuliani campaign, we hope you will not just say, “No,” but, “Hell no.”

Last week, it was reported that the IAFF will be sending a 6-minute video to 280,000 firefighters criticizing Giuliani’s preparedeness for a terrorist attack while he was mayor.  IAFF Spokesman Jeff Zack said the following about the distribution of the video:

When it came to preparing the firefighters in New York City and the only known terrorist target in the nation, at the time, which was the World Trade Center, Rudy failed

It’s worth noting that while the firefighters pile on Rudy, McCain appears to be capitalizing on Rudy’s weakness.  On Thursday, May 24, 2007, Jonn McCain had dinner with IAFF’s General President, Harold A. Schaitberger.  Details of what was discussed are not available, although The Hotline contends that immigration was most likely on the table given the fact that McCain and Schaitberger are on opposite sides of the recent immigration legislation.

Rudy also received some heat from folks skeptical of his handling of 9/11 as well as the facts surrounding 9/11.  They confronted him about statements that he made in an old interview with Peter Jennings regarding what information he had about the collapse of the Twin Towers prior to their collapse and when he had this information…

Statement made to Peter Jennings:

“I–I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”

Rudy’s encounter with critics at one of yesterday’s fundraiser:

Giuliani’s comments about yesterday’s protests:

“There isn’t any part of me at all that resents it,” the recently mellowed Giuliani told reporters in Queens. “(Sept. 11 was) a very, very traumatic, horrible experience. I lived through it. I watched people die. . . . So any anger that people displace about this, I have never had any resentment.”

Bogus Source Alert: Newsmax covered yesterday’s protests with an article entitled “Rudy Giuliani Hounded by Radicals.”  As always, be careful about your sources….By referring to the skeptics as radicals, Newsmax immediately undermined their seemingly legitimate question, whether they are radicals is somewhat irrelevant to the question at issue.  Moreover and more importantly, by failing to mention the fact that there were also fire fighters and 9/11 victims’ families involved in the protests, Newsmax presented a very eschewed perspective of the protests - one that I feel does not give the proper respect to the protestors nor to Newsmax’s reporting obligations.

From a political perspective, this was obviously a very smart statement to make (I’m not saying that it’s fair or true or right, I’m simply saying that it was politically good).  Dismissing/denigrating the message of these protesters or attempting to directly challenge them would simply be politically dumb and would drag him into a widely publicized battle that he could not win politically.  He’ll continue to respond to these protests like this in order to keep a lid on it.  Any other response would fuel a media firestorm.

Sphere: Related Content

Is 2008 Election Making You Less Safe?

Times Wire Reports notes that in order to provide the necessary security for the large and growing field of candidates, the Secret Service will need to borrow over 2,000 immigration officers and federal screeners.  Additionally, the Secret Service will re-assign 250 agents from their current assignments on investigations to security details.

I’ll let you formulate your own conclusions, but something about this just doesn’t seem right…

Sphere: Related Content

Tommy Thompson Argues That He’s The Most Electable Republican Candidate

At a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, Iowa this past Saturday (5/26/07), Tommy Thompson explainedwhy he believes that he’s the GOP’s best hope for winning the general election:

“I don’t think the Republicans can carry Ohio.  Without Ohio, they need a candidate who can carry Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. I’m by far the strongest candidate to carry those three states.”

Gov. Thompson will need to elaborate quite a bit more on this statement in order to convince me.  For starters, he was speaking in front of a group of 30 people.  It’s very hard to convincingly portray yourself as the most electable candidate when your crowds are that small.  Moreover, I haven’t seen a single poll or come across any information that substantiates this claim.  Lastly, if this were true, then he would be performing better than 3% in Iowa’s polls, especially in light of the fact that Thompson considers Iowa the linchpin of his campaign.

Gov. Thompson also spoke about immigration, his plan for dealing with the Iraq war and his support of stem cell research.

You may have missed…

• Candidate Reactions To Immigration Compromise (5/18/07)
• Tommy Thompson Gets Some Hometown Help Explaining Gaffes (5/8/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Fred Thompson Jokes About Running For President

Speaking to a crowd in Stamford, Connecticut over the weekend Fred Thompson joked about his anticipated run for President:

“All right, let’s get the announcement out of the way.”
After a dramatic pause, the would-be presidential candidate declared: “Law & Order will return for an 18th season.”

And speculative details surrounding his announcement have started to make their way into the blogosphere… 

Tennessee Politics Blog reports:

Thompson to Announce in July, Collamore to Head Campaign– TPB has learned from a source close to the Draft Thompson organization that Thompson will announce he is running for President shortly after the FEC June 30 quarterly report deadline of this year. As first reported by Chris Cillizza, Tom Collamore, a former vice president of public affairs at Altria, will serve as the Campaign Manager. Collamore was involved as a undersecretary under Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush’s staff and transition team. [5/22/07]

Blackburn Jumps Ship on Romney– Watch out Mitt Romney. Congressman Marsha Blackburn has changed her endorsement from Romney to Fred Thompson. Blackburn previously served as one of the co-chairs for the National Women for Mitt coalition, but now it looks like she will back fellow Tennessean Fred Thompson. Blackburn joins Reps. David Davis, John Duncan, and Zach Wamp - all the Republicans in Congress from TN; along with Reps. Dan Manzullo (IL) and Gresham Barrett (SC) among the members of Congress who have endorsed Thompson. Blackburn spokesman said back in April on a possible endorsement switch to Thompson: “It’s premature to talk about … When he announces, then we’ll cross that bridge.” That means a Thompson announcement is right around the corner. [5/29/07]

[I feel compelled to note that we called a July announcement for Fred Thompson several months ago.]

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Obama Releases Health Care Plan

Barack Obama will be in Iowa City this morning, where he will be releasing his plan for health care.  Obama pledges that all Americans will have health insurance by the end of his first time (2012).  Additional details are not yet available, we will update accordingly…

Developing…

Sphere: Related Content

2008 Central’s Presidential Election Podcast (5/27/07)

This week’s podcast covers…

• Al Gore buzz
• Jockeying between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaigns
• Ron Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani on national security
• Discussion of bloggers call with Gov. Mike Huckabee
• Iraq War Funding Bill: What’s going on and what it means for the campaigns
• And more…

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for next week’s podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Subscribe to 2008 Central’s Presidential Election Podcast

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton and Obama Play the Chicken and Egg Game

From the NYT Caucus Blog:

There was no real suspense about whether the Iraq spending bill would pass the Senate last night. But in the final minutes, everyone was waiting to see how the two main contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, would vote.

Mr. Obama went first — no. Then, within minutes, Mrs. Clinton strode into the chamber and voted the same. After the vote, Mrs. Clinton dismissed the idea that she would pay for this vote in a general election, with Republican charges that she had abandoned troops in the field. “Nobody believes that,’’ she said. “That’s just propaganda.’’

She also dismissed a reporter’s suggestion that her votes had closely tracked Mr. Obama’s in recent months. “I think it’s the other way around, don’t you?’’ she said.

This raises a few questions:

Does it matter who votes first and who does not? Will anyone care if Clinton voted some way in part because Obama did or vice versa?

Do the similar voting records and tone magnify Clinton’s initial support of the war?

Will Edwards try to take advantage of Clinton and Obama failing to pass a more restrictive bill? And if so, how?

Will the votes end up backfiring in a general election? I doubt it, because I think Obama is eloquent enough to argue his way out a Kerry-like predicament, and Clinton is forceful enough to defend her ground. It’s going to be brought up undoubtedly (the only Democrat not supporting the Clinton/Obama vote is Biden, and I don’t see him getting nominated.)

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Talk Shows: Richardson, Hunter, Gilmore, Biden, Huckabee

Meet the Press (NBC): Bill Richardson

Face The Nation (CBS): Jeff Sessions and Carl Levin

This Week (ABC): James Gilmore, Carlos Gutierrez, Robert Menendez

Fox News Sunday: Mike Huckabee, Arlen Specter, Kay Bailey Hutchison

Late Edition (CNN): Duncan Hunter, Joe Biden, Charles Rangel, Shaukat Aziz

Sphere: Related Content

Candidate Statements on the War Funding Bill

Biden, Hagel, McCain, Hunter, and Tancredo voted for the bill. Kerry, Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Paul voted against it. Sam Brownback was not present. (Senate vote, House Vote)

Barack Obama:

“This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one.”

“We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else’s civil war. We need a plan to compel the Iraqi people to reach a political accommodation and to take responsibility for their own future. It’s time to change course.”

“I opposed this war in 2002 precisely because I feared it would lead us to the open-ended occupation in which we find ourselves today.”

“This President has led us down a disastrous path and has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the grim reality of this war, which has cost us so dearly in lives and treasure.”

“After he vetoed a plan that would have funded the troops and begun to bring them home, this bill represents more of his stubborn refusal to address his failed policy.”

“We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”

“With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”

Bill Richardson:

“The best way to support our troops is to get them out of Iraq, and this bill will not move us any closer to that. The Democratic Congress is missing an opportunity. They should repeal the original resolution that gave the President the authority to take action against Iraq and replace it with one that requires the President to take all the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. Congress has the authority to do that under Article One of the Constitution and under the War Powers Act and the President cannot veto it. Congress should not pass any appropriations beyond the date of de-authorization. By doing it that way, Congress would both fully fund our troops and get them out of Iraq as soon as possible.”

Chris Dodd:

“I’m disappointed that there is no firm deadline in this version of the bill, because I believe that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to an end. I will fight for, and hope that the bill that emerges from conference has, a firm deadline to redeploy our troops.”

Dennis Kucinich:

“Just as the Democrats could have prevented the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when Senators Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd supported it,” Kucinich said, “and just as the Democrats could have ended the occupation of Iraq at any point by ending the funding, while Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd have voted over and over again to fund it, so too the Democratic leadership could have ended the occupation this week by not bringing any funding bills up for votes.”

“The Democratic Party has to choose,” Kucinich said, “between standing for peace or continuing to support war and occupation, between heeding the demand of the voters last November or caving in to the demands of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. We can’t have it both ways. We can’t facilitate the passage of another bill to fund the war and at the same time claim that we want the war to end. The public sees through such hypocritical maneuvering.”

“It’s instructive,” Kucinich added, “that the leadership removed from the Supplemental a requirement that the president gain Congress’s consent before launching an additional aggressive war against Iran. Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards have all said that with regard to Iran all options are on the table, a thinly veiled euphemism for a unilateral preemptive military attack.”

“If Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd want to end the occupation of Iraq,” Kucinich noted, “they can vote against any more funding, and they can filibuster bills that provide it. I urge every Senator to take that step.”

Hillary Clinton:

“Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation. I fully support our troops, and wish the President had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment. But the President vetoed Congress’s new strategy and so Congress must reject the President’s failed policies. I will also continue to press with Senator Byrd for our legislation to end the authorization of the war in Iraq.

“While I am deeply disappointed that the supplemental does not provide for a new course in Iraq, I want to recognize the many worthy parts of this bill: funding to help those sickened in the aftermath of 9/11, additional relief for Katrina and Rita victims, homeland security funds for high-threat cities like New York City, resources to protect parts of New York affected by recent flooding, $650 million for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the first federal minimum wage increase in ten years. I support these measures but cannot support this Emergency Supplemental which will not change our course in Iraq.”

Joe Biden:

“Earlier this month, Congress sent the President an emergency spending bill for Iraq. It provided every dollar our troops need and the President requested - and then some. It also provided the American people a plan to bring this war to a responsible end. In vetoing the bill, the President denied our troops the funding they need, and the American people the plan they want.

“The bill we are voting on denies the American people a plan for a responsible way out of Iraq. I also disagree with the approach in this bill - cutting off economic aid if benchmarks aren’t met would be self-defeating. Much of our aid is being used to build local and provincial governments, consistent with the federalism-based political solution I advocate.

“But the practical reality is that, for now, those of us who want to change course in Iraq don’t have the votes to override the President’s veto. And I believe that as long as we have troops on the frontlines, we must give them the equipment and protection they need. So I will vote for the supplemental.

“But we also must - and we will - bring this war to a responsible end. Day after day, vote after vote, I will work to keep the pressure on Republicans to stop reflexively backing the President and start supporting a responsible path out of Iraq.”

John Edwards:

“Washington failed America today when Congress surrendered to the president’s demand for another blank check that prolongs the war in Iraq. It is time for this war to end.

“Congress should immediately use its funding power to cap troop levels in Iraq at 100,000, stop the ongoing surge, and force an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year.

“The American people’s call for a new course in Iraq was not answered today, but Congress still has the power to end this war. Our security and democracy alike demand it.”

John McCain Statement One:

“I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it’s the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda.”

John McCain Statement Two:

“Mr. President, our servicemen and women on the front lines in the War on Terror have been waiting too long for the funding this bill provides. Our soldiers, airmen, and marines need this appropriation to carry out their vital work, and we should have provided it months ago. The Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has an obligation to give our troops everything they need to prevail in their missions. As such, I will vote for its passage. But I do so with deep reservations. The legislation we are considering now is the wrong way to fund this war, and it fails the most basic tests imposed on us as stewards of taxpayer dollars.

“This emergency supplemental appropriations bill contains $120 billion in funding, approximately $17 billion above the President’s request. It is filled with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with funding the troops. In a time of war, with large federal budget deficits, we should be constraining our federal expenditures. Sadly, we have chosen, once again, to do the opposite, and loaded this bill with billions of dollars in spending we don’t need, spending that was not requested, spending that will only add to the already excessive size of government.

“The President submitted his supplemental funding request on February 5th – nearly 4 months ago. The Senate finally passed a very flawed version of a bill on March 29th – a bill that everyone knew was nothing more than a political stunt, one that was dead before arrival to the President. Instead of putting our country first and providing the troops with full funding as expeditiously as possible, we let partisan politics rule the day. While some may believe that they scored political points by forcing meaningless procedural votes, I would ask them to reflect for a moment. What gain inheres in playing partisan politics with the lives of our honorable warriors and their families? How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts, Mr. President. We are at war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of us - those who fight and risk all on our behalf - by playing politics with their service.

“So now, nearly four months after the supplemental funding request was submitted, here we are, with money literally running out to fund this war. We are about to pass a bill that while better than the last version, still contains billions of dollars that have nothing to do with the War on Terror. We can do better than this. The American taxpayers deserve and expect more.

“As my colleagues know, I’ve been meeting with citizens across the country, and let me assure you, they are not happy with the workings of Congress. There is a reason that the poll results on Congress’s favorability rating are at such lows–the latest at 31 percent. It is because of partisan politics having a greater priority in Washington than doing the people’s business. It is because we are not making the tough choices to halt deficit spending and fix the out of control entitlement programs. It is because we seem to care more about our own reelections than about reforming government. This is not the way the American public wants their elected officials to behave. What will it take for that to sink in?

“Let me mention some of the un-requested and un-authorized items contained in this bill:

· $110 million in aid to the shrimp and fisheries industries;

· $11 million for flood control projects in New York and New Jersey;

· $37 million to modernize the Farm Service Agency’s computer system;

· $13 million for the Save America’s Treasures program; and,

· $3 billion in agriculture disaster assistance, including $22 million to support the Department of Agriculture in implementing programs to provide this un-requested and unauthorized funding.

“Mr. President, there are also several items in this bill that seek to legislate on an appropriations bill rather than allowing such items to move through the regular legislative process. Examples include language that:

· Raises the minimum wage;

· Restricts the Department of Transportation from implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) provisions expanding cross-border trade between Mexico and the United States with the introduction of a pilot program that would allow a select group of Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries into our country beyond the 25 miles that current law permits;

· Extends several tax credits, while setting forth new Internal Revenue Service definitions and exempting some programs from taxation; and,

· Amends the Food Security Act to make adjustments to the Department of Agriculture’s land and soil conservation program.

“Another provision that seeks to legislate on this appropriations bill is a provision that would end-run the Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The 2005 BRAC commission decided to close the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, and the Department of Navy was in the process of closing the base in accordance with the law. This bill, however, would transfer the land and facilities to the Air Force – even though the Secretary of the Air Force stated on April 12, 2007 that there is not a military need for the land it will be forced to receive. This provision was not requested by the Administration, is not an emergency, and is not a responsible way to legislate. It was not reviewed or debated in any committee, and the committee of jurisdiction has had no say in the matter. Yet, the American people will now be forced to continue to pay for the maintenance of this unwanted land when the Air Force receives it.

“Despite these unacceptable earmarks and legislative language, I am pleased that this bill does not contain a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions there. Such a mandate would have had grave consequences for the future of Iraq and the security of Americans. The President was right to veto the first iteration of this legislation.

“I do have concerns, however, with the way in which this measure conditions aid to the Iraqi government by requiring the government to meet benchmarks. Although I support benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and I believe that we should encourage the Iraqi government to move ahead as rapidly as possible on a number of fronts, some of the benchmarks contained in this bill are beyond the control of the Iraqi leadership. One of the benchmarks, for example, mandates that there will be no safe haven for “any outlaws.” This should of course be an aspiration, but if terrorists or insurgents hang on and hole up in Baghdad, should this constitute a reason why the United States withholds economic aid to the government? Similarly, another benchmark requires the Iraqi government to reduce the level of sectarian violence. But if sectarian violence does not decline as rapidly as we would like, does this suggest that the answer is to cut off reconstruction aid? It’s not at all clear to me that it does.

“I believe that, instead of legislating a list of benchmarks that must be met by the Iraqis, and imposing statutory penalties for non-performance, it would be preferable for the administration to reach agreement on a series of benchmarks with the Iraqi government, a timeline for implementation, and consequences attached to each. Such an approach would make clear to the Iraqis that they must make progress, but would do so in a way that is specific, flexible, and realistic.

“Mr. President, if this bill is to have benchmarks at all, it should be a benchmark that Congress may not approve any earmark, no matter how valid the cause, without an authorization, an Administration request or inclusion in the budget. The national debt grows $75 million dollars an hour and $1.3 billion dollars a day. Congress should benchmark its spending sprees on zero debt, but it won’t. This body would rather set benchmarks for others around the world than take responsibility for its own actions. For these reasons, this bill is flawed and irresponsible, but I will vote for it nonetheless in order to support our brave men and women fighting for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Mitt Romney:

“At a time when the men and women of our military fighting terrorism around the globe needed them most, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cast a vote that singularly defines their lack of leadership and serves as a glaring example of an unrealistic and inexperienced worldview on national security that is regrettably shared by too many of their fellow Capitol Hill Democrats.

“Voting against our troops during a time of war shows the American people that the leaders of the Democrat Party will abandon principle in favor of political positioning.

“Their votes render them undependable in the eyes of the men and women of the United States military and the American people.”

Sphere: Related Content

More Thompson Comments about McCain Surface

From The Brody File:

Remember, Thompson was one of McCain’s national co-chairman when McCain ran for President back in 2000. Here’s another little tidbit The Brody File found from back in 2000. Once again, from CNN’s Late Edition:

CALLER: Yes, hello. Senator Thompson, my question is for you, sir. How could a hard-core conservative like yourself support such a wishy-washy conservative like Senator McCain?

THOMPSON: He’s not a wishy-washy conservative. If you look at his voting record over his entire career, whether you look at the conservative’s rating or the liberal’s ratings, John McCain is a conservative by any measure. He’s been right there on all the conservative core issues his entire career. They’re misrepresenting the effect of campaign finance reform. What John McCain recognizes is that it takes money in politics, but he thinks there should be some reasonable limit on it.

You see, for Thompson the last thing he needs is to be compared to John McCain. McCain’s conservative credentials are not the issue here. The issue for FDT is that some rank and file conservatives don’t trust McCain (immigration, judges, campaign finance reform, taxes) so to be seen as a “supporter” of John McCain could damage him.

Thompson also spoke at the Prescott Bush GOP Dinner in Connecticut, talking mostly about general conservative policies and attacking Democrats. Eventually, he’ll start to have to answer the tough questions and explain his drift away from McCain on policies like immigration.

A quick Google search of my own turned up comments like this:

“When it comes to personal courage and integrity and the courage to do what he thinks is right, regardless of whether or not it’s particularly popular at the moment, John McCain has shown characteristics of leadership like no one else I’ve ever seen,” Thompson said at a press conference.

Thompson, a Tennessee Republican, and McCain are both independent minded senators who have bucked their party, most notably on the issue of campaign finance reform. McCain has repeatedly sponsored a campaign finance reform bill with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) to ban the so-called “soft money” donated to political parties and Thompson has endorsed his efforts.

“When it comes to reform of the way Washington does business, John McCain is the leader,” Thompson said.

There’s literally tons of other similar comments like this. Thompson on policy was a lot similar to McCain until just a few months ago. I’m not sure he’ll hold up under close scrutiny.

Sphere: Related Content

An Inconvenient … Sequel?

IESB.net has the details:

[Davis] Guggenheim’s stellar hit, An Inconvenient Truth, was the most talked about film in 2006. With Hollywood “sequel-happy” these days, it wasn’t a surprise when he revealed to the IESB that he is meeting with Paramount next week to discuss another one.

Although Gracie is a film with actors and sets, Guggenheim admitted he’s caught the “documentary bug.” IESB’s Robert Sanchez questioned, “how do you follow up [a documentary like] An Inconvenient Truth?”

Guggenheim responded, “I’m meeting with Paramount next week to talk about a sequel to Inconvenient Truth. Too early to talk about details…”

Considering Guggenheim was able to put the hit documentary together in five months, it’s quite possible he could have “Part 2” ready for the 2008 November elections.

Needless to say, a movie coming out with Al Gore in it by the 2008 election would surely be something to watch out for. But I also think it would have to mean that Gore is not running, if he’s taking any time to film another movie. It could potentially heighten awareness of the environment as a political issue, though.

We’ll keep an eye out as this develops.

UPDATE: Al Gore is on the Daily Show tonight; we’ll see if he addresses these rumors.

Sphere: Related Content

Follow Up: Ron Paul To Go On Offensive Against Rudy Giuliani

Earlier this week, we previewed today’s press conference where Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, went on the offensive against Rudy Giuliani about national security and foreign policy. As promised, Rep. Paul offered a substantive response to Rudy Giuliani’s recent attacks against him.

In the interest of remaining objective, I try to avoid passing judgment on the specifics of policies or about who’s right/wrong, so I’ll leave it up to the readers of this site to determine for themselves if Rudy’s remarks during and after the debate about this issue were accurate/well founded. That being said, it’s worth noting a few things about this matter from a political perspective:

• After reviewing the reading list (after the jump), it’s clear that Ron Paul is at least providing substantive responses. Whether or not these prove his argument is matter left up to the readers of this site. However, at the very least, he should be commended for offering specifics - something that is sorely lacking in this campaign.
• Paul’s continued offensive against Rudy on this area is politically smart for him. Given Rudy’s strong response and claims against Paul, Paul is almost obligated at this point to demonstrate that he’s right and Rudy’s wrong. Moreover, by continuing to leverage reasoned criticisms and attacks against one of the top tier candidates, Paul is able to fuel the buzz about his candidacy while disseminating his messages to larger audience. This may help explain why his campaign is continuing to see such growth.
• Because Paul is responding with specifics, he may at some point be able to force Giuliani into a position where he will have to substantiate his position with comparable specifics. I think this should be the goal of the Paul campaign - continue to address this issue, while questioning Giuliani’s national security credentials with specific, credible information. If they can shift the discussion of this issue to specifics, they may be able to really muddy Rudy up before this entire matter blows over.

After the press conference, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“Experts, scholars, administration officials and bi-partisan investigators all tell us that 50 years of interventionism in the Middle East has compromised the security of America. To deny that bad policy has serious negative repercussions is to deny reality.

During our debate in South Carolina, I continued to make the case that we must change foreign policy to secure our nation. Mr. Giuliani attacked me, calling my position ‘absurd,’ and said that he had ‘never heard’ such a thing.

Mr. Giuliani is not really interested in discussing foreign policy. Instead, he wants to shout down anyone who doesn’t agree with him. He attacks my patriotism, inferring that if I do not support war, then I do not love America. We have heard these arguments before. They are arguments of ignorance and authoritarianism.

Today, I stood with Michael Scheuer, the man who spearheaded the CIA’s efforts to capture Osama Bin Laden, and perhaps the most qualified expert to speak about the blowback caused by American foreign policy. I cited leading scholars, the 9-11 Commission, the CIA and even Paul Wolfowitz. Rudy Giuliani’s ignorance on foreign policy is alarming. I hope he pays attention and learns.”

Reading list/Cliff Notes put out by the Paul Campaign: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »