« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »

Rudy and 9/11

May 31, 2007 9:33 PM

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani received the endorsement of former FBI director Loiuis Freeh today, another notch in his belt of national security credentials.

There are those who are starting to criticizing Giuliani's 9/11 record, however.

We took a look at this during today's World News Webcast -- CLICK HERE.

-- jpt

May 31, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Should the Democrats boycott Fox News Channel?

May 31, 2007 2:10 PM

This week two more Democratic White House hopefuls dropped out of the Sept. 23 Democratic debate to be co-hosted by Fox News Channel and the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-NM, are the latest to boycott the event, to be held in Detroit, because of the perceived bias of Fox News Channel.

Says Dodd spokeswoman Christy Setzer: "Given the current lineup of candidates, we feel we cannot have a full debate on the real differences in this race that the American people deserve."
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, was the first to announce he wouldn't attend. Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince proclaimed that "there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective."

Edwards was followed soon afterward by Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, whose campaign was disturbed after Fox News brought a great deal of attention to a false report that Obama had been educated in an extremist madrassa. (MORE ON THAT HERE)

The candidates had been urged to boycott Fox by liberal activists including Color of Change (LINK) and Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos website, who said (LINK) the Black Caucus's "decision is breath-taking in its stupidity, and the organization will now face the well-deserved scorn of its own constituents as well as outside observers. Candidates will be forced to choose between grassroots activists (of all colors) and an out-of-touch, entrenched inside-the-Beltway organization."

Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes criticized the decision at an awards dinner. "Any candidate for high office from either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake about journalists," Ailes said at a Radio and Television News Directors Foundation dinner in Washington in March. "Pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage," Ailes said, adding that any candidate "who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters."

But in that same address, Ailes added to the list of Democratic complaints about the perceived rightward tilt of the network, joking about the similarity of Obama's name with that of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, saying, "It's true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'

Those still planning on attending are Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who said (LINK HERE) the boycott is "particularly troublesome because the concerns of African Americans should take precedent over what network is broadcasting the 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."

Last week, 26 members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote to Clinton, Edwards, and Obama urging them to reconsider. They now have to send that letter to two other Democrats.
What do you think? Is it a good precedent for candidates to boycott debates based on perceived bias? The Fox News Channel GOP debate in South Carolina seemed to me to be pretty tough on the Republican candidates.

-- jpt

May 31, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (64) | TrackBack (0)

Valedictory

May 29, 2007 8:00 AM

Interesting debate out of Jacksonville, Florida...

At Samuel W. Wolfson High school in Jacksonville, Florida, valedictorian Shannon Spaulding chose to make her 20-minute graduation speech about the need to find Jesus Christ.
"I want to tell you that Jesus Christ can give you eternal life in heaven," Spaulding told her fellow students, their parents, teachers and friends. "If we die with that sin on our souls, we will immediately be pulled down to hell to pay the eternal price for our sins ourselves."

You can listen to her speech HERE

Some attendees were offended, thinking Spaulding's prosletyzing inappropriate for a captive public-school audience. Others thought it was splendid, spreading the Gospel and trying to save souls.

What do you guys think?

-- jpt

May 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (245) | TrackBack (0)

Sheehan steps off the stage

May 28, 2007 5:44 PM

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan commemorated Memorial Day by writing her "resignation letter as the 'face' of the American anti-war movement."

Sheehan joined the anti-war movement in after her son, Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed on April 4, 2004, in Baghdad after his unit was attacked with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Though she met with President Bush after Casey's death (you can see an old picture of the President kissing her HERE), it was the president's refusal to meet with Sheehan the following summer -- and the media coverage of her time in Crawford, Texas, protesting the president with ever-increasing crowds -- that even many of his GOP allies say was the beginning of the end of the president's popularity. One Bush ally told me the president's refusal to meet with her made him look "callous."

But Sheehan clearly has become disenchanted with her once-allies on the Left. She writes today (LINK) on the liberal DailyKos website that "(w)hen I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used."

After Congress passed the Iraq war funding bill last week, Sheehan resigned from the Democratic party, writing (LINK), "Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so 'other presidents' can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into. It used to be George Bush's war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo."

Her son Casey, she concludes today, "did indeed die for nothing."

"I am going to take whatever I have left and go home," she writes. "I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost."

What do you think?

- jake

May 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (132) | TrackBack (0)

FW: How much would you pay for a Barack Obama doodle?

May 28, 2007 1:47 PM

Right now 25 eBay bidders have driven up the price for a doodle by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, to $557.

Six hours and 30 minutes remain.

The doodle (CLICK HERE) seems to be of his Senate colleagues Chuck Schumer, D-NY, Harry Reid, D-Nev., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. Though that's just a guess.

The bids go to benefit Neurofibromatosis, Inc. (NF, Inc.) (LINK) a charitable organization that aims to create a community of support for those affected by the disease, one of the most common genetic disorders in the United States (affecting one in every 3,000 to 4,000 births), causing tumors to form on the nerves anywhere in the body at any time.

Other doodles being auctioned include those offered by actress and NF Inc spokeswoman Gillian Anderson (LINK), Cindy Crawford (LINK), Jay Leno (LINK), and the high bid as of Monday afternoon at $610, Donald Trump (LINK).

-- jpt

May 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

The Vote

May 26, 2007 11:34 AM

HERE'S THE FREE VIDEO of the spot we did Friday night for World News with Charles Gibson looking at the vote against the troop funding bill by Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

And HERE'S FRIDAY NIGHT'S NIGHTLINE LOOK at Hollywood comedy auteur Judd Apatow.

Have a GREAT Memorial Day Weekend!

-- jpt

May 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Fight! Fight! Fight!

May 25, 2007 2:24 PM

The war of words between Sens. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and John McCain, R-Ariz., is heating up even more.

Their snarling, via press releases, began after McCain (and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney) this morning slammed Obama's vote against funding for US troops.

Obama fired back, saying “This country is united in our support for our troops, but we also owe them a plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else’s civil war.  Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course we are on in Iraq is working, but I do not. And if there ever was a reflection of that it's the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side to stroll through a market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago."

McCain returned fire with this statement:

"While Senator Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security.

"By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."

Priceless.

-- jpt

May 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (62) | TrackBack (0)

McCain on Obama and Clinton

May 25, 2007 12:10 PM

"It's the height of irresponsibility," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said of the votes cast by Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, against the US troop funding bill last night.

After all, he argued, US troops "are going to be there" in Iraq. "That was decided over the past several months in this stand-off with the president."

McCain told us he was surprised that Obama and Clinton voted the way they did.

"They understand the situation, they understand that men and women are over there serving and they have to be provided for with whatever's necessary."

"Everybody knows now after this long stand-off that the troops will remain there, they will not be withdrawn in a short period of time and to deny them the funding to defend themselves and to carry out the mission is unfathomable to me," McCain said. "I don't understand it and I think it's an abrogation of our responsibilities to the men and women who are serving our country in uniform."

After Obama told the Associated Press last month "that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,'' seeming to imply that he would ultimately vote for a troop funding bill without timetables for US troop withdrawal if need be, McCain praised him, saying "Democrats in Congress will heed the advice of one of their leading candidates for president, Sen. Obama, and immediately pass a new bill to provide support to our troops in Iraq without substituting their partisan interests for those of our troops and our country."

McCain today wouldn't hazzard a guess as to what seemingly changed Obama's mind.

"I can't fathom the motives," he said. "It's obvious that there's influence by the extreme left wing of their party. But it is so irresponsible to tell these young men and women who are serving in uniform with the orders of their commander-in-chief that you're not going to give them the necessary abiliity to defend themselves, in my view it's terribly misplaced priorities."

He added that he doesn't "know their motives, but I know the effect. The effect is if they had gained the majority we would be telling the American men and women who are serving you're over there but we're not going to give you the necessary equipment to fight. And that's the height of irresponsibility."

-- jpt

May 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton and Obama Vote Against Funding the Troops

May 25, 2007 9:07 AM

A smart decision? Policy-wise? Politically?

Last night 80 Senators voted for a bill that will fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without a timetable for US troop withdrawal.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who voted against going to war in the first place, voted YEA. "I cannot vote to stop funding our troops who are in harm's way," he said. "It is not the proper way that we can bring this was to an end. It is not the proper way that we can put pressure on Iraqi leaders."
Clinton and Obama felt differently, though the decision was apparently not easy. Neither would discuss the vote before it was cast. Both were among the last dozen or so to vote; Obama slipped in quietly onto the Senate floor at close to 8:45 p.m., said hi to some colleagues, approached the desk, quietly said "No," and left.

Only seconds later, Clinton did the same.

More HERE What say you? The right decision?

A couple programming notes --

Tonight on Nightline we pay a visit on Judd Apatow, the comedy auteur who struck gold with "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and is hoping for more of the same with the pending "Knocked Up." DOT-COM VERSION OF OUR PROFILE HERE

And I will be adding the feeble observations and limited oratorical skills to the This Week with George Stephanopoulos roundtable THIS SUNDAY

More later --

jpt

May 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

GOPalooza

May 24, 2007 9:20 AM

So apparently former Gov. Mitt Romney saw Ralph Reed in the crowd at last week's Georgia Republican Convention and singled him out….as Gary Bauer.

Oops.

MORE ON THAT HERE

The New Hampshire Union-Leader offers that rare nice editorial about Sen. John McCain (CLICK HERE), saying "We disagree with the senator about the immigration bill. But we admire his determination to do what he believes is right even at great personal risk. McCain is gambling his political career on his belief that Americans want a leader, not a follower. So far, no other presidential candidate has had the guts to do the same."

But with recent outbursts -- "F--- you!" he reportedly said to Sen Jon Cornyn, R-Texas, during an immigration reform dust-up -- some others are asking questions about his storied temper. The LA Times did so HERE

It's not a new issue. In 1999 I told the story of McCain's confrontation with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. (READ IT HERE)

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, says he will decide in the next 20 days whether he will compete in the Iowa Straw Poll (READ IT HERE). Dr. James Dobson, the influential Christian conservative, doesn't think Giuliani should be running at all. He writes at WorldNetDaily about his issues with Giuliani, which include Giulianis comedic "public appearances in drag. In each instance, he tried to be funny by dressing like a woman. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan, who loved a good joke, doing something so ignoble in pursuit of a cheap guffaw? Not on your life. "

What say you?

- jpt

May 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Anti-war GOPers face tough times

May 23, 2007 6:39 PM

News comes this week that Rep. Walter Jones, R-NC, is facing a primary challenge from Onslow County commissioner Joseph R. McLaughlin, a retired Army officer who tells Congressional Quarterly that "a number of us have become very concerned about his drift to the left, espousing ideas that we don’t think reflect the views of the conservative base back in the district. Virtually every major vote on the war on terror, he has lined up with the liberals.”

This is fairly standard now for Republicans who have opposed the war in Iraq.

In Nebraska, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., will likely have to fend off Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is being challenged by former aide Eric Dondero, who recently blogged that after former Mayor Rudy Giuliani took on Paul at last week's former debate, "My former boss looked like a complete nutcase. He looked frail. His hands shaked. He showed his age. He was completely unprepared for Giuliani's romping response. Is this the man that should be representing South Texas Congressional District 14 in the US Congress?"

Last weekend at the Maryland GOP convention, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Maryland, can't have been happy to see activists wearing "Run, Andy, Run" stickers. Those were a reference to state senator Andrew P. Harris, a Baltimore County Republican, who will likely soon announce that Gilchrest, too, will face a Republican opponent.

But it's not merely those Republicans who have voted to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq who face challenges.

In February, after seven Republican Senators and 17 Republican House members voted for a non-binding resolution expressing opposition to the so-called "surge," Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said "there will be primary challenges in the Republican Party against some of those congressmen and, I hope, against some of those senators, and they deserve to be primaried, because they are acting, I think, in a shameful way."

Conservative activist/blogger Hugh Hewitt launched a group to do just that, the "Victory Caucus," to "primary" the so-called "Surrender Caucus" -- the 17 House GOPers who voted against the surge.

Rep. Ric Keller, R-Florida, has drawn a primary challenge from Todd Long, who raised more money than Keller last quarter.

In South Carolina, Rep. Bob Inglis, R-SC, may also face a challenge. The GOP chairman in Spartanburg County told a local newspaper that "I'm not going to discourage challenges. Bob has stepped on a land mine that he didn't really need to."

-- jpt

May 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

How Should Hillary Vote?

May 23, 2007 4:02 PM

Should Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, vote against the Iraq troop funding bill? Or would that be irresponsible? What's the best policy decision for her to make? What about the best political decision?

READ ALL ABOUT THIS TOUGH CHOICE HERE...

best
jake

May 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Democrat-dissection

May 23, 2007 9:25 AM

There are some interesting memes out there worth a look regarding our friends on the Democratic side of the 2008 White House track.

First off is Johnny Reid Edwards. It was recently disclosed that the former North Carolina Senator was paid $55,000 for a speech about poverty to students at my cousin Judith's alma mater University of California at Davis, where students at the state school shelled out $17 a ticket.

The San Francisco Chronicle's political writer takes a look at all of these troubling side issues -- $400 haircuts, Edwards' new manse, his payday from controversial Fortress Investments (CLICK HERE).

"The problem now facing the Democratic presidential candidate is whether the pileup of headlines, including the latest regarding hefty fees from university speeches reported Monday by The Chronicle, threatens to obliterate Edwards' dominant campaign theme. The former senator, who has been portrayed as the champion of the poor and the son of a humble mill worker, now faces the possibility that voters will have a different image: that of a millionaire trial lawyer who talks one way and lives another."

The liberal Nation magazine, meanwhile, sets its sites (CLICK HERE) on the Democratic frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, D-NY, by noting the corporate clients of the Clinton campaign's many senior staffers, and saying, "It's hard to see how her advisers' corporate work doesn't reflect poorly on Clinton's progressive claims or create a liability for her with Democratic voters. There's no evidence that she has taken a position specifically to benefit one of her advisers' clients or a top supporter. More likely, the ties to corporate America, along with the bruises of past defeats, have limited what she believes is possible and will fight to achieve. 'If you surround yourself by people who live off of big corporations, that's going to affect the advice they give you and your own worldview,' says a former Clinton adviser."

Then there's Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, D-Illinois, whose wife Michelle just resigned (CLICK HERE)from a lucrative job at TreeHouse Foods, a supplier to Wal-Mart, an inconvenient truth that was something of a problem for this new hero of populists.

A big question for this week -- How will Clinton and Obama vote on the Iraq funding bill, now cleared of the timetables for US troop withdrawal the president loathed so? 

Sen. Christopher John Dodd, D-Conn., is taking credit for pushing Clinton and Obama to the left on last weeks vote to almost immediately begin withdrawing troops (CLICK HERE).

"Chris Dodd has been challenging the other candidates to support the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment to end our involvement in Iraq's civil war," THE AD SAYS "It worked. Now Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have changed their positions to follow Chris Dodd."

What do you think of all this?

-jpt

May 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Would President Gore have prevented 9/11?

May 22, 2007 11:42 AM

The embargo has been lifted and we can now quote from former VP Al Gore's book "The Assault On Reason" as freely as we want. Yesterday I was limited to what had been mentioned on GMA.

So here's the unfettered piece.

For me the most surprising part of the book was Gore's implication that if a more competent person had been president during 9/11 -- like, say, him -- 9/11 might not have happened.

Gore argues that the president does not need enhanced domestic surveillance powers he has sought and received, often in secret, just competent use of the information already available.
He points out, for instance, the fact that 9/11 terrorists Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar were already on a State Department/INS watch list.

He does not flatly state that 9/11 would not have occurred during a Gore administration. But, he writes, "whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable, it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes."

Then, using a study from the Markle Foundation, Gore shows how "better and more timely analysis" -- not the increased data sought by the Bush administration -- would have led to other hijackers Salem Alhazmi, Mohamed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi and so on. Bush received that dire warning in August 2001, Gore notes at two different points in the book -- "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." -- which he refers to as "a headline more alarming and more pointed than any I saw in eight years of six-days-a-week CIA briefings."

Gore notes that he took pre-9/11 warnings seriously, even if Bush did not. After all, "unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden an immediate threat" is "inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the president," Gore says, noting that as vice president he "made that very point to President Clinton when he had the opportunity to seize an al Qaeda operative who was planning an attack against us. And the president took my advice, though the individual we attempted to capture escaped."

But instead, Gore writes, incompetence rules the day and Bush has "taken us much further down the road toward an intrusive 'Big Brother'-style government -- towards the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book 1984 -- than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America."

It's a strong charge, laid out carefully, with tidbits dropped here and there throughout the book. I've covered Al Gore for years. He rarely misspeaks, never miswrites. He is smart and deliberate.

What do you think?

-- jpt

May 22, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

Jimmy Carter's revisionism

May 21, 2007 1:38 PM

Often when a public figure says his remarks are being misinterpreted, they are actually being interpreted all too well. The public figure seems actually concerned that the remarks were noticed -- not misconstrued.

Which brings us to former President Jimmy Carter, who may be trying to re-write an interview in which he judged the Bush administration's foreign policy "the worst in history."

On Saturday, teeing off an interview Carter did with Arkansas Democrat-Gazette religion editor Frank Lockwood, the Associated Press reported (CLICK HERE), that "Carter says President Bush's administration is 'the worst in history' in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy."

On Sunday, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, “I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there. I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”

Interviewed by NBC News Monday, Carter said his comments were being misconstrued. 

“What I was actually doing was responding to a question comparing this administration's foreign policy with that of Richard Nixon," Carter said. "And I think Richard Nixon had a very good and productive foreign policy. And my remarks were maybe careless or misinterpreted. But I wasn't comparing the overall administration and I was certainly not talking personally about any president…”

His comments "were interpreted as saying, comparing this whole administration to all other administrations and what I was actually doing was responding to a question about foreign policy between Richard Nixon and this administration. And I think that this administration's foreign policy compared to President Nixon’s was much worse."

Carter was asked for clarification: “But not the worst in U.S. history?"

“No, that’s not what I wanted to say," Carter said. "I wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history. But just with President Nixon."

But the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette provides the audio of the interview. (You can listen to it HERE)

And while Carter was indeed responding to a question about "which president was worse -- George W. Bush or Richard Nixon?" his answer went far beyond that.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world this administration has been the worst in his-, worst in history," Carter said. "And the overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations -- including George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others -- has been the most disturbing to me."

Carter then explained all the ways he felt the Bush administration had radically departed from HISTORY -- not from Nixon, but from HISTORY. And not just on foreign policy.

"We have endorsed a concept of pre-emptive war," Carter said, "where we go to war with another nation militarily even though our own security is not directly threatened… That's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."

He went through a list of other "radical departure(s) from the past" -- no White House-initiated peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, separation of church and state policies, the fact that the Bush administration has "abandoned or directly refuted every nuclear arms control agreement ever negotiated down through history," and the "abandonment of almost every previous administration's policy on environmental quality."

The more important matter may be the substance of Carter's accusations. But he was certainly making them. Nothing was misinterpreted at all.

What sayeth vox pop?

-- jpt

May 21, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)

Albert Arnold Gore Jr

May 21, 2007 9:16 AM

Al Gore says that his new book "The Assault On Reason" is "not a political book."

That seems a fairly questionable assertion. I cannot imagine that President Bush will read scathing comments about his policies and think there's nothing political about them.

Such as the charge that the president -- particularly because of the war in Iraq -- "has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack because of his arrogance and willfulness."

Or that if "Bush and Cheney actually believed in the linkage (between Iraq and al Qaeda) that they asserted -- in spite of all the evidence to the contrary presented to them contemporaneously—that would by itself in light of the available evidence, make them genuinely unfit to lead our nation. On the other hand, if they knew the truth and lied, massively and repeatedly, isn't that worse? Are they too gullible or too dishonest?"

More on the book HERE -- we got a sneek peek.

What do you think? Political? Apolitical? Reasoned? An assault on reason?
-jpt

May 21, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

RIP Aziz and Yousuf

May 18, 2007 9:51 AM

This morning we got horrible news (LINK) -- two of our reporters in Baghdad were killed.

Cameraman Alaa Uldeen Aziz, 33, and soundman Saif Laith Yousuf, 26, were returning home from work at the ABC News Baghdad bureau Thursday afternoon when, according to our Baghdad correspondent Terry McCarthy, they were stopped by two cars full of gunmen. Their deaths were confirmed this morning.

During my time in Baghdad last February/March, I got to know Aziz a bit. He could come back from a shoot, smoking cigarettes, nervously amazed at how violent the country was becoming. Neighborhoods that were once safe were devolving into anarchy.

He hated it. He hated what was happening to Iraq.

And he thought it ridiculous, as I recall, to listen to American generals talk about how much progress was being made, when it clearly wasn't…the semantic debates -- is it a civil war? Is it sectarian strife? -- particularly irked him, as I recall.

No one wanted the country to become safe and secure more than he did.

Not President Bush, not Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Despite the inane babblings of some commentators, journalism in Baghdad is almost never done from the safety of the Green Zone (which is not traditionally "safe," at any rate). And for whatever boldness the job requires from Western reporters, the unsung heroes are the Arab crews, who go to places where a white Westerner cannot, and are targets of violence in a way that would blow your mind if you know about it -- which is to say if the US media paid as much attention to the deaths of non-American journalists.

They are brave men (and women, but usually men) who are there to do their jobs, to show the world reality, truth. Not military spin. Not political posturing to do well in the Iowa caucuses. Not clueless arrogance. Truth.

Aziz leaves behind a wife and two daughters. Yousuf was engaged to be married within the next few weeks.

Rest in peace. --jpt

May 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Money Money Money (Money)

May 17, 2007 4:32 PM

Did a little piece on the presidential candidates, their financial disclosure reports, and what they're not disclosing, for the World News Webcast. (CLICK HERE FOR THE FREE VIDEO)

-- jpt

May 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Did Ron Paul have a point?

May 17, 2007 12:35 PM

The chair of the Michigan GOP was so offended by the intimations by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that U.S. foreign policy led to 9/11, he wants Paul banned from future debates.

Michigan GOP chair Saul Anuzis said Paul was "off the wall and out of whack."

"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party," Anuzis told fellow members of the RNC during a state leadership meeting in South Carolina. 

To recap (FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE) Paul said that terrorists "attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years... What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."

Asked specifically if he was suggesting the US invited the 9/11 attack, Paul said, "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.'"

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani jumped in, calling Paul's remarks "an extraordinary statement," -- "extraordinary" being the term he uses as a substitute for "horrendous" -- and that "as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq -- I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."

He asked Paul to "withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

Paul did not, saying "the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there."

What say you?

-- jpt

May 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (81) | TrackBack (0)

Lurching leftward

May 17, 2007 10:25 AM

Yesterday two significant votes in the US Senate indicating the winds of change are blowing -- both among Democrats and Republicans.

Majorities in both parties backed bills that, just a matter of a few weeks ago, would have been considered heretical and disloyal in the case of the GOPers, and radical and imprudent in the case of the Democrats.

Both votes failed -- but they were quite significant.

MORE ON THE VOTES HERE…

What do you think?

-- jpt

May 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

"If they f--- with me or Shaha…"

May 16, 2007 9:12 AM

Greetings from Columbia, SC, where we covered the GOP debate for abcnews.com (CLICK HERE) and Good Morning America.

But in addition to your thoughts on winners and losers from last night (For debate's sake, let's say -- Winners: Giuliani for being the star, McCain for being the most presidential, Huckabee for drawing the most laughs; Losers: Romney for flailing a tad, Ron Paul for being called out by Giuliani for his views on the causes of 9/11), I'm wondering what you think of the death of the Rev. Jerry Falwell yesterday.

Plaudits came…..from interesting places...

From John McCain -- who IN A STATEMENT called Falwell "man of distinguished accomplishment" yesterday after calling him "an agent of intolerance" seven years ago -- one year ago, YOU MAY RECALL, McCain paid homage and buried the hatchet with a trip to Liberty University last year…

From Al Sharpton, who said Falwell, "personally was genuinely a nice guy, and I would find him to be one of the few people in the public light who was genuine. He believed what he said. I used to tell him, 'What you're saying is crazy,' but he really believes it"…

From Larry Flynt, who said IN A STATEMENT "My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling."

What say you, vox populi?

-- jpt

May 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Indy Joe and the Collins Mixer

May 15, 2007 11:43 AM

Last month Sen. Joe Lieberman -- the Independent Democrat from Connecticut who just seven years ago was the Democratic Party's nominee for vice president -- endorsed for re-election Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. His leadership PAC even gave her campaign committee $5,000.
Next month, as first reported by the Washington Post (LINK), Lieberman will co-host with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., a Capitol Hill fundraiser for Collins.

The announcement comes just days after the internet video announcement (LINK) by Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, that he will challenge Collins for reelection next year.

The move will no doubt rankle many Democrats who are still angry not only that Lieberman is still in the Senate but that Democrats made a deal with him, giving him chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in exchange for his crucial vote to deliver the Senate to Democratic control.

It's on that committee where Collins and Lieberman have worked closely together -- Collins is ranking Republican. Last year after Lieberman left the Democratic party -- after losing its primary to Ned Lamont -- Collins campaigned for his independent candidacy.

Allen is very opposed to the war in Iraq; Lieberman very supportive of it. Collins has voted with Republicans (and Lieberman) on most of the anti-Iraq war legislation Democrats have brought forward since gaining control of the Senate, but last month she indicated her patience was not infinite. “If the president’s new strategy does not demonstrate significant results by August, then Congress should consider all options, including a redefinition of our mission and a gradual but significant withdrawal of our troops next year," she said.

Which begs the question -- would Lieberman support a conservative challenge to Collins in a Republican primary if she ultimately stopped supporting the war in Iraq?

-- jpt

May 15, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Would you torture someone to save a friend?

May 15, 2007 9:23 AM

"Earlier this month, our Army released the results of an internally initiated survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. The results showed that almost half of our troops would condone torture in a specific instance if it saved their buddies' lives," writes Ralph Peters in the New York Post (CLICK HERE TO READ).

"The media were, of course, appalled. I was shocked, too - surprised that so few of our troops would condone any action that kept their comrades alive."

General David Petraeus seemed to have a complete opposite reaction to that survey, which you can READ HERE)

Some excerpts:

"Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground. This strategy has shown results in recent months. Al Qaeda’s indiscriminate attacks, for example, have finally started to turn a substantial portion of the Iraqi population against it.

"In view of this, I was concerned by the results of a recently released survey conducted last fall in Iraq that revealed an apparent unwillingness on the part of some US personnel to report illegal actions taken by fellow members of their units. The study also indicated that a small percentage of those surveyed may have mistreated noncombatants. This survey should spur reflection on our conduct in combat…

"Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge. As hard as it might be, however, we must not let these emotions lead us—or our comrades in arms—to commit hasty, illegal actions. In the event that we witness or hear of such actions, we must not let our bonds prevent us from speaking up.

"Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone 'talk'; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees...

"We should use the survey results to renew our commitment to the values and standards that make us who we are and to spur re-examination of these issues. Leaders, in particular, need to discuss these issues with their troopers—and, as always, they need to set the right example and strive to ensure proper conduct. We should never underestimate the importance of good leadership and the difference it can make."

(Hat tip, Andrew).

On a lighter note --  Law and Order breeds a political class -- READ MORE HERE

And on Good Morning America this a.m. -- DOT COM VERSION HERE and the FREE VIDEO IS HERE -- the mounds of undisclosed information the presidential hopefuls are NOT sharing with you, the voter.

What say you?

-- jpt

May 15, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

"What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class"

May 14, 2007 10:55 AM

Seeking approximately a half-million dollars in damages, the family of a 12-year-old Chicago girl is suing the local Board of Education for "psychological distress" caused by a viewing of the R-rated gay cowboy film "Brokeback Mountain."

The lawsuit alleges that at Ashburn Community Elementary School -- home of the "Flames" -- 8th grader Jessica Turner was forced to watch the film by a substitute teacher named Ms. Buford, who according to the lawsuit started the movie with the catchy slogan, "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class."

In the lawsuit, filed Friday Cook County Circuit Court, Turner and her grandparents, Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, accuse the school, principal Jewel Diaz and "Ms. Buford" of negligence, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Motion Picture Association of America gave the Oscar-winning film an "R" rating for "sexuality, nudity, language and some violence." The rating -- "R" stands for "restricted" -- means, according to the MPAA, that "(i)n the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them."

Kenneth Richardson told the Associated Press that, "It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this. The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this."

"We're not commenting," said Mike Vaughn, spokesman for Chicago Public Schools. "I don't even think we've seen the lawsuit yet."

More on the story HERE and HERE

This is hardly the only Brokeback-themed lawsuit out there.

In Burlington, Vermont, the UVM chapter of Phi Delt was accused of violating a ban on hazing by forcing pledges to wear "Brokeback Mountain" cowboy duds a la Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal while taunting them with homophobic slurs. Vermont Judicial Bureau Judge Charon True said that the "evidence that I have in front of me does not meet the statutory requirements of proving hazing" and the Vermont Attorney General just recently (CLICK HERE) decided to drop the criminal charges.
Last year high school a high school English teacher at Kentucky's Boyd County High School showed a senior cinematography class 2 1/2 minutes of the film, to much consternation even though the clip did not reportedly contain any sexual content. After much controversy, school superintendent Howard K. Osborne  said the film would never again be shown at the school.

And actor Randy Quaid, seeking $10 million in damages, sued Focus Features for according to the lawsuit (CLICK HERE) succeeded in obtaining Randy Quaid's performance in 'Brokeback Mountain' by falsely representing it as a low-budget, art-house film, with no prospect of making any money. Yet, from day one, defendents fully intended that the film would not be made on a low budget, would be given a worldwide release, and would be supported as the studio picture it always was secretly intended to be."

Thoughts?Is Brokeback Mountain appropriate for 8th graders? Is this controversy about the film's R rating or about homosexuality?

-- jpt

May 14, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

Call him Barack O'Bama?

May 14, 2007 9:24 AM

A town in Ireland, Moneygall, LAYS CLAIM to the senator's great-great-great-grandfather.

How come no one is laying claim to Tommy Thompson? Could it be that the former Wisconsin governor's explanation for saying during the GOP debate that businesses should be allowed to fire gay people for being gay -- he has SAID that his hearing aid wasn't working and he had to go to the bathroom -- isn't exactly wowing the world in terms of his presidential bearing?

How many people still think Thompson (Tommy, not Fred) will still be in the race come September?

The Nashville Tennesseean's Dwight Lewis takes a look back today (CLICK HERE) at a failed Clinton surgeon general nominee to slam then-Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn, for his role…but others NOTE that such information could help Thompson try to win the support of conservatives…..

On the other side of the aisle, Stu Rothenberg asks if John Edwards is running too far and too hard to the left (CLICK HERE)…

What say you, vox populi?

-- jake

May 14, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Rudy's on a train to nowhere...

May 12, 2007 10:19 AM

Sorry I keep quoting that Supertramp song, it's not necessarily relevant -- though plenty of political operatives in DC are convinced that Mr Giuliani's views on social issues are too liberal for him to win the GOP presidential nomination.

In any case, we took a look at the abortion issue and the former Mayor on DOT-COM HERE and on WORLD NEWS WITH CHARLES GIBSON HERE...

What do you think? Can he become the first Republican presidential nominee who supports abortion rights since Gerald Ford in 1976?

-- jpt

May 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

NARAL gave $1000 to Giuliani

May 11, 2007 10:26 AM

In its April 24, 1999, report to the Federal Election Commission of political donations it had made, a leading Empire State abortion rights organization -- the New York State NARAL Women's Health Political Action Committee -- listed two $1,000 donations. One was to Rep. Nita Lowey, D-NY. The other was to the exploratory committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, then contemplating a Senate run. (Click HERE to see the FEC report).

It's been reported that Giuliani and his wife donated $900 to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s; but with this donation we see that the affection between the mayor and abortion-rights organizations was reciprocated.

Giuliani at the time was considered a strong advocate of abortion rights. Then-NARAL President Kate Michelman, said that it would sit out the anticipated senatorial race between Giuliani and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. "She has been a strong advocate of a woman's right to choose and he has been extraordinarily strong as well," Michelman said at the time.

Giuliani is now, however, trying to appeal to Republican primary voters in Iowa, and South Carolina, and Alabama.  His rhetoric has shifted -- he says he supports the US Supreme Court ruling upholding a ban on the abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion." He says he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges.  He said he would be "OK" if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. 

But this is a difficult dance to do.

Especially when, as first reported at the Race 4 2008 blog today (LINK HERE), in 1997 Giuliani filled out a NARAL/NY PAC questionnaire, answering "YES" to questions as to whether the then-mayoral candidate "agrees with the substance of Roe v. Wade, whether the candidate supports Medicaid funding of abortions 'without any restrictions,' ...whether the candidate opposes legislation requiring parental notification or consent for minors to obtain an abortion," and on and on.

Giuliani is addressing the issue of abortion right now in a speech. Can a candidate who supports abortion rights win the GOP presidential nomination?

-- jpt

May 11, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Out of Iraq?

May 10, 2007 8:25 AM

Here's something unexpected -- before the House votes today on its Iraq funding bill, it will vote on a bill from Rep Jim McGovern, D-Mass., to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The McGovern bill says within 90 days of enactment the president has to commence withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq. The bill cuts all funding for the war -- except for the safe and orderly withdrawal of US forces, reconstruction, diplomatic initiatives, and limited counterterrorism operations.

There has been a lot of discontent among anti-war liberals in Congress that they don’t get opportunities to vote for something they actually believe in, instead voting on all sorts of compromise measures. So last night at a meeting among Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to let these anti-war liberals have this vote.

After the bill almost certainly fails to pass, the House will proceed to consideration of the Iraq funding bill offered by Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., chairman of he House Appropriations Committee, which would give the Pentagon $42 billion or so immediately so as not to disrupt operations, while fencing off $53 billion until the president reports on Iraqi government benchmarks in July, after which the House will vote on whether to release those funds.

-- jpt

May 10, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

Is God Great? Is Sharpton? Is Romney?

May 09, 2007 4:37 PM

In a debate with brilliant contrarian atheist Chris Hitchens on Monday at the New York Public Library’s Beaux-Arts headquarters, Rev. Al Sharpton made an interesting comment about former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry about that, that’s a temporary – that’s a temporary situation," Sharpton said.
The debate was covered in the New York Times blog Empire Zone HERE and you can listen to the whole debate HERE at the New York Public Library website.

Romney called Sharpton's remark "a bigoted comment."

"It shows that bigotry still exists in some corners," said Romney. "I thought it was a most unfortunate comment to make."

As for whether Sharpton is a bigot, Romney said, "I don't know Reverend Sharpton. I doubt he is personally such a thing, but the comment was a comment which could be described as a bigoted comment."

Over at the liberal Huffington Post, John Ridley CALLS Sharpton a "hate-mongering hypocrite."
But Sharpton takes issue with how his remarks are being interpreted.

"In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon Church when I responded that other believers, not atheists, would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons," Sharpton told the AP Tuesday. "What I said was that we would defeat him, meaning as a Republican," Sharpton said. "A Mormon, by definition, believes in God. They don't believe in God the way I do, but by definition, they believe in God."

What do you think? Was Sharpton Mormon-baiting?

-- jpt

May 9, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Tapper responds to your comments!

May 09, 2007 1:36 PM

"Did the general ever state the exact thing that Bush didn't listen about?" asks Jason. "From my recollections, the military wasn't questioning going to war, but were questioning the number of troops required."

No, not yet…I have a call into Maj. Gen. Batiste to ask what exactly he's referring to. Will let you know.
"I will be leaving again soon" for Iraq, writes Cheryl main, "and am proud to serve my country and SEE THE PROGRESS first hand and until you have, I think people need to keep their mouths shut, we have done the right thing there.

The Iraqi people are entitled to the same freedoms we have here and there will be bloodshed just as there was many many years ago here. The media is so full of crap sometimes."

Thanks for your service and best of luck. Not really sure what you're taking issue with -- was reporting the thoughts of a retired Major General who was commander of the 1st infantry in Iraq. Not my own thoughts -- his. But God speed.

"You can't handle the truth" writes: "I think it is time now for the Congress of the United States to tell the solders, and generals that they are no longer taking order from George Bush, or Dick Cheney. That henceforth their order come from the Congress of the United States, and the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi."

I'm not sure if you're being serious. But that's kind of against the constitution.

"Listen up JUST STOP ALL FUNDING," says Stanley Hutchinson. "That's what ended the Vietnam war, and that's what it will take to end this one real quick , and bring the troops home. Let the troops run out of bullets, and fuel for the jets for air support…"

He goes on from there…That seems pretty cruel to the US troops, Mr. Hutchinson.

"I think needless propaganda only mucks up the water," says allen. "I believe in their right to voice an opinion just disagree when it purely political"

The two retired Major Generals have been outspokenly critical about the administration's prosecution of the war before, but you're right, allen, in that this is the first step I've seen them take that is so political, running targeted TV ads aimed at specific Republican Members of Congress.  Interesting that that's where you draw the line. Why is that?

Lon points out that I accidentally referred to John Boehner as "House Majority Leader" -- that's been corrected, Lon.

Thanks for writing, everyone!

-  jpt

May 9, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

General Discontent

May 09, 2007 9:01 AM

In an act of defiance perhaps not seen since President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur, today the anti-war veterans group VoteVets.org,  which has been influential with Capitol Hill Democrats, is launching a half-million-dollar TV ad campaign featuring Maj Gen John Batiste (Ret.), former commanding general of the first infantry division in Iraq.

 
The ad begins with a clip President George W. Bush saying "I have always said that I will listen to the requests of our commanders on the ground."

Batiste then appears, saying, "Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women."

The ads are targeted at Republican members of Congress seen to be wavering in their support for the war. Those targeted include GOP Senators Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (NH), John Warner (Virginia), and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and GOP Representatives Mary Bono (Calif.), Phil English (Penn.), Randy Kuhl (NY), Jim Walsh (NY), Jo Ann Emerson (Missouri), Tim Johnson (Illinois), Mike Rogers (Michigan), Fred Upton (Michigan), and Mike Castle (Del.)

The ads conclude with Batiste saying, depending on the congressperson targeted, "Senator Collins, protect America, not George Bush."

Major General Paul Eaton (Ret.) and Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) will also appear in ads.

Meanwhile, at the VFW headquarters in DC later today, according to the ARMY TIMES, an "Appeal for Courage" petition signed by 2,700 current and former service members supporting continued U.S. combat operations in Iraq will be given to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC.

"The petition was organized by two U.S. service members serving in Iraq, Navy Lt. Jason Nichols, serving in Baghdad, and Minnesota National Guard Staff Sgt. David Thul, who is conducting convoy operations in Iraq with the 34th Infantry Division," the newspaper reports.

What do you think?

-- jpt

May 9, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (279) | TrackBack (0)

Does Mitt Romney believe in evolution?

May 08, 2007 11:20 AM

At the GOP debate last week, only three candidates raised their hands when asked if they did not believe in evolution -- Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.

Our friend David Brody at Christian Broadcasting News asked former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for a clarification, since Romney is trying to appeal to conservative Christian voters.

Writes Brody (LINK HERE): "The majority of Born Again Evangelicals take the Creationist viewpoint. Some Evangelicals already have concerns about Romney's Mormon faith. He needs support from Evangelicals to win. That's why this issue is an important one that needs to be cleared up. I don't think this is an issue that Romney can avoid. I believe his views need to be clear."

And Brody doesn’t find the answer Romney's campaign gave to be satisfactory. "Governor Romney believes both science and faith can help inform us about the origins of life in this world."

What do you think?

-- jpt

May 8, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (30) | TrackBack (0)

A gay sailor, guns, Tenet's cash and polls

May 08, 2007 9:22 AM

In a new Gallup/USA Today poll, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, vaults over Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, with a 15 point lead, 38% to 23%. MORE HERE.

Clinton pollster Mark Penn says very simply that this is the result of the Democratic debate. "At the debate, people got the first chance to see them all side-by-side," Penn says, "and I think she is looking very ready to lead."

On the GOP side, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani bests Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., 34% to 20%. This despite NEWS in today's Politico that Giuliani and his then-wife donated $900 to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s.

Then there's that Newsweek poll, which has President Bush's approval rating at 28%. Yikes.
Yesterday I spent some time on the phone with a gay Navy man who says he was discharged from the military for being gay then called back up to serve in Kuwait. With able help from Jonathan Karl at the Pentagon, the STORY CAN BE READ HERE.

Then be sure not to miss this look at SALON.COM about all the money former CIA director George Tenet is making from corporations that profit in Iraq.

And this LOOK, from a pro-gun website, suggesting that in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, some states are pushing laws that would increase the number of guns out there, in Tennessee (LINK) and South Carolina (LINK), for instance.

Thoughts?

- jpt

May 8, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)