« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

Anti-Catholic Bigotry?

July 31, 2007 6:13 PM

We've already seen allegations of anti-Mormon bigotry in this campaign ... now come charges of anti-Catholic bias.

This fight is between the presidential campaign of Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, who converted to Catholicism, and the campaign of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

According to the Catholic League, a letter "is being circulated among evangelicals in Iowa asking them not to split the Christian vote between former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback; they are urged to vote for Huckabee, an evangelical, over Brownback, a Roman Catholic."

The letter was written by Pastor Tim Rude of Walnut Creek Community Church in Windsor Heights, Iowa. A Huckabee volunteer.

He writes that "Huckabee is an evangelical. He has not learned how to speak to evangelicals; i.e. Bush 41 & 43. He is one of us. I know Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor's. I don't if this fact is widely known among evangelicals who are supporting Brownback."

Says the Brownback campaign: "Governor Huckabee should apologize and denounce this prejudiced whisper campaign," says Brownback's Iowa communications director John Rankin. "Political campaigns should focus on the issues that Americans care about, not make bigoted slurs aimed at a person's faith and character.

We are waiting for a response from the Huckabee campaign.

But in the meantime, I spoke just now to what seemed a very frantic and upset Pastor Rude -- a Huckabee campaign volunteer -- who said this was an email meant for two friends, not wide dissemination. (I called him for a comment before posting.) He sent me an apology letter, which reads in part:

"I was careless in the first place with my words. And obviously, if I knew this private e-mail would somehow not remain private, I would have taken great care not to convey anything that would be offensive to anyone.

"As you know, I support Governor Huckabee first and Senator Brownback as a close second. I have a number of friends working for the Senator and he would make an outstanding president. The reason I wrote this, in the first place, is that this was a major factor in choosing Governor Huckabee over Senator Brownback. I frankly agree theologically more with a Southern Baptist. Perhaps, Mormons are rallying around Mitt Romney and Catholics around Senator Brownback. I don't know.

"In no way do I think a Catholic would not make a great president, in fact, if Governor Huckabee drops out of the race I will support Senator Brownback. But I do apologize for my statements because it could be taken as anti-Catholic which isn't the case at all.

"Again, please accept my apology and I ask for your forgiveness."

This seems, once again, of a case where a candidate is being held responsible for what his supporters are saying -- which is a tough standard for anyone. Especially in the age of the internet, when careless and offensive thoughts can, in mere minutes, make their way onto the website of ABC News.

But what do you think?

-- jt

UPDATE: The Radio Iowa blog provides Huckabee's response -- LINK.

July 31, 2007 in Religion | Permalink | User Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

Teddy Bear

July 31, 2007 3:21 PM

On the same day Democrats were heralding a new lobbying and ethics reform package, both the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate today refused to comment on the FBI raid on the home of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

The FBI's political corruption probe into oil services company VECO, the Associated Press reported today, has led to recent federal grand jury testimony from Barbara Flanders, a financial clerk for Stevens on the Senate Commerce Committee. Flanders, the AP reported, provided documents relating to the senator's bills.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was asked about the House GOP policy of removing from committee assignments Members of Congress under investigation, but Reid would have none of it.

"We have to be careful about punishing people during an investigation," Reid said. "Many investigations go nowhere."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, likewise said he would not comment since, after all, "Sen. Stevens has four decades of service in the United States Senate." McConnell said he "will be discussing the matter with my conference."

As the FBI noose began to tighten earlier this month, Stevens said he had received "overwhelming support" from his fellow Senators on the matter since "it's sort of a family, the Senate family comes around when someone's got a problem, and they've all encouraged me, 'Don't get excited about this' because so many people have been through it in their own states and it's not an easy thing."

Asked by ABC News what the American people would think about this sentiment expressed by a senator whose home was just raided by the FBI, McConnell said, "I don’t have anything to add to the Stevens matter beyond what I said."

For his part, Stevens slipped out the back door of the weekly GOP luncheon. Followed by industrious reporters peppering with questions, the 83-year old lawmaker met their inquiries with a chilling silence, angry glares, and no comment. Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in US Senate history, is up for re-election next year.

-- jt

July 31, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Northern Exposure

July 31, 2007 9:46 AM

For a decade Bill Allen, CEO of the energy company VECO, used to throw a Summer political fundraiser (LINK) called "The Pig Roast."

But Allen and the legislators who benefited from his largesse are the ones feeling the heat these days, most recently the man known for his Incredible Hulk ties, the powerful former Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, (LINK) the most senior Republican in the Senate, who saw his Girdwood, Alaska home raided by the IRS and FBI yesterday.

"I continue to believe this investigation should proceed to its conclusion without any appearance that I have attempted to influence its outcome," Stevens said in a statement issued through his spokesman last night. "The legal process should be allowed to proceed so that all the facts can be established and the truth determined."

The search came as part of a public integrity probe of VECO officials and their bribing of Alaska officials to obtain a pipeline -- so far Allen and another executive (LINK), a VECO lobbyist (LINK), and three current or former members of the Alaska legislature (LINK) have pleaded guilty.

Also mentioned in the investigation are Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, and myriad others including a group Alaska legislators jokingly calling themselves "the Corrupt Bastards Club" -- they even had hats made! (LINK)

Allen, said to be cooperating with authorities, personally oversaw the expansion of Stevens' Alaska home (CLICK HERE TO SEE) , and contractors have said bills went to VECO before they went to Stevens. (The renovation included lifting the house up on stilts and adding a floor, doubling the size of the home, located at a resort.)

Says Stevens (LINK), "As a practical matter, I will tell you. We paid every bill that was given to us. Every bill that was sent to us has been paid, personally, with our own money, and that's all there is to it. It's our own money."

Of course, that doesn't really answer the question if the bills went to VECO first. Hence, presumably, the raid.

Stevens' son, Ben, the former president of the Alaska state senate, saw his home and office raided last year and he was allegedly paid by VECO more than $200,000 for a make-work consulting job, according to the probe.

But it's Papa Stevens who remains one of the most powerful men in the Senate and, at 83, will be up for reelection this year.

Stevens earlier this month said that he had received "overwhelming support" from his fellow Senators on the matter since "senators read papers too, and it's sort of a family, the Senate family comes around when someone's got a problem, and they've all encouraged me, 'Don't get excited about this' because so many people have been through it in their own states and it's not an easy thing."

For that heartwarming quote, listen to this AUDIO LINK

This all happens as the House and Senate take up the lobbying/ethics reform package!

-- jt

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

Cash for cleavage?

July 30, 2007 2:56 PM

Frequent readers of "Political Punch" may be tickled to see how a blog posting from Friday (LINK) ended up as a Good Morning America report today (FREE VIDEO HERE) as well as a dot-com story (LINK)…

Your blog at work!

-- jt

July 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Is the surge working?

July 30, 2007 2:48 PM

Many Republicans -- and some reporters -- are convinced of the importance of an op-ed in today's New York Times by think-tankers Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack essentially saying that the surge is working and should be given more time to succeed.

"The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility," the authors write. "Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

READ THE REST OF THE OP-ED HERE

The White House and GOP congressional leaders are selling this op-ed as evidence that the surge is working, and they're brandishing this opinion piece to try to reverse the political momentum in the U.S., which seems to be pushing strongly towards a change in mission for US troops if not a complete troop withdrawal.

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but regardless of the merits of the op-ed, I don't think it will be the "tipping point" that supporters of the surge strategy hope it will be.

One Republican Senator's office told me the surge is a failure, op-ed or no op-ed, based on the Bush administration's own July 15 progress report.

Said another GOP Senator's office: "the time for the surge was four years ago." That Senator had not read the op-ed by Monday afternoon.

Many Republicans say the issue is that US troops are policing a civil war -- not whether or not General David Petraeus is a good commander. The debate no longer seems to be about the surge, but the mission.

And Democrats? Well, many just want the troops out, regardless of what "military-led dog-and-pony show" O'Hanlon and Pollack were taken on, in the words of one Democratic congressional aide.

It may be that the surge is working and that, as anticipated, Petraeus reports that more surging will bring more security to Iraq.

It may also prove to be long past the point of no return, that the American people are fed up with the war, and members of Congress are increasingly listening to them and not op-ed writers inside the Beltway. Rightly or wrongly.

What do you think?

-- jpt

July 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Democrats as victims?

July 27, 2007 6:11 PM

There's an interesting meme of Democratic victimology developing here…

In addition to former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, saying that media attention on his hair stems from powerful interests who "want to shut me up", it should be noted that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is also wading a bit into the waters of victimology…

After being the first one to really amp up her disagreement with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, from Monday night's debate -- her campaign sent out the video of their respective answers before the debate was even over, and she was the first one to personally use perjorative adjectives against Obama -- she's now trying to raise money claiming he "attacked" her.

"Last week, one of the leading Republican candidates equated Hillary with Karl Marx. Yesterday, one of the leading Democratic candidates called her 'Bush-Cheney lite,'" wrote Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle in the e-mail. "Hillary is under attack from opponents on all sides. When you're attacked, you expect your family and friends to stand with you…"

The short, 440-word fundraising appeal uses a form of the word "attack" six times. With Clinton as the victim, naturally.

Moreover, the Washington Post has also obtained a fundraising letter from Clinton taking issue with Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan's style-section story about Clinton's cleavage. (LINK)

"Frankly," writes Clinton senior adviser Ann Lewis (LINK), "focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting....By now the media should know better. But they don't."

Edwards' campaign is exploring a similar strategy, posting his "they want to shut me up" comments from yesterday in Creston, Iowa, on Youtube (LINK). The remarks in full:

"You remember the Swift Boat stuff? This stuff's not an accident. Nobody in this room should think this is an accident. You know, I'm out there speaking up for universal healthcare, ending this war in Iraq, speaking up for the poor.

"They want to shut me up. That's what this is about. 'Let's distract from people who don't have health care coverage. Let's distract from people who can't feed their children. Let's people who can't pay for their medicine. Let's talk about this litlte silly frivolous nothing stuff so that America won't pay attention.'

"They will never silence me. Never. I'll tell you that right now.

"If we don't stand up to these people, if we don't fight em, if we don't beat them, they're going to continue to control this country.

"They're going to control the media. They're going to control what's being said. They do not want to hear us talking about health care for everybody.

"They don't want to hear us talking about a fair tax system. You think these people who make $100 million a year, you think they want to pay their fair share of taxes? Thats why they hire all those lobbyists for in Washington, D.C.

"They hate listening to people like me. Well, I got bad news for 'em, they're going to have to listen to me for the next eight years."

You can view this as Democrats learning from the lessons of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and refusing to be "Swift Boated"…or ones exploiting any opportunity to create a crusade and make money…or Democrats fed up with a system they see as stacked against them….depending on your point of view.

What say you?

-- jpt

July 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)

The Gay debate

July 27, 2007 3:17 PM

In what may be just an opening salvo, the conservative group "Americans for Truth" is attacking the Democratic presidential debate to focus on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues hosted by the Human Rights Campaign…(LINK).

The debate (LINK) to be held at 9 pm EST August 9 in Los Angeles, and broadcast on Viacom's "gay" cable TV network, LOGO as well as live streaming video at LOGOonline.com.

Americans for Truth is a small, long-dormant organization based in Naperville, Illinois, that says it seeks to confront "the homosexual activist agenda."  But I suspect this is hardly the last criticism we will hear from the Right about this debate.

"Pardon our dismissive tone, but homosexual behavior is wrong — at least half the country still regards it as such," the group writes. "So why does the homosexual lobby get its own special presidential lovefest … er, debate? Because the Democratic Party has sold its soul on homosexuality. And we fear some in the Republican Party are rushing to catch up. The 'gay presidential debate' is so wrong on so many levels. The country is still divided on homosexuality — despite the media’s best efforts – yet all the questions presumably will come from ardently pro-'gay' advocates — that is, proud, practicing homosexuals."

On the other hand, debates are hosted all the time by interest groups -- the NAACP, the South Carolina Republican Party, Jewish and Catholic organizations, unions, Chambers of Commerce.

Does the fact that gay and lesbian issues remain quite controversial preclude a liberal gay and lesbian organization hosting a debate?  It will be interesting to see how other conservative organizations respond to this debate -- will the RNC take a position? And how about the Republican presidential candidates?

Discuss.

-- jt

July 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (133) | TrackBack (0)

Surf and Click

July 27, 2007 11:13 AM

As avid Political Punch readers may have heard, I have been nominated for one of these contests that spring up every now and again in DC on a very fun website called FishbowlDC -- the question being who is the "hottest" on-air male?

Many of my fellow nominees are emailing friends asking for their votes. (LINK)

But instead of my asking for your vote and directing you to that website, I'd ask that you go instead to the website of a very important group of people, my friends at Horton's Kids and explore that program…perhaps even consider helping them out....

HERE IS THE LINK.

Horton's Kids is a non-profit that mentors, plays with, and cares for 130 children in grades K – 12 from the Wellington Park apartment complex in the Anacostia section of Washington, D.C….a neighborhood considered a “HotSpot” by the local police. The schools they attend are among the city's worst performing. (Which is saying something.)

I used to be a regular volunteer, though my hours currently prevent that. But I can tell you that the efforts made by the Horton's Kids volunteers -- and the sainted founder of the organization Karin Walser -- are far more important than what most of us do, day in day out. 

And certainly more important than who wins a "hottest in DC" contest, however fun that may be.

So…thanks for checking them out!

-- Jake

July 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton campaign defends netroots to O'Reilly

July 26, 2007 9:22 AM

Following up on our O'Reilly v Kos coverage (LINK), here's some interesting video of Clinton campaign aide Howard Wolfson -- disappointingly not clad in his "Guys and Dolls" pinstripes -- debating Bill O'Reilly about Senator Clinton's decision to attend the YearlyKos. Watch it HERE

The debate really seems to come down to whether or not a website should monitor the comments posted, and delete the ones that constitute vulgar or hateful speech. ABC News does monitor such comments, as do most "mainstream" media websites, though DailyKos has a more complicated policy (LINK) that would seem to allow material DailyKos users might find objectionable to remain on the site -- which O'Reilly calls "hate speech" and Wolfson said was an example of O'Reilly "cherry-picking" to smear the daily Kos community.

Who do you think won?

-- jt

July 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Afternoon delight

July 25, 2007 2:49 PM

What did Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, say at a closed-door, off-the-record meeting with media mavens and corporate titans at the Time Warner Center in Manhattan Tuesday evening?

Read more about it HERE.

-- jt

July 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Shooting your mouth off

July 25, 2007 9:32 AM

It was one of the more unusual moments of the Youtube debate.

"Good evening, America. My name is Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan," said the voter. "To all the candidates, tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe."

Then, taking out a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, Townsend said, "This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Please tell me your views. Thank you."

Said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., "I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help. I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious.: ... I hope he doesn't come looking for me."

We learn today that Mr. Townsend may come looking for Biden. Legally, that is.  Townsend tells the Los Angeles Times that it's "worth looking into" whether he should sue Biden for slander (LINK) and to the Detroit Free Press (LINK), Townsend shot back at Biden, saying "I'm not the one on stage trying to get the presidency, making myself look like an idiot."

By the way, I was on the esteeemed Charlie Rose show Friday…though I had to run out in the middle of taping to do World News with Charles Gibson! LINK

More later --

jt

July 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

More on Obama v Clinton

July 24, 2007 9:48 PM

The Quad City Times has posted the audio of its interviews with Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in which the frontrunners use some of the strongest rhetoric yet in Campaign 2008.

Clinton can be heard HERE.

Key part: "I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naïve to say that he (Sen. Obama) would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro and others within the first year…Senator Obama gave an answer which I think he's regretting today."

Obama's response can be heard HERE ... and he doesn't hold back either.

"If anything is irresponsible and naive, it was authorizing George Bush to send 160,000 young American men and women into Iraq -- apparently without knowing how they were going to get out."

Moreover, Obama said, "if Senator Clinton's interested in a continuation of the Bush-Cheney diplomatic strategies over the next several years, that’s fine, but she certainly can't claim the mantle of change. She's not going to be able to significantly shift the perception of the United States around the world."

It's getting hot out there.

-- jake

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

Secrets of the Spin Room

July 24, 2007 4:45 PM

HERE'S THE FREE VIDEO of our trip to the Spin Room at the Youtube/CNN debate in Charleston, SC, last night…and an answer to what do Entourage and Ghostbusters have to do with presidential politics?

Enjoy.

-- jake

July 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Fight! Fight! Fight!

July 24, 2007 2:33 PM

In an interview with the Quad City Times of Iowa, (LINK) Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, assailed a response from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, at the Youtube debate last night as "irresponsible and frankly naive."

A Youtuber asked whether candidates would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”

Obama's response: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Clinton's response: “Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.  I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse."

Team Clinton has seized this moment, believing it demonstrates that Clinton is "ready on day one" while Obama is just a smarty-pants freshman in over his head. In a conference call, Bill Clinton's former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said "Having been involved in this myself, I think she showed a very sophisticated and nuanced view of what really happened, and for me, it shows the kind of experience she has."

The Obama folks, however, say Clinton is going negative, promises more of the same Bush-style diplomacy, and they have been circulating a quote from April where Clinton said, "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."

It is interesting timing for Clinton to be introducing pejorative adjectives into the debate. I thought she had a strong night, but focus groups of Democratic voters had Obama winning....

What say you?

-- jt

July 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (28) | TrackBack (0)

dateline: Charleston, SC

July 24, 2007 8:47 AM

Sitting at the Starbucks on International Drive near the Charleston, SC, airport.  A busy night -- culminating in a package for Good Morning America. WATCH IT HERE -- though be forewarned that I have no idea what's going on with my hair this morning.

Speaking of which, the Youtube video submitted by former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, slammed the media, implicitly, anc created some buzz this a.m., at least in Chapel Hill. (LINK)

One of the criticisms of the debate came from Andrew Rasiej (LINK), an expert on the internet and democracy whom we interviewed on Nightline last night. He says the debate worked when the videos were used to show something about the question -- the breast cancer survivor battling chemo and asking about health insurance, for instance. But too often, Rasiej says, the youtubers were merely used as talking heads.

He also takes issue with the fact that CNN executives picked the videos to use, not the internet community itself. CNN officially says it was concerned with campaigns gaming the system by pushing questions they want, though another concern (this is not necessarily my view, just passing it on) might be that any news organization is worried that if you leave the question selection up to "the people" you'll see a lot of silliness make it to air. The most popular video question as of yesterday, it was pointed out last night, alleged that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a futuristic cyborg a la Terminator.

In any case, it was a lively night and certainly new. What did you think? We'll have more on the night on the World News Webcast later today -- where we will attempt to answer the question: What do "Entourage" and "Ghostbusters" have to do with presidential politics?

-- jt

July 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

liveblogging the debate

July 23, 2007 7:16 PM

Rick Klein will be liveblogging the debate tonight --- I will try to kick in as well, and you should too!

CLICK HERE.

-- jt

July 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Youtube, metube, wealltube

July 23, 2007 5:15 PM

Sorry been so absent today…down in Charleston, SC, at the Citadel, preparing for the Youtube Debate.

More than 3,000 Youtube users have submitted questions for the Democratic presidential candidates.

Speaking of the era of Youtube, former Gov. Mitt Romney today responded to someone who was angry about his posing for a photograph with a placard that juxtaposed (and opposed) "Obama, Osama, and Chelsea's Moma (sic)." (More on that HERE).

TMZ was there for his response (LINK).

"Lighten up slightly," Mitt Romney said when someone angrily asked how he could compare any American to Osama bin Laden.

-- jpt

July 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Romney Grabs a Sign

July 22, 2007 11:23 AM

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been really going after the Democrats as of late, slamming Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for saying that kindergartners should receive "age appropriate" sex education (LINK) (even though Romney supported "age appropriate" sex education in the Bay State when he was governor -- read more about that HERE), implying Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., holds Marxist positions (LINK) ….

And now our friends at TMZ.com have a photograph (LINK) of the governor posing for a picture with a supporter's sign that reads: "No to Obama, Osama, and Chelsea's Moma (sic)."

Says Obama spokesman Bill Burton in response: "This kind of smallness is what makes Americans so tired of politics and points precisely to what they want to change in Washington."

What do you think? Has he gone too far?

-- jt

July 22, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (81) | TrackBack (0)

Kos v O'Reilly

July 20, 2007 5:18 PM

I've been watching this fight out of the corner of my eye, from up here in the cramped ABC News Senate booth on Capitol Hill.

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has all but declared war against the DailyKos website, writing (LINK) about a "vicious far-left web site called the DailyKos, one of the worst examples of hatred America has to offer."

O'Reilly also said of some of the postings on DailyKos: "this is hate of the worst order. It's like the Ku Klux Klan. It's like the Nazi party. There's no difference here. People should die."

Today came news that O'Reilly's push against airline JetBlue for sponsoring the YearlyKos convention worked -- and the company dropped its official sponsorship of Kos's yearly blogger convention.

YearlyKos will be addressed this year House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and DNC Chairman Howard Dean, as well as Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

And loads of others.

Writes Kos (LINK): "Anyone who tries to claim this is a 'hate' gathering is saying, essentially, that the entire Democratic Party is a 'hate' party. And sure, there are plenty of rabid crazies on the other side that would make such a claim, but no reasonable person will think that. And that's the key -- anyone who claims this event is anything but a celebration of the best the Democratic Party has to offer is simply, to put it mildly, blinded by partisan rage and completely out-of-touch with reality."

The Dodd campaign (LINK) and others have used the opportunity to beef up their netroots cred by slamming O'Reilly.

So what do you guys think? Connect to the links above and read up and come back and share your thoughts...

-- jpt

July 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (91) | TrackBack (0)

Selling Stumbles

July 20, 2007 9:31 AM

The Bush administration is having some issues in its selling of the surge -- they're too often undermining their own case with stumbles as clumsy as Don Draper's aborted fist meeting with Rachel Menkin on AMC's sublime new series "Mad Men" (LINK)

We took a look at some of these moments on Good Morning America this a.m….dot-com HERE and free video HERE…

jt

July 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary versus the Pentagon

July 20, 2007 8:09 AM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, gave us an exclusive interview yesterday to discuss her concerns about whether the Bush administration has sufficiently prepared plans for US troop withdrawal, as well as the snarky letter from a former Cheney aide now at the Pentagon about her inquiry on the matter.

 

"I've been hearing that there was intense pressure from the Vice President's office and other places that the kind of detailed planning that's necessary to take our troops out safely was just not a priority," Clinton told us.

"I worry that we will compound the danger to our troops if we don't plan carefully. And there's no reason to have any confidence in the planning of this administration. They have consistently demonstrated a level of incompetence that I find deeply troubling."

The Vice President's response, and more, can be read in our dot-com story on the subject HERE.

While I was interviewing her, I asked her the question that I asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., last week, (LINK) about what happens to the Iraqis were US troops to withdraw now.

"I have consistently said that it is likely that the violence will increase as we begin to withdraw our troops," she said. "The violence has not stopped since we have increased the number (of US troops). But it is unfortunately predicted that it will get even worse. But that’s going to happen if we leave next month or next year. Because the conditions for leadership by the Iraqi government are just not present."

Clinton said, "I regret deeply that there well may be continuing and perhaps even accelerating loss of life among Iraqis. But I see no alternative. And I don’t believe its right for us to put our troops into this sectarian civil war, put them at risk, they're losing their lives, they're being injured, when the Iraqis seem incapable of making the kind of hard decisions that only they can make."

I pointed out that last year she opposed setting a timeline for US troop withdrawal while now she was embracing one, and some see that as a political calculation in her race to the White House.

"I have tried all along during the debate about Iraq to make decisions that I thought were the right decisions and were ones that I could justify to myself as I looked at the situation we find ourselves in," she said. "If the administration had been willing to engage in the kind of political and diplomatic process that I and others have been urging for years now we might have a different situation that we have."

But what about the fact that she may well inherit the situation in Iraq, were she to be elected President?

Wouldn’t a President Hillary Clinton might face an Iraq, without US combat troops there, that has spiraled out of control and has become not just a civil war but a larger regional conflict where American interests -- Arab allies, fossil fuels, Israel -- are at risk?

"I don’t answer hypotheticals like that," she said.

What say you?

-- jpt

July 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)

Elizabeth Edwards v Slate

July 19, 2007 12:40 PM

Yesterday Slate columnist John Dickerson posted a critical analysis (LINK) of Democratic former Sen. John Edwards' new presidential campaign TV ad (LINK), which features the candidate's wife Elizabeth saying "It's unbelievably important that in our president we have someone who can stare the worst in the face and not blink."

Slate columnist John Dickerson wrote, "When we see an ad with Elizabeth Edwards talking about "the worst," we're talking either in whole or in part about her cancer. So, how does this square with Edwards' statement on 60 Minutes that he doesn't want anyone to vote for him because of his wife's cancer?"

Today Elizabeth Edwards fired back at Slate with a letter to the editor (LINK) in which she states that "John Dickerson needs to read my husband's book, Four Trials. In it, he will read the stories of four families uprooted by tragedy or accident who leaned, in their worst moments, on John Edwards. He was but a young man when he represented a former salesman, E.G. Sawyer, who, because a doctor prescribed an excessive amount of a pharmaceutical, was confined to a sliver of life in squalor. Without John's strength, intelligence and voice, he would have died that same way. …

"Yes, he has faced death and disease in our family, but the measure of his strength is the fights he has -- for his entire adult life -- voluntarily taken on, not just those that fate would not permit him to avoid."

-- jt

July 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Kitty Genovese and the Iraqis

July 19, 2007 9:15 AM

I missed this story (LINK) yesterday where congressional supporters of US troop withdrawal were asked about predictions that such a move would mean "Iraq could first plunge into vicious sectarian fighting much like the kind of ethnic cleansing that consumed Bosnia a decade ago and is now afflicting Sudan's Darfur region."

Said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wisc.: "I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous. The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that."

Writing at conservative Opinionjournal.com (LINK), James Taranto compares this attitude to the song "Outside a small circle of friends" by Phil Ochs (LINK):

"Oh look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed
"They've dragged her to the bushes and now she's being stabbed
"Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain
"But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game
"And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
"Outside of a small circle of friends."

Obviously it's more than a tad simplistic to compare leaving Iraq to one New York neighborhood's indifference to the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese (LINK), which is what that Ochs verse refers to.

Still, it can be argued that there's a disconnect for those who call for action to stop the genocide in Darfur while simultaneously calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the Left Coaster (LINK) a couple years ago cited Genovese when comparing the public's confusion about what to do about Iraq to that New York neighborhood's inaction and confusion.

What do you think?

-- jpt

July 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Poverty Podcast

July 18, 2007 9:32 PM

I admit -- I was intrigued by the poverty tour (LINK) of former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC. I grew up half a block from a housing project in Philly, so it's not entirely a foreign concept for me.

So I invited him on the podcast -- and he accepted.

Hear it by clicking HERE

90% of the interview is about poverty in America, so don’t click on it to hear a general interview. Enjoy.

-- jpt

July 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Terrifying reading

July 18, 2007 6:31 PM

Every American really should take the time to read the key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate's summary released this week. Not the coverage of it, but the public report itself (LINK)

It's really quite terrifying. And it's not only because of al-Qa'ida.

Al-Qa'ida's the big threat, of course, the NIE states: "We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al-Qa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities."

How? By looking for "political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices" and "will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material."

Interestingly, the NIE assesses al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI) to be a separate group -- despite the President's claims that they're the same people who attacked us on 9/11 -- and that "its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."

Translation -- the fact that the US is fighting AQI is giving al-Qa'ida credibility.

And guess what…there's another enemy to worry about attacking the US at home.

"We assess Lebanese Hizballah, which has conducted anti-US attacks outside the United States in the past, may be more likely to consider attacking the Homeland over the next three years if it perceives the United States as posing a direct threat to the group or Iran," says the report.

A former Reagan administration official once told me that Reagan's biggest mistake was pulling US troops out of Lebanon after Hizballah killed the Marines there. It showed Islamists that we would run, the official told me. Horrible if Hizballah emboldened al-Qa'ida who then emboldened Hizballah in return…

And there's yet another enemy... The one within.

The NIE says "the spread of radical—especially Salafi—Internet sites, increasingly aggressive anti-US rhetoric and actions, and the growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West’s Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States." These are "violent Islamic extremists inside the United States who are becoming more connected ideologically, virtually, and/or in a physical sense to the global extremist movement."

If you were put in charge of counterterrorism right now, what are the first three things you would do?

-- jpt

July 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

More on the Fish story

July 18, 2007 3:40 PM

Following criticism from an official of the Humane Society International of Al Gore for Chilean Sea Bass being served at his daughter's wedding, (see BELOW), I reached out just now to Kitty Block, director of treaty law for Humane Society International and the Humane Society of the United States.

Block says that the Humane Society International "greatly respects the environmental work of the Gores. Both the Gores and the Humane Society of the US agree that there's a huge problem with Chilean Sea Bass and overfishing."

The Gores, she says, took great steps to make sure that Sarah Gore had a "Green wedding."

"Unfortunately," she added, "the Chilean Sea Bass turned up at the rehearsal dinner where the Gores were just guests," the dinner having been hosted by the groom's family.

Block says she's contacted her critical counterpart in Australia -- "it's 4 a.m. there, so we haven't spoken to them yet" -- to inform her of this fact.

I also called Kalee D. Kreider, communications director for Al and Tipper Gore, who says that "We obviously agree Chilean Sea Bass is an important issue. We've worked with the Humane Society off and on for years."

Kreider adds that "We think it's unfortunate that it was on the menu, but obviously the importance of this story really is to get out the word of what's going on with Chilean Sea Bass."

-- jpt

July 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (30) | TrackBack (0)

Fishy behavior

July 18, 2007 12:01 PM

People Magazine reports that former Vice President Al Gore's youngest daughter, Sarah Gore, 28, married businessman Bill Lee at the Beverly Hills Hotel earlier this month. For the rehearsal dinner, at Beverly Hills' Crustacean restaurant, executive chef Helene An prepared a six-course menu that included Chilean sea bass. (LINK)

One problem, says Rebecca Keeble, program manager for Humane Society International.

Chilean Sea Bass is "arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species" who says the selection indicates "only one week after Live Earth, Al Gore's green credentials slipped."

Writing in the Daily Telegraph today (LINK), Keeble points out that "Working with non-government organisations, the Humane Society International's focus is now on pursuit of illegal fishing operators who, in the rush to cash in on the highly valued species, plunder stocks with no regard for sustainability."

Tom Brokaw, among others, has covered how this delicious fish's popularity is leading to problems (LINK) with its population.

Is Gore to be chastised for every fish that shows up on his plate?  It's not as if he was eating a Bald Eagle. (Whoops -- weren't those just taken off the Endangered Species List!)

On the other hand, could this be seen as the environmentalist version of Sen. David Vitter's public santimony/private enjoyment of love with a red-lit glow?

You be the judge --

jpt

July 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (58) | TrackBack (0)

Senate sleepover

July 18, 2007 10:22 AM

HERE'S THE FREE VIDEO of our Good Morning America  spot about the Senate's all-night session….

The Politico and my friend Mike Allen remind me (LINK) that this isn't the first Senate sleepover I've covered.

On November 13, 2003, I covered a Senate sleepover that was initiated by Republicans, who then controlled the Senate, who were frustrated with Democratic efforts to filibuster GOP judicial nominees by preventing a simple majority up-or-down vote. Just as the Democratic-controlled Senate held an all-night session last night to protest Republicans blocking a vote on an amendment to begin withdrawing US troops.

Back then it was the GOP brining  out the cots -- "My intention is, if I can catch a couple of minutes, I might do that," then-Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn, told us -- this time it was the Dems.

The rhetoric today is the same -- just it's the opposite party using it.

"A cloture vote is not a filibuster?" said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, four years ago. "As my daughter would say, 'Hello?!'"

"It is a circus," said then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD. "I mean, this is really not legislating. This is, this makes a mockery of the legislative process."

Weird.

Of course back then our GMA spot could be -- and was -- much more light-hearted. They were just debating judicial nominees back then. This time, it's life or death. It's war. So the tone was much more somber.

What do you think of the Senate's all-night action?

-- jpt

July 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

from the Senate all-nighter

July 17, 2007 10:59 PM

So we did World News on this Senate all-nighter (Democrats trying to bring attention to Republicans not permitting a majority up-or-down vote on a troop withdrawal bill -- CLICK HERE FOR FREE VIDEO)…then a Nightline spot about Iraq veterans from both sides of the debate hitting the Hill….

And am now working on a GMA spot….

From an email exchange with a New York-based producer:

9:19 pm FRED: Not sure if this rises to the bar of inclusion in piece… but during Feinstein, Senators were talking, so she asked for order, prompting gavel man to tell them to take their conversations outside… sounded a lot like a high school teacher having to keep kids in line.

9:21 pm JAKE: No offense, and you're a richer man for not knowing this, but that happens maybe 10 times a day

9:22 pm FRED: I need to watch more CSPAN.

9:24 pm JAKE: No offense, and you're a richer man for not knowing this, but it's CSPAN 2.

9:26 pm FRED: Well played, Tapper. Well played.

More in a bit…

jt

July 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

Viral videos

July 17, 2007 10:29 AM

A video look (CLICK HERE) from Good Morning America on the viral videos in the 2008 race…

Enjoy

- jpt

July 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Overheard

July 17, 2007 9:19 AM

Liberal blog-meister Arianna Huffington WRITES that on the Amtrak high-speed Acela train from New York to DC Thursday web she overheard Weekly Standard publisher William Kristol on the phone talking about Iraq and messaging.

Writes Huffington: "'"Precipitous withdrawal" really worked,' I overheard him say, clearly referring to the president's use of the term in that morning's press conference. 'How many times did he use it? Three? Four?' he asked his interlocutor, and the conversation continued with a round of metaphorical back-slapping for the clever phrase they had 'come up with.' "

This is a geographic hazard when one works in Washington, DC -- you might accidentally run into people who are snooping.

My best example of this -- with me as the snoop, naturally, came just after 9/11 when I had jury duty and I overheard an adviser to Andrew Cuomo talking to him about how potentially strong then-Gov. George Pataki was going to seem when he ran for reelection. (Cuomo was weighing a run. He ran, but eventually dropped out.)

I wrote at the time (CLICK HERE): that on Sept. 20, 2001, "Rhoda Glickman stood in a Washington, D.C., courthouse building where she had been called to jury duty, and talked on her cellphone, trying to explain to a seemingly reluctant listener that the New York political landscape had changed as dramatically as the city's skyline.

"Glickman worked as special assistant to former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo, who is planning to take the very job from New York Gov. George Pataki that Pataki took from his father, Mario Cuomo, in 1994.

"But that challenge had become far more daunting, Glickman explained on the phone, since Pataki had performed so ably as governor since the Sept. 11 crisis.

"'Andrew,' Glickman said into her gray Motorola cellphone, 'what you have to understand is that they're going to run commercials with images of Pataki pulling out bodies.'

"Glickman vividly summed up the strange new world of post-Sept. 11 politics: Politicians once thought vulnerable may now seem indispensable, to an electorate still reeling from the shock of an attack within our borders."

Small town.

-- jpt

July 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

John 8:7

July 17, 2007 8:39 AM

Last night on World News with Charles Gibson we took a look at the 2008 money race (CLICK HERE FOR FREE VIDEO)… check it out….

More salaciously last night on Nightline we took a peek behind the Vitter scandal an the Democratic pornographer funding the hunt for GOP dirt -- the Senator vs. Larry Flynt.

Heres the dot-com version (LINK) and CLICK HERE to watch Vitter's Monday evening mea culpa.

I head to the Senate this morning, where Democrats and Republicans are squaring off about how many votes will be required to pass an amedment. Democrats want a simple majority threshold -- 50 votes. Republicans want the filibuster-proof 60 votes. Neither side seems willing to blink…

Today's random link -- Jezebel.com takes a look at a Redbook cover shoot of Faith Hill -- before and after the photoshopping. It will make you gasp. CLICK HERE

More later --

jt

July 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

ka-CHING

July 16, 2007 1:16 PM

There are three surprises in the official second-quarter presidential campaign fundraising numbers.

One, Democrats were able to out-raise Republicans overwhelmingly -- about $81.1 million to $56.6 million. I know this is a difficult political environment for the GOP, with an unpopular war, an unpopular president, and all the rest.

Second, it's amazing how much money former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have spent.

Romney had a burn rate of 99% -- and if he hadn't loaned his campaign $6.5 million, he would have spent more than he took in. McCain, who is decidedly NOT a multimillionaire who can write himself such a check (unlike Mr. Romney), spent more than he took in. Meanwhile, Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, have $33 million and $33 million cash-on-hand. (Clinton's figure, it should be pointed out, includes $10 million transferred from her 2006 Senate re-election campaign.)

The third surprise is that Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, came in fourth in the GOP money race, behind only McCain, Romney, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

There is clearly something in the air when it comes to Ron Paul! (READ MORE HERE)…

What sayeth you, vox popuili?

-- jpt

July 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Getcher Sunday Papers

July 15, 2007 11:46 AM

Two respected Republican senators -- former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, and former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Dick Lugar, R-Ind. -- have broken from the president with Iraq legislation that would require the president to plan (though not implement) a new strategy for Iraq, and suggest to him that he submit a new war authorization..

The two senators were exclusive guests of George Stephanopoulos this morning.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has indicated that the amendment is, at least for him, a non-starter (LINK).

Meanwhile, and I apologize for this taking so long, but HERE IS THE VIDEO of the entire two-minute-plus exchange I had with Reid about whether the U.S. -- and those senators, like Reid, who voted to authorize use of force against Iraq in October 2002 -- have a moral obligation to ensure the security of the Iraqi people as much as possible.

-- jt

July 15, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

From the Right…

July 13, 2007 6:45 PM

It's always nice, when you're being assailed by the political left (LINK) to have the political right come at you as well.

Today on the ABC News Shuffle podcast we had on influential conservative blogger and talk radio host Hugh Hewitt.

Some of what's in the podcast is interesting, in particular our discussion of the book Hewitt wrote.

But as they say -- we report, you decide.

Here's the whole thing (CLICK HERE)

And welcome, Hewitt fans, to the blog.

-- jpt

July 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (68) | TrackBack (0)

The Edwards/Clinton Conspiracy

July 13, 2007 10:30 AM

CAUGHT ON TAPE! (LINK)

As first reported on ABC News RADAR (LINK) Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, at an NAACP forum yesterday were caught by an errant microphone talking about limiting the number of Democratic candidates at forums and debates.

"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," says Edwards.

"We've got to cut the number," agrees Clinton. "We've got to talk because they, they are, just being trivialized."

"They are not serious," Edwards says.

"No," Clinton concurs. "You know, I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that. We got somehow, you know, detoured. But we've got to get back to that."

"Our guys should talk," she adds.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, has issued a statement (LINK) expressing outrage.

"Candidates, no matter how important or influential they perceive themselves to be, do not have and should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not," said Kucinich. "Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial President."

Where do you stand? With Clinton/Edwards or with the Kooch?

-- jpt

July 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (42) | TrackBack (0)

Reid All About It

July 13, 2007 10:26 AM

After my failed attempt yesterday to get Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to answer the question as to whether the Iraqi people will be safer if US combat troops withdrawal, Reid's office formally expressed its displeasure with my questions and my piece.