Saturday Afternoon Catch Up (9/29/07)

Before getting into some serious blogging, here’s a crib sheet on what’s been happening in the ‘08 field:

• Following news that Newt Gingrich would enter the race if he could get $30 million in pledges by October 21, 2007, Gingrich officially stated today that he would not be entering the race after all.  Why? Because the 3 week pledge drive would present legal problems for his non-profit group, American Solutions for Winning the Future.  We’ll try to connect with Steven Parkhurst over at DraftNewt.org this week to get their reaction.
• Democratic candidate, John Edwards, has decided to opt in to the public financing system.  We’ll take a closer look at this decision in a later post, but for your information now…(1) Entering the public finance system places significant spending restrictions on a candidate…(2) Ambinder looks at the pros and cons of this decision.
• Transcript of MSNBC’s Democratic Debate in New Hampshire hosted by Tim Russert.  We’ll have more on this later, since it was certainly a noteworthy debate.
• Michelle Obama stirs things up when she says that if Barack Obama doesn’t win Iowa, then “it’s just a dream.” Was I the only person who thought of Ralph Cramden upon hearing this? ‘One of these days, Michelle…bang…ZOOM…to the moon!’
• Mike Huckabee tackled the Bush Administration’s foreign policy in an attempt to substantially distinguish himself from his primary rivals.  Huckabee concluded that “this administration’s bunker mentality has been counterproductive both at home and abroad.”
• Bill Richardson launched a new website that details his plan to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq and promises not to leave any residual forces.  Chris Dodd takes issue with the details.
• If Iowa was your answer to the question “What state will decide who gets their Republican convention delegates first?” then you would be wrong.  It’s Wyoming (for now) and they will make the decision on January 5, 2008.

Anymore links you’d like to see?  Send them along (tips).

Sphere: Related Content

On Eve of Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, John Grisham Calls Bush Administration “Bad People with Evil Intent” and Iraq War “Immoral Abomination”

Hillary Clinton has remained measured in her words regarding Iraq and the Bush Administration, but those she is holding fundraisers with are showing little such discipline. She is holding a fundraiser with author John Grisham tomorrow in Charlottesville, Virginia, and he took the opportunity to unload on both Iraq and the Bush Administration:

“The war is an immoral abomination that we’ll pay for for decades to come,” Grisham said near the end of a 40-minute telephone interview with The Des Moines Register.

“We’re paying for it now at the rate of 100 kids a month while Bush plays politics with it.”

And later:

Grisham said his differences with the current administration trace back to the beginning of its White House run.

“I’ve always thought that they were bad people with evil intent - and all that, it’s playing out now,” he said. “You can’t hardly look at any aspect of the government in the seven years so far that’s been run properly.”

And lastly:

Part of Grisham’s motivation for getting involved in the political event, he said, is rooted in personal concerns about the current White House.

“I can’t stand those people - and their incompetence is astounding,” he said.

“I always thought you could at least depend on the Republican Party to maintain some semblance of fiscal responsibility.

“But they run up record deficits - taking care of billionaires that they want to take care of. Don’t get me started on politics. I could go for a long time.”

We’ve seen other politicians be held responsible for what some of their supporters say. This will probably be shoved under the rug, though, by the end of the weekend.

Sphere: Related Content

Weekend Calendar Preview (September 21-23, 2007)

Republicans gather in Michigan over the weekend, but otherwise it’s a fairly regular campaign weekend.

Barack Obama…

• Obama campaigns in Iowa Friday and Saturday.

Bill Richardson…

• Richardson fundraises tonight in New Mexico and takes a weekend off the trail.

Dennis Kucinich…

• Kucinich starts a three day swing through California on Saturday; his trip wraps up with a visit to the Tonight Show on Monday.

Hillary Clinton…

• Clinton has the weekend off until a fundraiser with John Grisham scheduled for Sunday afternoon in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Joe Biden…

• Biden has Iowa visits lined up on Friday.

John Edwards…

• Edwards campaigns in Iowa today, and Elizabeth Edwards campaigns today and tomorrow in New Hampshire.

Duncan Hunter…

• Hunter address the Michigan GOP conference Friday and the Eagle Forum Saturday in St. Louis.

Fred Thompson…

• Thompson addressed the NRA today in Washington, and addresses the Michigan leadership conference tomorrow night - along with John McCain.

John McCain…

• McCain and Thompson both address the leadership conference in Michigan tomorrow night (not together, just sequentially, to clarify). McCain also addressed the NRA today and held a fundraiser in Indianapolis.

Mike Huckabee…

• Huckabee was also scheduled to address the NRA today, and the Michigan conference tomorrow.

Mitt Romney…

• Romney fundraised in Illinois and Indiana today, and in addition to addressing the leadership forum in Michigan tomorrow. Sunday he heads to California to start a week of campaigning and fundraising there.

Ron Paul…

• Paul addresses the Michigan conference tomorrow morning, before fundraising in Chicago later in the day.

Rudy Giuliani…

• Giuliani addressed the Northern Virginia Technology council, the NRA, and then the Michigan leadership conference on Friday.

Sam Brownback…

• Brownback addresses Michigan leadership conference tomorrow morning.

Tom Tancredo…

• Tancredo addresses the Michigan leadership conference tomorrow morning, and has campaign events scheduled for Sunday in New Hampshire.

Visit our up-to-date campaign calendar section for complete schedules.

Sphere: Related Content

Gen. Wesley Clark Endorses Hillary Clinton

The Clinton campaign received a boost yesterday with an announcement from Gen. Wesley Clark (Retired) that he is endorsing Hillary Clinton’s quest for the presidency. His endorsement adds a significant amount of credibility to the notion of having a woman, specifically Hillary Clinton, as Commander-In-Chief; Clark noted:

“She will be a great leader for the United States of America and a great commander in chief for the men and women in uniform.”

As noted almost anytime we cover an endorsement, the impact of these endorsements is always hard to forecast. However, this endorsement is somewhat unique given Clark’s command of respect on military matters. iPol sums up Clark’s endorsement best:

The timing of this announcement couldn’t have been better managed by Clinton’s campaign. Coming as it does after a full week of focus on Iraq in Congress, at the White House, and in the media, the endorsement of a military officer of Clark’s stature - he was the former NATO Allied Supreme Commander and commanded the Kosovo war - rides the crest of public attention on both the military and political aspects of U.S. policy. Clark’s endorsement sends the message that people who can be relied upon to know what they’re talking about view Hillary Clinton as a credible potential Commander in Chief. I can think of only two other retired generals to match Clark’s public standing, namely Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, and I think it’s safe to say that neither of them will be coming out with an endorsement of a Democratic candidate for president, so Hillary has probably locked up the high profile military endorsement market with this announcement.

Given Clark’s desire to continue participating in politics and the fact that he serves a great balance to Hillary, I wonder what the likelihood of a possible Clinton-Clark ticket would be. Regardless, if Clinton is elected, Clark will likely serve in the administration in some capacity.

[Photo Credit: MSNBC]

Sphere: Related Content

Giuliani Attacks Clinton Over MoveOn Ad

This controversy started last week when Moveon.org ran this ad in the New York Times in advance of Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker testifying to Congress. (More on the ad here)

Republicans immediately responded (full list of responses is after the jump), in past substantively to the ad, and in part in response to this article in the New York Post regarding a significant discount that the New York Times allegedly gave MoveOn.org. The New York Times responded here, saying that MoveOn paid the standby rate that is standard for issue groups; it’s also the rate that Giuliani would end up paying to run his own ad.

Hillary Clinton said the following to Petraeus and Crocker on Tuesday:

(in part) ….[T]oday you are testifying about the current status of our policy in Iraq and the prospects of that policy. It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy.

Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside.

Giuliani responded, saying the following in Atlanta two days later (Audio):

“[I] call upon the New York Times to give us the same rate, the discount, heavily discounted rate they gave MoveOn.org for that abominable ad–that was, in a very, very coincidental way, published on the day that General Petraeus testified–in which MoveOn.org, which is well known for its character assassination of Republicans, decided to participate in character assassination of an American General in a time of war. This is unprecedented. And we are going to ask The New York Times to allow us tomorrow to print an ad that will obviously take the opposite view. We believe, unlike Hillary Clinton, that General Petraeus is telling the truth. We think that her attack on General Petraeus was a follow up to the MoveOn.org/Times attack.

“I’ll tell you what she said. It’s pretty simple. You go interpret it because this is typical, how can I say this in the kindest way about the Clintons, not the most direct way of saying what it is you’re trying to say. This is what she said to General Petraeus: ‘I think the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.’ The willing suspension of disbelief I imagine means saying that the General wasn’t telling the truth. And I believe that in a time of war–with a General about whom there is no question about the General’s integrity. I agree with the success that he’s had and I think we should support that success, other Americans might not agree with the success that he had. They have a right to not agree. What I don’t think should happen in political discourse is the kind of character assassination that MoveOn.org participated in in calling him ‘General Betray Us,’ that The New York Times gave them a discount to do, and that Hillary Clinton followed up on with these attacks on his integrity.

“I believe those organizations should all apologize and I believe The New York Times should give us the same discounted rate and the same ability to place it on the day that we want to place it, which is tomorrow morning, the day after the President speaks, that they gave to the very excessive left-wing side of this dispute. It’s time for Americans to really insist that American politicians move beyond character assassination, and this is exactly what they attempted to do with General Petraeus. Well, it’s one thing when politicians do it to each other. It’s another thing when it’s done to an American General who has been putting his life at risk to protect us, who is back there right now or on his way back there right now, putting his life at risk to protect us and about whom there’s never been a question about the man’s integrity. Maybe you can disagree with his tactics. I don’t. I agree with him. You have no right to disagree with his integrity and put his integrity into question. That is what’s wrong with American politics today. Hillary Clinton, The New York Times, MoveOn.org should apologize for what they did. Their excessive political view led them to character assassination. They should apologize for it. They should stop it and what we should move on with from now on is a civil discourse without name calling.”

Giuliani followed up on that attack by putting a full page ad in the New York Times on Friday (as I mentioned above, at that same rate he called for), and launched the following internet ad:

Giuliani also attacked Clinton campaign for comparisons of Clinton with Margaret Thatcher, saying, “I don’t think Margaret Thatcher would impugn the integrity of a commanding general in a time of war, as Hillary Clinton did, or require an army to give a schedule of their retreat to the enemy, as the Democrats are suggesting.”

The Clinton campaign responded to the ad fairly quickly with the following brief press release:

“It’s hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the ‘08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush’s failed Iraq strategy.”

In the middle of this fracas, Giuiliani touted a congratulatory letter from Bill Clinton:

Giuliani told a law-enforcement group in Louisiana he has a letter from then-President Bill Clinton praising him for helping pass a federal anti-crime bill when he was mayor.

“I have a letter - I keep it at home,” Giuliani told members of the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association in Baton Rouge.

“It’s a letter from President Clinton, congratulating me for all of my efforts and saying something like the crime bill couldn’t have been passed if it weren’t for me.”

“I keep this letter. I’m going to use it at the right moment. You can imagine when,” he said to thunderous applause, hinting that the letter would be trotted out if he faces Hillary Clinton in the general election.

As for what Democratic candidates have said on the Moveon.org ad, here is what Clinton said regarding both her comments to Gen. Petraeus and the Moveon.org forum in the Democratic mashup:

Rose: You said yesterday it required a willing suspension of disbelief. Meaning that you questioned either his veracity or his judgment in what he said.

Clinton: No, what I said was meant to convey my very strong feeling that no matter how flat the pancake, there’s always two sides. The problem is that what the administration’s report intended to do was was to take anecdotal evidence and actually gild the lily once again, making it seem as though there had been much more progress than I think you can actually justify. For example, they take tremendous credit for what’s happened in al Anbar province in terms of the coalition with the Sunni tribal sheikhs. That was going on before the surge. In fact, when Gen. Petraeus testified during his confirmation hearings last January, he alluded to the progress that was going on, the sheikhs were already turning in the face of the barbarity and violence of al-Qaida in Iraq. And there is no getting away from the fundamental problem, which is there is no military solution. And everyone has to admit that the Iraqi government has failed politically, and the Bush administration has failed to pressure the Iraqi government and has totally missed the boat when it comes to the diplomatic offensive that should have been undertaken.

…..

Rose: Did you think the Moveon.org advertisement about Gen. Petraeus was either appropriate or necessary?

Clinton: You know, I think that we should focus on what the problem is here. The problem is a president who has a policy that flies in the face of reality. I don’t fault people who are serving their country and fulfilling the mission that they have been given. Both the general and ambassador were there implementing the president’s policy, and I think we should remain focused on this president, and frankly, I’m getting enough Republican support to force the president to change course.

This seems to be an issue that the Clinton is trying to wait out, not wanting to undermine support of those who support the Moveon.org ad, but wanting to stay as far away as possible from explicitly supporting it. The benefit of waiting it out is that Democrats instinctively will rally to her support, much like they did to Kerry when Bush attacked him during the last primary; they likely will keep responding by bringing up Giuliani’s time on the Iraq Study Group and more should Giuliani keep pressing this issue. I’m not waiting for Clinton to, to sue the language of Giuliani, play much defense in this, since discussing the Moveon.org ad is pretty much a losing proposition for Clinton no matter what she says (which is the same idea that Kerry likely had on the Swift boat attacks); unlike Kerry, though, Clinton will assuredly attack Giuliani back should these ads keep up.

Meanwhile, the primary issues on both sides are still being overlooked, as secondary candidates keep jostling to get media attention. They’re the big losers in this situation.

[Image credits: Foxnews.com and politicsnj.com]

After the jump, as promised, Republican reactions to the Moveon.org ad.
Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Alan Keyes Officially Enters Race For Republican Nomination

Yesterday, Alan Keyes announced that he will seek the Republican nomination for president. Speaking on the Janet Parshall radio show, Keyes blasted the current field:

he’s “unmoved” by the lack of moral courage shown by the other candidates, among whom he sees no standout who articulates the “key kernel of truth that must, with courage, be presented to our people.”

Keyes went on to explain his role in this process:

“The one thing I’ve always been called to do is to raise the standard . . . of our allegiance to God and His authority that has been the foundation stone of our nation’s life”

Keyes explained his campaign as follows:

“We’re putting together an effort that’s not going to be like anything before, because it’s going to be entirely based on citizen action. We’re going to be challenging people to take a pledge for America’s revival”

The effort that Keyes is referring to is his “Declaration of American Renewal” and the reason that it’s going to be based entirely on citizen action is because Keyes won’t be able to raise any money. I just don’t think that Alan Keyes’ entry into the race is going to be politically significant. The Republican field is already overcrowded and plenty of those candidates are running on the “life” platform. Furthermore, these individuals currently hold or have recently held an elected office and therefore bring to their campaigns all the benefits of such position, Alan Keyes doesn’t.

Keyes isn’t running because he actually thinks he’s going to be president or to even try to mount a serious campaign. Keyes is running solely to raise awareness about his “Declaration of American Renewal.” If this declaration was even somewhat substantive, I might be a bit less rough on Keyes, but it’s not. Regardless of what you think about Keyes, he’ll at least spice the debates up a bit. You’ll be able to see Alan Keyes in action on September 17, 2007 at the Value Voters Debate. Other participants in the debate will be: John Cox, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter.

[Photo Credit: In These Times]

Sphere: Related Content

Was This Necessary?

The following landed in our inbox:

Democratic Presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson, campaigning today in Iowa, issued the following statement regarding the recent “spying” incident involving the National Football League’s New England Patriots:

“The President has been allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant, and our U.S. Senate is letting it continue. You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush.”

Sounds like someone on the campaign thought of a joke they just HAD to get out there. Well, OK….

Sphere: Related Content

Candidate Reactions To President Bush’s Address On “A Way Forward In Iraq”

Yesterday evening (9/13/07), President Bush delivered a speech to the nation on “a way forward in iraq.”

Below are the candidate reactions…

Barack Obama…

“It is long past time to end a war that never should have started. President Bush was wrong when he took us to war, he was wrong when he escalated this war in January, and he is wrong to stay the course now. I opposed this war from the beginning, I introduced legislation in January that would have already started to bring our troops home, and I will continue to lead the fight in the Senate for a fixed timeline with a deadline for the removal of all of our combat troops. The American people are not going to be fooled by the same false promises of success that got us into Iraq. Iraq’s leaders are not making the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge, but the President wants us to keep giving him a blank check. We must not continue the enormous sacrifice of our troops, our military readiness, our treasury, and our standing in the world just to keep the violence at the same unacceptable levels it was at in 2005 and 2006. That is why I have proposed an immediate and sustained removal of 1 to 2 combat brigades each month to conclude by the end of next year. We have to come together – not as Republicans and Democrats – but as Americans to turn the page in Iraq so that we can recapture our unity of purpose at home and our leadership around the world.”

Bill Richardson…

“Enough is enough. This President lacks credibility. President Bush needs to stop putting his historical legacy ahead of the safety of our troops and the security of our nation.

“As of next summer, the President plans to have 130,000 troops in the midst of a civil war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards would leave between 60,000 and 90,000 troops in Iraq with no timetable for a full withdrawal. All of these plans are unacceptable. We must get all of our troops out of Iraq in six to eight months.

“After years of President Bush’s reckless mismanagement of the war in Iraq, there is only one responsible course of action left to us. We need to get all of our troops out of Iraq, not just the combat troops as others have suggested, and leave no residual forces behind. Our troops have done everything asked of them, but the solution in Iraq involves diplomacy, not military force. Leaving troops behind would serve as a roadblock to political progress. The hard work of diplomacy and reconciliation cannot begin until we start to withdraw our troops and make it clear that we are leaving. If Congress does not join me and get all of our troops out of Iraq, I will show them the way once I am elected President.”

Christopher Dodd…

“Moving us in 10 months to where we were 10 months ago is not progress. It is the very definition of status quo.

“Not only is the President not offering us anything new; he’s insulting our intelligence.

“Despite the fact that his top General is unable to say that the war is making us safer, all the President offers today is quite literally more of the same. More loss of life, more strain on our military readiness, and more degradation of our national security and our standing in the world. It is time for Congress to say ‘no more.’

“What was clear to me before, and what should be abundantly clear to my colleagues after today, is that this President is not going to change course unless we force him to. There is only one way to do that - we must set a clear, hard and fast deadline for redeployment and, in order to enforce it, that deadline must be tied to funding.”

Dennis Kucinich…

“Tonight, we were promised a war without end. It is now up to Congress to bring an end to the President’s war”, said Kucinich. “The Democrats have an obligation to the American people who voted for a new direction in Iraq. The Democratic-controlled Congress needs to take a stand against this President and say they will not give him any more money.”

He continued, “The President’s policies have failed and it is up to the Congress to take decisive action. I call on the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate to fulfill their promise to the people who elected them in 2006 to end the war and bring our troops home.”

Hillary Clinton…

“Regrettably, the President did not seize the opportunity tonight to offer the American people a candid assessment of the challenges that we continue to face in Iraq, or offer a change in course to his failing strategy. Instead, he portrayed an unavoidable reduction in U.S. troops to pre-surge levels as a marker of progress. Redeploying over the next year five of the twenty combat brigades currently deployed in Iraq will merely bring our total number of troops back to the same level that existed before the President announced his escalation in January of this year. As was discussed during General Petraeus’s testimony this week, troop levels in Iraq must decrease by this amount regardless, in order to avoid extending Army deployments beyond 15 months and straining our military even further than it already is.

What the President told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home.

The Commander-in-Chief has the authority to issue the order to greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many more of our troops home so much faster. They have done everything we have asked of them and more, but are now stuck in the middle of a civil war. I continue to implore the President to change course, bring our troops home faster, and end this war responsibly as soon as possible.”

Joe Biden…

Tonight, President Bush will give the American people a progress report on the war in Iraq.

This war belongs to the President, not to his generals or his ambassadors. It is the President’s time – and his responsibility – to answer a question that the general carrying out his policies in Iraq could not answer: is pressing ahead with the war making America safer? Based on everything we heard this week from the President’s surrogates and everything I have seen and heard during my eight trips to Iraq, the answer is no. The President’s strategy in Iraq is not succeeding. It is not making America safer. Doing more of the same would be a disaster. The President’s strategy is to stand up Iraq security forces so that we can stand down. But four years and $20 billion later, the Iraqi army is still years away from being ready to take over. The Iraqi national police force is so corrupt and so sectarian that one of our most respected military leaders, General Jim Jones, recommended that it be disbanded. The President’s strategy is to build a united, democratic central government in Baghdad that secures the support of all Iraqis. The primary purpose of the President’s surge was to buy time for that central government to succeed. But eight months into the surge, there has been no political progress in Baghdad. The sectarian war continues unabated… militias still dominate the country… and more Iraqis are fleeing their homes for fear of sectarian violence than ever before. Despite these failures, President Bush is about to tell the American people that: He will continue the surge for another six months, putting more American lives and limbs at risk for no strategic gain.

When the surge finally ends next year, we will be right back where we started: with 130,000 Americans in Iraq, no lasting change on the ground and no end in sight. That is unconscionable. Pressing ahead with this war, in this way, will not make America safer. The President does not recognize that reality. I do – and I know what we should do about it. We need and I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to end the war in Iraq while protecting our troops and not leaving chaos behind.

First, instead of continuing the war with no end in sight, we have to start to bring our troops home now, and withdraw most of them next year. I would limit the mission of those that remain to fighting al Qaeda, training Iraqis and helping them protect their borders.

Second, so long as we have any troops left in Iraq, we must treat them with care, not disdain, and give them the best protection this country can provide. If a soldier spends a year in Iraq, he should get at least a year at home before we send him back. And if a soldier spends a single day in Iraq, he should be able to ride in the Mine Resistant vehicles I’ve been fighting so hard to build — vehicles that can cut by 70 percent casualties and deaths from roadside bombs.

Third, while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not enough. We need a plan for what we leave behind so that we do not trade a dictator for chaos in Iraq and the region that endangers America’s interests for a generation. I have a plan that offers the possibility, not the guarantee, of stability in Iraq as we leave. It’s based on the reality that Iraq cannot be governed from the center, as this President believes, because Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are not ready to entrust their fates to each other. Instead, we have to give Iraq’s warring factions breathing room in regions, with local control over the fabric of their daily lives – police, education, jobs, marriage, religion – as Iraq’s constitution provides. A limited central government would be in charge of common concerns, including distributing Iraq’s oil revenues. A federal, decentralized Iraq is our last, best hope for a stable Iraq. More and more people, inside Iraq and out, are coming to that realization. We should refocus our efforts on making federalism work for all Iraqis. I would initiate a diplomatic surge to do just that, bringing in the U.N., major countries and Iraq’s neighbors to help implement and oversee the political settlement I’m proposing. It is time to turn the corner. Stop the surge and start bringing our troops home. End a political strategy that cannot succeed and begin one that can. And always, always protect our troops.

This is President Bush’s war. But it is America’s future. We have to get this right, together.

John Edwards…

This week - as we will forever - we remember those lost on September 11th. And this week, Washington refocuses on Iraq. But the question of Iraq is separate from September 11th - as it has always been, whatever George Bush would have us believe.

Likewise, supporting our troops and pursuing a failed war are not the same things - whatever George Bush would have us believe.

All Americans honor the incredible sacrifice of our troops. They have done everything asked of them with courage and resolve. Now we should bring them home.

They are policing a civil war, and the only way to end that civil war is for both sides, Sunni and Shia, to take responsibility to end it by agreeing to a political solution. And the only way to force them to take responsibility is to withdraw our troops - starting now.

Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he has ever had - more time, more troops, and more war.

In January, after years of evidence that military actions cannot force a political solution, the president announced a military surge to force a political solution. In May, he vetoed a plan to end the war, demanded more time to show the surge could work, and Congress gave it to him. Now, after General Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when we know it won’t.

Our troops are stuck between a president without a plan to succeed and a Congress without the courage to bring them home.

But Congress must answer to the American people. Tell Congress you know the truth - they have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice: a firm timeline for withdrawal.

No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

It is time to end this war.

Fred Thompson…

“Tonight we expect President George W. Bush will tell the nation that success in Iraq is achievable and that, conditions on the ground permitting, up to 30,000 troops will be coming home by next summer. I am encouraged by reports by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker that the security situation is improving and momentum is on our side.

“I believe that the troop withdrawal plan that General Petraeus has proposed is the right course. This recommendation is a result of the success being seen on the ground in Iraq.

“With the momentum of an effective military strategy now on our side, we must press forward, never wavering, and unite in our determination to defeat al Qaeda and other extremists who remain committed to forcing our surrender. This is central not only to success in Iraq, but also to our long-term plan to bring our troops home.

“A wholesale withdrawal of American troops from Iraq–as many Democrats propose — would embolden al Qaeda, strengthen Iran, betray our allies, and dishonor the memories of the men and women who have sacrificed so much to keep us safe.

“Gen. Petraeus’ report also leaves me even more concerned about Iran’s role in Iraq. Iran is headed down a dangerous path, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must understand that.

“Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight. The average 20 year-old serving in Iraq apparently knows more about national security than many of the 20 year-political veterans serving in Congress.”

Mike Huckabee…

“I agree with the President and his decision to accept the recommendations of General Petraeus. During his speech, the President gave an honest assessment of the status of the war in Iraq : while the challenges remain formidable, the surge is working and there’s been significant progress – particularly in Anbar province.

“The current policy of providing security and stability has to be carried out. We can’t walk away and not honor those who are serving our country. If we leave now, it will show weakness, which would do irreparable damage to America ’s reputation and ability to protect our national interests, as well as create chaos and massive suffering in the region.

“The war we are fighting in the Middle East is a theological war. It is not a traditional geo-political war; it is a war against against Islamic fanatics who want to destroy us. It is a test of will and purpose. ”

“The question is, do we have the will to fight the enemy and take the fight to them or will they prevail? For the sake of future generations of Americans, this is a war we must win. We must give our commanders and troops what they need to succeed.”

Mitt Romney…

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Let’s start with the first question, how did the President do last night?”

Governor Romney: “Well, I think he advanced the ball last night. I think people recognized that one thing that’s unacceptable to this country is that Iraq would become a safe haven for al-Qaeda or other Jihadist terrorist groups. And the fact is that over the last several months, we have seen progress in helping Sunnis respond and react and reject al-Qaeda, and that’s critically important.”

Rudy Giuliani…

“I think the concept of return on success is the right one. It’s hard for me to see what part of that you disagree with, you know, the return part or the success part.”

As always, more will be added if brought to my attention.

[Photo Credit: The White House]

Sphere: Related Content

To Oprah or not to Oprah? That’s the question

Barack Obama on the Daily Show on August 22, 2007:

Jon Stewart: Well, that’s a gaffe; I don’t know how that’s gonna show up in the headlines tomorrow. That’s a big one. Now listen, what do you think about, you definitely also have a little bit of that Hollywood flair. You’re gonna start drawing the celebrities. Oprah is gonna throw a fundraiser.

Barack Obama: Right.

Jon Stewart: That doesn’t seem good. I still remember Howard Dean in Iowa, with Martin Sheen introducing him, quoting an Indian poet to a caucus group of literally like AFL–CIO workers, and just seeing their faces like this: “Huh?? What is he talking about?”

Barack Obama: Well, you know, you don’t use folks in that way. I think Oprah’s support is wonderful. I think having the celebrities want to do stuff for you — but the truth is, in Iowa and New Hampshire, people just want to talk to you. They want to lift the hood, they want to kick the tires, they want to look you in the eye, they want to get a sense, are you telling the truth? There’s nobody that can do that job other than you.

CNN Report of September 6:

The impact of a prominent presidential endorsement often fails to resonate at the polls, but popular talk show host Oprah Winfrey’s backing of Sen. Barack Obama could prove to have a more significant effect.

Winfrey, who first told CNN’s Larry King last year she is backing Obama, may assume a visible role in the Democrat’s presidential bid, a source close to the Illinois senator tells CNN. She is already slated to hold a star-studded fundraiser at her California estate this weekend.

First Read doesn’t see a risk for Obama:

If she becomes as active on the campaign trail as is being speculated, then Obama may have found his secret weapon to target working-class women, which has become the heart and soul of Clinton’s support. Then again, there’s a risk — not for Obama, but for Oprah. After all, she has plenty of viewers who are Republicans or who support Clinton.

I tend to agree with Obama and Stewart more than First Read. Oprah’s support may be a gateway for Obama to get access to a large group of people, but her being on the trail would almost certainly be a detriment. There’s an intrinsic antipathy towards celebrity endorsement that we see time and time again; and it’s a lot more subtle and meaningful that the general attacks on Hollywood; people generally do not like being told who to like by people who are not at least plausibly experts. Political endorsements do not just matter about political machines - this is not Boss Tweed’s time any more. Endorsements matter because people are tying their beliefs and judgment to a particular candidate. Celebrities are not chosen by a community because of their judgment. Point being, some random community in Iowa, while having people that probably respect Oprah’s judgment (she’s a different sort of celebrity), that’s likely far from the majority, and trotting out celebrities on the stump to get attention often just smells of desperation. Bruce Springsteen for Kerry, Paul Simon for Dodd, etc.

The best case for Obama would be to float this rumor for a couple weeks, and either let it die or shoot it down. That becomes the best of both worlds: people that like Oprah know Obama has her support, and people that are apathetic or worse towards Oprah will not be needlessly turned off. And there’s no backlash from having Oprah on the trail.

Obviously, having her introduce him at one event here or there when the audience can be targeted is different, as is appearing at fundraisers. I specifically am referring to her appearing at regular campaign events. Oprah cannot appear nearly as much on the campaign as Bill Clinton, to use an applicable comparison.

Related At 2008Central.net:

• Oprah repeats endorsement of Obama (5/4/07)
• Oprah Backs Barack Obama (2/22/07)

Sphere: Related Content

Weekend Calendar Preview (September 14-16, 2007)

It’s the weekend of Democratic Senator Tom Harkin’s steak fry in Iowa, and most of the Democratic candidates will be there. Republicans are also campaigning hard this weekend.

Barack Obama…

• Obama willl attend the steak fry on Sunday.

Bill Richardson…

• Richardson campaigns in Iowa all weekend before attending the steak fry on Sunday.

Chris Dodd…

• Dodd has campaign events scheduled on Saturday in Iowa before attending the steak fry on Sunday.

Dennis Kucinich…

• Kucinich wraps up a four day ‘campaign swing’ to Hawaii.

Hillary Clinton…

• Clinton has a campaign event and fundraiser scheduled with Magic Johnson tomorrow; she is keynoting a NAACP event on Saturday, before also attending the steak fry on Sunday.

Joe Biden…

• Biden campaigns in Iowa this weekend before also attending the steak fry.

John Edwards…

• Edwards is scheduled for the steak fry on Sunday, while Elizabeth Edwards campaigns in Iowa the rest of the weekend.

John McCain…

• McCain wraps up a campaign swing in New Hampshire today before heading to South Carolina on Saturday and Sunday.

Mike Huckabee…

• Huckabee campaigns in Iowa today and fundraises in Florida on Saturday.

Mitt Romney…

• Romney fundraises in Massachusetts today.

Ron Paul…

• Paul campaigns and fundraises in Seattle today, and in Salt Lake City on Saturday.

Rudy Giuliani…

• Giuliani has campaign events scheduled for today in Lousiana and Texas, and attends the Nascar race in New Hampshire on Sunday.

Sam Brownback…

• Brownback campaigns in Iowa tomorrow.

Tom Tancredo…

• Tancredo campaigns in Iowa all weekend.

Visit our up-to-date campaign calendar section for complete schedules.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Goes Back Online Tomorrow…

And everyone is talking about it.  See…

Sphere: Related Content

Return From Hiatus

Readers of 2008Central.net,

Let us first begin by apologizing for our absence over the past couple of weeks. Both of us have moved from New York to completely new locations in the Midwest (Minnesota and Wisconsin). Accordingly, between moving out to our new locations, getting set up and starting law school, we unfortunately did not have the time to prepare high quality analysis for publication. As such, we decided it was better to publish nothing than to publish information that was sub par. Although we have not been writing, we have have indeed continued to closely follow the election.

Now that we’re set up and becoming acclimated to the grind of school, we will begin actively posting on 2008Central.net again. On Friday, September 14, your 08 Gurus will return in full force. In the meantime, we will use this opportunity to bring our calendar sections up to date and address our backlog of email.

We’d like to thank all of you for the success that 2008Central.net enjoyed in such a short period of time. We promise to continue to provide nonpartisan news and analysis related to the 2008 election.

Best Regards,

John Whitehouse and Angelo Carusone
Co-Managing Editors, 2008Central.net

Sphere: Related Content