« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »

Edwards Paints a Bleak Picture

September 29, 2007 2:40 PM

The same week that a Census Bureau study indicated more young African-American men were in college than prison, presidential candidate John Edwards painted a much bleaker picture, declaring at a forum that "pretty soon" the entire young black male population would be dead or in jail.

Asked what he would do to "eliminate inner-city kids partaking in violence," Edwards -- a former Democratic senator from North Carolina -- said that the president needs to send the message that "We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison. Or dead. One of the two.”

Edwards made his comments at the MTV/MySpace forum Thursday (Video HERE).

Justice Department figures indicate that 193,000 black men age 18 to 24 were in prison in 2003.

Approximately 532,000 black men that same age were enrolled in college, according to the Census Bureau’s 2006 American Community Survey (LINK).

Quipped an African-American aide to a rival campaign, "It’s a good thing I look good in stripes."

The Edwards campaign said in a statement: “John Edwards was making the point that this president refuses to accept: The odds of young African-American males either dying or being incarcerated is terribly high. Studies show that one in three black men can expect to go to jail in their lifetimes. Unlike George Bush, who just wants to stick his head in the sand, as president, John Edwards will address the issue head-on so that all Americans -- whether African-American or not -- can live a better life and the American dream.”

September 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

Giuliani's Top Fundraiser Behind California Ballot Initiative

September 28, 2007 9:38 PM

According to the New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/), the top fundraiser for the presidential campaign of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Paul Singer -- the founding partner of the $7 billion hedge fund Elliot Associates -- revealed himself today "as the sole financial backer of a stalled ballot drive to turn California into a motherlode of Republican votes in 2008."

Singer, who has raised more than half a million dollars for Giuliani, admitted to the Daily News that he was the sole backer of a corporation identified as Take Initiative America, based in Missouri, which donated $175,000 to "Californians for Equal Representation."

That group sought to change the process by which the Golden State distributed its electoral votes from winner-take-all, as other states do, to a process by which there was more proportional distribution -- possibly helping to deliver the electoral vote victory to the GOP nominee.

Singer disclosed his role one day after Republican operatives behind the California ballot initiative resigned and announced that they'd ceased operations in part because they didn't know who was their funding course.
“I have demanded that Take Initiative America fully disclose the source of its funds and have been assured that it will do so,” leader lawyer Tom Hiltachk said. “Nonetheless, I am deeply troubled by their failure to disclose.”

In an e-mail to the Daily News, Singer wrote: “I contributed to the Take Initiative America because I believe in proportional voting in the Electoral College,” Singer said in a statement e-mailed to The News. “I made the contribution without any restrictions, including whether or how it would need to be disclosed. I left disclosure completely up to TIA.”

Giuliani campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella responded to the report today, saying, "This is completely independent from our campaign and frankly, it's not an initiative that serves our campaign's best interests."

Earlier this week, after the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the registered agent for "Take Initiative America" was Giuliani campaign contributor Charles A. Hurth III, Giuliani said he had "no part" in the ballot initiative.

"I have no knowledge of it," Giuliani said. "I have no knowledge of it internally, I mean I see what I see in the newspapers. I have no knowledge of it, like, we never discussed it internally. I'm not sure I've met him (Hurth), he doesn’t ring a bell. I don't know exactly who he is. If he contributed to me, fine. And, as far as I'm concerned, you can leave it the way it is. In fact, in some ways you might consider, I think that this is a state I can win. That might actually favor some of the other Republican candidates who might have a more difficult time winning this state. I think this is a state that I've got a 50/50 chance of winning. So as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't mind leaving it that way."

DNC Chairman Howard Dean this evening issued a statement, asking, "Why wasn't Paul Singer's involvement in this dirty trick aimed at stealing the White House previously disclosed? Given his role in the Giuliani campaign, voters deserve to know the truth about Rudy's involvement in and knowledge about this shameful effort to disenfranchise voters."

And Democratic operative Chris Lehane, a former press secretary for Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign and organizer for "Californians for Fair Election Reform," issued a statement saying, "Today's revelation puts this money-laundering operation directly inside the Rudy Giuliani campaign. The fact that one of Giuliani's top donors, closest friends and top confidantes is also serving as Rudy's plumber in funding a shadowy Nixonian front group looking to hijack the election means that Rudy has to come clean and let the American people know what did he know, when did he know it and why has he and his campaign not been straight about it...Maybe it was Singer who was calling Rudy on the cell phone last week at the NRA to say -- leave the guns and take the electoral votes."

September 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (31) | TrackBack (0)

Friday follow-ups

September 28, 2007 4:05 PM

Regarding Democrats pouncing on conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh today claimed he's being smeared and his reference to "phony soldiers" was about someone who specifically faked a war record NOT veterans who oppose the war.

Read the original Limbaugh comments yourself and decide if he's being smeared or he's currently spinning.

Speaking of Limbaugh, the four Democratic leaders of the Senate -- Harry Reid of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Chuck Schumer of New York and Patty Murray of Washington -- have written a letter to the CEO of Clear Channel complaining that "(t)housands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a 'phony soldier.' We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments."

Regarding our coverage of the Biden amendment the other day -- an amendment the Bush White House opposed then, after it passed the Senate 75-23, questionably claimed to support -- there is some reaction indicating the amendment is not as benign as the Bush White House tried to make it sound.

ABC News State Department reporter Kirit Radia writes that the Iraqi Ambassador to the US "offers a scathing review of the Biden amendment saying 'The non-binding resolution passed by the Senate on Wednesday, September 26th implicitly calling for the partitioning of Iraq into three separate entities along ethnic and sectarian lines, will not help to preserve Iraq; rather, it could lead to the break up of Iraq. It is not a solution; it could complicate rather than simplify a difficult situation.'

He adds: 'Congress must not be seen to undermine the will of the very people it helped to empower. This resolution will not hasten the day American troops come home, which is a goal shared by Iraqis and Americans. If actively pursued, partitioning will do just the opposite.'"

You can read his full statement HERE …

More later --

jt

September 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (60) | TrackBack (0)

Patriot Games

September 28, 2007 8:54 AM

The American Conservative magazine calls Gen. David Petraeus a "Sycophant Savior" on the cover of its new issue HERE. Inside, Boston University professor Andrew J. Bacevich, writes that "in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the 'way forward,' Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes."

One suspects that the GOP leadership in Congress will not be rising up to condemn Professor Bacevich -- a Vietnam veteran and self-described "Catholic conservative," whose son First Lt. Andrew Bacevich was killed in Iraq in May -- as its members did with MoveOn.org after that liberal group's "General Betray Us" ad.

What we will see are congressional Democrats making hay out of comments made on Wednesday's broadcast of the Rush Limbaugh Show in which the conservative talk radio host referred to Iraq veterans who oppose the war and talk to the media as "phony soldiers." LINK

Those in the media "never talk to real soldiers," a caller said. "They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media."

"The phony soldiers," said Limbaugh.

"The phony soldiers," said the caller. "If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country."

It's an issue getting a lot of buzz in the liberal blogosphere LINK...and Democrats are starting to make it an issue.

What do you think? A silly distraction or turnabout is fair play?

-- jpt

September 28, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | User Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

News and/or notes

September 27, 2007 8:45 PM

George McGovern to endorse Hillary Clinton…(LINK)...

John McCain chats on the ABC News Shuffle Podcast (LINK)

And the Webcast looks at the minority-themed debate Republican frontrunners aren't attending tonight (LINK)…

--jt

September 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Craig: Nevermind about that Resignation

September 27, 2007 1:28 PM

We covered the latest twists and turns in the Sen. Larry Craig legal battle on Good Morning America and on dot-com …

Enjoy.

-- jt

September 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

Catholic League calls for boycott of Miller Beer

September 27, 2007 10:41 AM

The conservative Catholic League this morning called for a boycott of Miller Beer because of its sponsorship of San Francisco's Folsom Street Fair, what is billed as the "world's largest leather event."

"This all started when we learned that Miller was sponsoring an event that featured an obscene ad thrashing the Last Supper," says Catholic League president Bill Donohue.

"After being pressured, Miller offered a lame statement of regret and said it was pulling its logo from the ad. Not only has it not done so -- it is still posted on the website of the street fair -- Miller refuses to withdraw its sponsorship. To top it off, when we informed them that some of the money being raised at this festival was being funneled to the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" -- which the League calls an "anti-Catholic group that is holding a mock Last Supper dinner tonight in San Francisco" -- "they were unimpressed. "

The trend nationally is interesting --  as Andrew Sulllivan points out the free market is quite a friend to gay and lesbian rights.

According to Editor and Publisher, in 1994, just nineteen Fortune 500 brands advertised in the gay press. Last year, 183 did.

And of course we all recall that Mary Cheney did gay and lesbian outreach for Coors, along with International Mr. Leather.

-- jpt

September 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary's tortured contradictions

September 27, 2007 9:44 AM

My freshman year at Dartmouth, I attended the Republican presidential debate featuring then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y., Gov. Pierre "Pete" DuPont, R-Del., Gen. Alexander Haig and Rev. Pat Robertson. I believe John Chancellor moderated.

I have a vivid memory of Bush Sr. stepping up to shake Bob Dole's bad hand, which seemed to me at the time to belie his gentlemanly reputation.

Another debate last night in Hanover, N.H., and while there were all sorts of interesting moments I don't think anyone did any damage to frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. But there's some interesting back and forth about torture.

Moderator Tim Russert asked the following to the candidates (the full transcript can be read HERE).

"I want to move to another subject, and this involves a comment that a guest on 'Meet the Press' made, and I want to read it, as follows: 'Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don't we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.'" Russert asked the candidates to respond.

"As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period," Clinton said. "In addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit ... there is very little evidence that it works. Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies. But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path."

Out came the zinger.

"The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year," he said. "So he disagrees with you."

"Well, he's not standing here right now," Clinton said.

"So there is a disagreement?" Russert asked.

"Well, I'll talk to him later," Clinton joked.

**

Two points on this.

One -- I'm not sure that Mr. Russert is fairly describing what former President Clinton said. (Read it for yourself HERE).

Asked if he would "outlaw waterboarding and sleep deprivation, loud music, all those kinds of tactics?", Clinton said he would figure out what the "generally accepted definitions of the Geneva Convention are, and I would honor them. I would also talk to people who do this kind of work about what is generally most effective, and they will -- they're almost always not advocate of torture, and I wouldn't do anything that would put our own people at risk."

Clinton then laid out the scenario Russert cited in the debate in the following context: "Now, the thing that drives -- that, that gives the president's position a little edge is that every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number three guy in al-Qaeda, and we know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him?"

Clinton then added that "in 99 percent of the interrogations, you don't know those things" and "even in the military regulations, in a case like that, they do have the power to use extreme force because there is an imminent threat to the United States, and then to live with the consequences"

The president said "they could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon or could guarantee the submission of that sort of thing ex post facto to the intelligence court, just like we do now with wire taps." He said "if that circumstance comes up -- we all know what we'd do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could. But to -- but to claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention, that, I think, is a mistake."

To sum up -- former President Clinton said yes, he would torture such a guy, the military would have the ability to do so, BUT he thinks it's a mistake to codify that scenario in law ahead of time.

So I don't know that what his wife said last night contradicts that at all.

**

Second point -- what Hillary Clinton said last night does seem to contradict previous statements on this.

In October she told the New York Daily News that ticking time bomb scenarios "are very rare, but if they occur, there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing it."

Ben Smith of the Politico, who worked for the Daily News back then, recalls that Clinton went on, saying "Again, I think the President has to take responsibility. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it's reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."

She also said, "In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we've got to have a check and balance."

Smith at the time characterized this view as  "Torture is OK as long as the president approves it, as long as it's an exception, and as long as it's secretly reported to Congress."

That's not what she said last night.

Thoughts?

-- jpt

September 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Just sittin' here on Capitol Hill

September 26, 2007 9:48 PM

An interesting development on the war in Iraq in the Senate today...

And some interesting funding choices for the government to make...

What sayeth you, vox populi?

-- jpt

September 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Squeal!

September 26, 2007 3:30 PM

As news about the legal troubles of Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, comes to something of a climax, a doctor's group has launched a TV ad mocking the controversy surrounding the embattled conservative in an attempt to bring attention to childhood obesity.

The ad from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, called "Dirty Little Secret," features a politician in a bathroom stall tap-tap-tapping his foot as a secret signal he wants to receive money from the pork industry -- represented in the commercial by a large pink pig.

The ad -- which will be shown on CNN -- can be watched HERE.

"The real scandal in Washington is the Farm Bill," Dr. Neal Barnard, the president of PCRM, said in a statement. "Senators take millions from corporations that produce bacon, burgers, and other fatty foods. Then Congress buys up these unhealthy products and dumps them on our school lunch program. Companies get rich, and kids get fat."

-- jpt

September 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

A sad story

September 26, 2007 3:12 PM

One day after giving birth, a woman finds out she has become a war widow. The price of war. Read more HERE.

-- jpt

September 26, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Let the SCHIPS fall where they may

September 25, 2007 2:44 PM

The president claims he thought this debate over expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program would be about policy and philosophical differences.

The Democrats have another idea altogether.

Read more about it HERE.

-- jt

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

Black out?

September 25, 2007 9:24 AM

Not one of the Republican presidential frontrunners are scheduled to attend Thursday night's PBS debate focused on minority issues.

In an interview, former Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., called this decision "stupid."

Read more HERE or watch our GMA report HERE …

What do you think?

-- jt

September 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

Sunshine State of Mind

September 24, 2007 9:17 PM

Florida Democrats and the national party are feudin'.... Want to know more? WATCH HERE...

-- jpt

September 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Santayana

September 24, 2007 9:50 AM

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. -- Vietnam vet, ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, presidential candidate -- does not approve of Columbia University's invitation to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"To host the leader of Iran when he supports terrorists that are moving deadly roadside bombs across the Iraqi border to be used against American troops is a slap in the face for the entire 165,000 men and women in Iraq and to those that have served before them," Hunter said. "If (Columbia U.) President Lee Bollinger follows through with this hosting of the leader of Iran, I will move in Congress to cut off every single type of Federal Funding to Columbia University. If the left-wing leaders of academia will not support our troops, they, in the very least, should not support our adversaries."

As this debate simmered over the weekend, Columbia dean John Coatsworth told Fox News he'd have been happy to welcome Hitler to the campus -- the argument being that had Columbia actually hosted Hitler in the late 1930s, World War II and the war against the Jews might have been prevented.

What Coatsworth may not realize, the New York Sun NOTES, is that in 1933 Columbia invited to speak at the university Hitler's ambassador, Hans Luther. The university president back then responded to criticism of Luther's speaking that Columbia "does not ask what a man's opinions may be but only whether he is intelligent, honest, and well-mannered in their presentation and discussion."

The Sun suggests that those who argue that free speech enables evil to be silenced would do well to look at this example -- because it did not work then the way Columbia's president anticipated.

In other news ...

The defenders of Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, are starting to gather, ranging from a conservative activist, Frank Rich and the ACLU …

What say you?

-- jpt

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

Clinton and Obama -- Drags on the Ticket?

September 23, 2007 12:44 PM

Very interesting Democratic poll, revealed in today's Washington Post (LINK), showing that GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani is more popular in key congressional Democratic swing districts than Obama or Clinton.

This would seem to show that despite enthusiasm among Democrats (and some in the media) for their candidacies, Obama and Clinton may not be as powerful in a general election match up as they may right now seem -- and in fact, may be a drag on the ticket in some areas, an argument Sen. John Edwards is trying to underline as he depicts himself as the more mainstream Democrat.

The Clinton and Obama campaigns dispute the findings, of course.

"I find all of these polls with these questions tend to overestimate any real ticket effect, especially when accompanied by leading phrases like 'liberal policies,' " said Mark Penn, Clinton's chief pollster.

And, says Obama spox Bill Burton, only Obama "has a vision to change politics [that] appeals to people of all political stripes in all parts of the country."

-- jpt

UPDATE: A little bird helpfully reminds me that Lake polls for the presidential campaign of Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who of course has an interest in its conclusions. That said, this isn't the first time this notion has been raised, by Purple and Red State Democrats and John Edwards supporters in particular.

September 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (30) | TrackBack (0)

Verdict: New York Times Gave MoveOn a Discount

September 23, 2007 12:19 PM

We've covered this for a couple weeks here on the blog (LINK)... And it turns out we were right to.

Clark Hoyt, the New York Times public editor, today confirmed the suspicions of conservative critics of the newspaper, writing in his column that the newspaper gave MoveOn.org a discounted rate on its "General Betray Us" ad that the antiwar group was not entitled to under Times pricing guidelines.

In his column (LINK) Hoyt writes that the Sept. 10, 2007, MoveOn.org ad "violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to."

Hoyt notes that "MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies." But, Hoyt says, the group "should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake."

Moreover, Hoyt says that the "ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.'"

Wow.

-- jpt

September 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (85) | TrackBack (0)

Rudy Takes a Call

September 21, 2007 1:26 PM

In the middle of his address to the NRA this morning, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took a moment to answer a cell phone call from his wife.

While he was commenting on the Second Amendment, the cell phone of the man who once called the NRA "extremists" rang.

"Let's see now," Giuliani said, withdrawing the phone from his jacket pocket. "This is my wife calling, I think," he said, looking at the caller ID.

"Hello, dear," he said, presumably to his third wife, Judith Nathan. "I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello?"

Whatever she said at that moment, Giuliani laughed.

"I love you, and I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished, OK?" he continued. "OK, have a safe trip. Bye-bye. Talk to you later, dear. I love you."

The crowd applauded.

"This is one of the great blessings of the modern age, being always available," Giuliani said. "Or maybe it isn't. I'm not sure."

The former mayor then continued to explain his evolving views on guns.

UPDATE: A rival campaign points out that Rudy was also interrupted by a phone call from his wife during a June 21 event in Florida.

Watch HERE … today's phone call can be watched HERE.

I guess when you're in love you want the whole world to know about it?

September 21, 2007 in 2008: Republicans | Permalink | User Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

Glass Houses

September 21, 2007 9:25 AM

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top advisers, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, attacked the personal life of GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani ... and Clinton, who has long derided the "politics of personal destruction," seems fine with that.

"There's a lot that the rest of the country's going to get to know about Mayor Giuliani that the folks in New York City know, but the rest of the nation doesn't know," Vilsack told NY1. "I can't even get into the number of marriages, and the fact his children-- the relationship that he has with his children, and what the kind of circumstance New York was in before September the 11th, and whether or not he could have even been re-elected as mayor prior to September the 11th. There are lots of issues involving Mayor Giuliani and I'm sure if he becomes the nominee we'll be able to see those."

Given ample opportunity to distance herself from the comments, Clinton did not. More on that HERE.

Rival Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., was not so mum, when asked about Vilsack's remarks.

"I'd be careful about opening up boxes here that could come back to haunt you," Dodd told the AP. "We went through an impeachment process here. We have to be careful about hurling stones ... Once you start down that road it can get ugly."

So we've clearly started down that road. And interestingly, the one who started us down the road is the Clinton campaign.

What say you?

And hypothetically how do you think the media would cover it if a Giuliani campaign co-chair attacked Hillary Clinton's marriage and relationship with her daughter?

-- jt

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

Signs of the Pending Apocalypse

September 19, 2007 11:50 AM

The Clinton health care debacle of 1993 and 1994 that helped delivered Congress into the hands of the GOP for the first time in decades, is now being trumpeted as a strength.

Rev. Jesse Jackson says Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is "acting like he's white."

O.J. Simpson may serve time in jail for stealing his own stuff -- not for beheading his wife.

The star of one of the smartest shows on TV is dating Paris Hilton and calls her a "mentor."

Kevin Federline is considered the better parent.

Discuss.

-- jpt

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

Larry Craig's Return ... a Play in Three Acts

September 18, 2007 9:21 PM

ACT ONE

A CNN producer -- sans TV camera, avec tape recorder -- catches Craig walking into the Senate side of the Capitol at around 11 a.m. for his first apparent appearance at the Capitol since announcing he would resign following the revelation he had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge after a sex sting in a Minneapolis airport bathroom.

CNN's Ted Barrett: "What brings you back to the Capitol today?"

Craig: "Go to work."

Barrett: "Are you intending to vote today, sir?"

Craig: "That's my plan."

Barrett: "Why decide to come back today?"

Craig: "Because I'm a serving United States Senator from Idaho."

Craig then ducks into the Senate Members Only Dining Room, leaving Barrett in the dust.
*

ACT TWO

Around noon Craig shows up in the Senate Chamber to vote on the DC College Access bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La, and Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., greet him on the floor.

After voting, Craig walks quickly from the Senate Chamber to the Mansfield Room where the Senate Republican Caucus will have its weekly lunch. Reporters ask if his presence means he isn't going to resign.

Craig: " No not at all; I'm here to work with my staff and my office and to work with my legal team."

Reporter: Are you confident about your legal case?

Craig: "I have no opinion. I'd like to be."

Craig then closes the door to the Mansfield Room behind him.
*

ACT THREE

Still later … After the Republican Conference weekly lunch, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., the first to publicly state that Craig should reconsider resigning, tells Craig it's good to see him.

Craig: "It's good to be back."

Reporters then ask if he still intends to quit.

Craig: "I said I expect to September 30. That's what we're working on."

Craig exits.

END

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

Grampie

September 18, 2007 8:24 PM

Courtesy of the Raleigh News & Observer obituaries, HERE IS A MORE COMPREHENSIVE bio of my dearly departed grandfather, Dr. Everett Palmatier.

-- jt

September 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Compromise, Shmompromise

September 18, 2007 4:07 PM

Talk of compromise legislation on Iraq -- Democrats softening some of the language of earlier bills so as to win more GOP support -- has turned out to be just that: talk.

And not reality.

Read more HERE.

-- jpt

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

Left-handed discount?

September 18, 2007 1:31 PM

Today Rep. Tom Davis, R-Virginia, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to the chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.,  to request that the committee hold a hearing  "on the New York Times' possible in-kind political contribution to MoveOn.org in the form of a discounted advertising rate ... The discount for political advertising could constitute an unlawful campaign contribution." 

The New York Times has denied giving MoveOn.org any discount for its full-page "General Betray Us" ad, which ran last week. Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis refrained from discussing any specific client but generally explained that the cut-rate $65,000 rate that it seems MoveOn.org obtained is available to any client who agrees to have their ads run on a stand-by basis, meaning a specific day is not guaranteed. 

When asked if the Times gave the group a discount, MoveOn.org Political Action director Eli Pariser told ABC News, "they quoted us a price and we paid what they quoted us."

Asked if the group had a special relationship with the Times, Pariser said, "they are sales people. They want to make money. We are a frequent customer."

But there are skeptics out there -- now including Davis -- who suspect the lower rate was ideologically based.

Critics note that MoveOn.org's press team was notifying the media the Friday before the ad ran that it would appear in the Times on Monday, September 10, calling into question whether the ad's placement Monday was not guaranteed as would seemingly be the case if it were running "stand-by." Critics also note that the ad specifically referred to Petraeus's testimony "today" -- and Monday was the first of his two days of testimony.

And whether to change the subject from the actual war, to rally the base by attacking these two favorite conservative whipping boys, or to combat an actual perceived injustice, there has been a conservative pile-on in recent days.

*  The pro-surge "Freedom's Watch" group wrote a letter to the NYT ombudsman last week complaining about the incident. 

*  Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani demanded the same ad rate for his anti-MoveOn.org ad which, according to Advertising Age he received. 

*  The American Conservative Union filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, charging the New York Times Co. and MoveOn.org with violating the "Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002."

Davis, it should be noted, is weighing a run to replace retiring Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, and likely faces a primary challenge from a far more conservative candidate, perhaps former Gov. Jim Gilmore.

A moderate on many social issues, Davis is likely eager to shore up some conservative street cred.

-- jpt

September 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Bill Richardson's Reign of Error

September 17, 2007 5:24 PM

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is a smart guy with loads of diplomatic and executive experience. He should be taken seriously.

But his campaign for the presidential nomination has been riddled with weird gaffes.

Today Richardson ended a speech to a union with, "Thank you AFSCME!" 

AFSCME is the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees -- an important union.
Richardson, however, was not speaking to AFSCME.

The speech was to the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU.

Hands down, Richardson is responsible for some of the most cringe-inducing painful moments of Campaign 2008.

The only thing I really remember from the so-called "Gay Debate" on LOGO -- other than panelist Melissa Etheridge talking about herself quite extensively, and Doogie Howser and Lloyd from "Entourage" in the audience -- is Richardson not understanding the question when Etheridge asked him if he thought homosexuality was a choice or not. 

It was as if he'd never even heard the question before -- an odd position for such a veteran politician. (WATCH IT HERE).

Earlier this month in Iowa Richardson said, "Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."

I'd be inclined to think Richardson had been joking, as his press team later tried to explain, if Richardson hadn't previously also said that Iowa was a "top 10" terror target in the U.S.

There was also that other moment when Richardson, asked whether senators should vote for the supplemental spending bill to fund the war in Iraq, said: "I'm just not that familiar with the supplemental. Which one is that?" (WATCH IT HERE).

Moments like these are all over the Internet.

I don't know if the problem is jet lag, on which he blamed his LOGO misstep, or bad staffing, or maybe this is just the real guy. But he has made the memories of Sen. Joe Biden's gaffes practically evaporate.

-- jpt

September 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Klayman -- Back in the Saddle

September 17, 2007 4:48 PM

Larry Klayman, the litigious former head of the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, is suing "Freedom's Watch" -- read all about it HERE.

-- jt

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

Trauma

September 17, 2007 2:15 PM

Today's winner of the "Interesting Location" press conference contest comes former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, talking up health care in New York, NY, outside St. Vincent's Hospital...Home of the Rudolph W. Giuliani Trauma Center (LINK)...

Last week's winner was the Sen. Barack Obama event in Clinton, Iowa. (LINK)

The week before that, Sen. Larry Craig gave a press conference at a train station. (LINK)

-- jt

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

These are their stories

September 14, 2007 10:53 AM

Yesterday in the Sunshine State, former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., weighed in on the Terri Schiavo controversy, suggesting that Congress overstepped its bounds when intervening. Read more HERE.

Also of note, flagged by eagle-eyed ABC News political reporter Teddy Davis, the fact that Thompson as District Attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's "Law & Order," weighed in on a fictional "ripped-from-the-headlines" version of the Schiavo case. More on that in the story linked above.

My grandfather died this morning. Everett Dyson Palmatier -- Navy veteran of World War II, physicist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, a great husband, father, and grandfather, lover of puns, birds, and stamps. May his memory be a blessing. The world was a richer place for your having been here, Grampie.

-- jpt

September 14, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Does Ideology Matter in NYT ads?

September 13, 2007 10:10 AM

After I reported earlier in the week on the controversy surrounding the MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times (LINK), some conservative bloggers seized upon my reporting that MoveOn.org claims to have paid about $65,000 for the full-page ad.

Many speculate (LINK) this represents a dramatic discount of normal ad rates, and today the New York Post (LINK) repeats the charge.

New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis tells me that it's Times policy to not "disclose the rate that any one advertiser pays for an ad. The rate that is charged for an ad will depend on a variety of factors including how frequently the advertiser advertises with us, the day of the week, is it color, is it black and white, what section it appears, all of those kinds of things."

Mathis says the newspaper tries "to keep our advertising columns as open as possible" and "there are many instances when we've published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance that we take on our own editorial pages."  As an example of how the Times is open to all points of view in advertisers,  Mathis points out that on September 11, 2007, "we published a full-page advertisement from Freedom'sWatch.org, an organization whose view is opposite of MoveOn.org."

Freedom's Watch  spokesman Matt David, however tells me  the group was charged "significantly more" than MoveOn.org for its ad. The organization says it plans to run a response to the MoveOn.org NYT ad in the Times, "and we plan to demand the same ad rate they paid," David says.

Some other odds and ends…

An Iraq official tells a British newspaper that Gen. David Petraeus expressed an interest in some day running for President (LINK)...

Here's our ABC News shuffle podcast interview with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (LINK), who chats about abortion, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, his campaign and the Club for Growth.

Have been meaning to post this interview I did on the Dennis Miller Show last week (LINK)…
To the tribesmen and women out there, Happy New Year. To all others, Happy Thursday.

-- jpt

UPDATE: Rudy Giuliani today demanded an equal ad rate, too. Read more from ABC News' Sunlen Miller HERE.

September 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (37) | TrackBack (0)

Next Year in Jerusalem?

September 12, 2007 9:00 AM

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, delivers a major address about Iraq today in Iowa -- despite his expression of regret yesterday that the Petraeus testimony took place this week since "it perpetuates this notion that somehow the original decision to go into Iraq was directly related to the attacks on 9/11"

Either way, as he does, rival camps are trying to perpetuate the notion that Obama is less than a friend to Israel and the Jewish community.

The latest wedge on this day that ends with the beginning of the Jewish New Year Rosh Hashanah -- Obama will be accompanied today in Iowa by Zbigniew Brzezinksi, the National Security Adviser for President Jimmy Carter.   

Brzezinksi has defended  (LINK) the authors of "The Israel Lobby" Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer,  accused of being anti-Semitic (LINK) a fact that rival camps are blowing the proverbial shofar to announce to the world. 

More on that  HERE

This follows a quote anti-Obama forces circulated when Obama said "No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people" from stalled peace efforts in the region, which he was later asked about at a debate (LINK)  ...and a blog entry from a young pro-Palestinian blogger at The Electronic Intifada who claimed Obama had voiced support for his blog. (LINK)....

What do you think?

UPDATE: The Obama campaign responds with this quote from Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Florida: "Barack Obama has been a consistent supporter of Israel and this is an unfortunate case of a fabricated controversy for political reasons. I speak with him often on Israel policy, and I can tell you firsthand that Barack Obama is opposed to the arguments presented in this book." (I should have gotten this response before posting the above; apologies.)

UPDATE 2 -- His defense of Walt and Mearsheimer notwithstanding, Brzezinski had some interesting things to say about Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in a recent INTERVIEW.

“I think Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand," Brzezinski said. "He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world. He recognizes that the challenges, a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world. The senator from New York talks in very conventional terms and I don't think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago. I think there is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs and Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America's relationship with the world….Being a former First Lady doesn't prepare you to be president. ...It's basically a fundamental grasp of what is the nature of our era that is essential here, that is at stake."

-- jpt

September 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

"We're not dainty, if you get my drift"

September 11, 2007 12:17 PM

The Washington Post reports (CLICK HERE) that some members of the South Carolina campaign team of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney have been linked to a website sliming former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

The site, PhoneyFred.org, was taken down ever since the Post began asking questions about it.

The Post reported that the site "painted an unflattering picture of Thompson, dubbing the former TV star and senator Fancy Fred, Five O'clock Fred, Flip-Flop Fred, McCain Fred, Moron Fred, Playboy Fred, Pro-Choice Fred, Son-of-a-Fred and Trial Lawyer Fred...Before it vanished, the front page of the Web site featured a picture of Thompson depicted in a frilly outfit more befitting a Gilbert and Sullivan production than a presidential candidate. Under the heading 'Playboy Fred,' the site asked the provocative question: 'Once a Pro-Choice Skirt Chaser, Now Standard Bearer of the Religious Right?'"

The site had links, the Post discovered, to the website of the political consulting firm of J. Warren Tompkins, Romney's top Palmetto State consultant.

Tompkins, you may recall, helped then-Gov. George W. Bush defeat Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in South Carolina's 2000 primary amidst allegations of all sorts of ugly smear tactics (LINK) as well as Bush's questionable military absentee ballot monitoring program (LINK). Back in February 2000, one of Bush's key South Carolina advisers told TIME, "We play it different down here. We're not dainty, if you get my drift. We're used to playin' rough."

Todd Harris, who worked for McCain back in South Carolina seven years ago and is now communications director for Thompson, called the anti-Thompson website "smut" and "high-tech gutter politics" and called for Romney to fire Tompkins if he had anything to do with the site.

Asked for a response to this recent brouhaha, Romney spokesman Kevin Madden emailed me that "the site has no direct affiliation to our campaign, and we had no knowledge of its development."

Madden said PhoneyFred.org "was created by an individual who works at an internet firm who parked the site temporarily on the company server space of a firm whose financial partner is a consultant to the campaign."

After the Romney campaign found out about this, Madden says, "We informed this party that as a result of that server use, we were receiving inquires about the site from reporters" and "made it clear that we did not approve of the site and asked for immediate action to make sure it was again in no way affiliated with the campaign. The person responsible is not an employee of ours, but we took immediate action to make sure it was clear the site was not affiliated with the campaign."

Did Tompkins or any of Romney's South Carolina team know about PhoneyFred.org or have anything to do with it?

Madden said "No. Mr. Tompkins and other SC staff also informed us they had no knowledge of the development or the hosting of the site."

Today Harris told me, “It is not appropriate on a day like September 11th to engage in politics. We will have plenty to say on this subject tomorrow.”

UPDATE:  It turns out the man behind the anti-Fred Thompson website is Wesley Donehue who directly works for Mitt Romney's senior South Carolina consultant J . Warren Tompkins and another Romney consultant Terry Sullivan.

Donehue, as "the first associate consultant and vice president of TTS" -- Tompkins Thompson Sullivan -- "runs the daily operations of the firm. Despite being only 27 years old, he is one of the most experienced operatives in the state." (LINK).

And yet the Romney campaign insists Donehue has nothing to do with their campaign and Tompkins knew nothing about the anti-Thompson website.

Also interesting is the fact that Tompkins's regular business website is all of a sudden "under construction," though you can see glimpses of a cached version HERE.

UPDATE 3:26 pm EST -- Thompson campaign communications director Todd Harris has opted to issue a rather scathing statement about this incident, referring to "an increasingly desperate Mitt Romney" a "half-baked cover-up attempt by the Romney campaign (that) does not even pass the laugh test" and asserting that the "episode only serves to prove what many voters are already figuring out: Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win."

The Thompson campaign is five days old. The Gloves are off.

--jpt

September 11, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)

That's Just Nuts

September 11, 2007 10:52 AM

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda -- worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

-- MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann in a Playboy interview (LINK ….hat tip, Andrew)…

It's just not healthy for commentators on the Left or Right to say such things. It distracts from whatever substance they're trying to address -- witness Ann Coulter's invective -- and I tend to think it says much more about that individual's desire for attention than anything else.

Discuss.

-- jpt

September 11, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

the Rashomon War

September 11, 2007 10:27 AM

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle newspaper today reports (CLICK HERE) that Rep. Jim Walsh, R-NY, has returned from a trip to Iraq convinced that US troops must soon start coming home from Iraq. The progress made is insufficient, he says. 

"Before I went, I was not prepared to say it's time to start bringing our troops home," Walsh told the newspaper. "I am prepared to say that now. It's time."

And yet, when Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., visited the country recently, the antiwar liberal became convinced the surge should be given more time to work, as he explained to us in our podcast (CLICK HERE).

(Baird has since been targeted by antiwar liberals, including those at MoveOn.org   CLICK HERE).

How is it that two congressmen can reach such different conclusions, ones that generally don't fit in with what must be some powerful partisan inclinations?

-- jpt

September 11, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

MoveOn.org: Petraeus will Betray-Us

September 10, 2007 2:58 PM

MoveOn.org took out an incendiary NEWSPAPER AD against General David Petraeus in today's New York Times.

Read more about it HERE…

A Democratic leadership aide on Capitol Hill told me that the ad was "not helpful" because it allowed Republicans to refocus attention from "what's happening on the ground in Iraq and the fact that everyone, even Gen. Petraeus, agrees that political progress is lacking."

Republicans are, indeed, jumping on the ad and calling for Democrats to decry it…

So far no word yet from the press aides for Clinton, Obama or Edwards…all of whom are normally quite quick on the email….

What say you?

-- jpt

UPDATE: Obama's, Clinton's, and Edwards' campaigns did get back to me -- their responses are all included in the dot-com piece I linked to above.

September 10, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

Petraues Cometh

September 10, 2007 8:28 AM

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker come to the Hill today to testify about the progress of the "surge" strategy, which seems to have led to some security improvements and not much in terms of political progress.

Democrats say the fact that Petraeus and Crocker have opted to give exclusive interviews tonight to Fox News Channel speaks volumes about how political they are and who they're trying to persuade -- the Republican base. The Democratic leadership has decided to try to discredit Petraeus, and a majority of the American people -- 53 percent -- think Petraeus will try and make things look better than they really are, with 39 percent believing his report will honestly reflect the situation.

"None of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on "This Week."

Another critical voice -- former Bush campaign official Matthew Dowd, who writes on the Huffington Post (LINK) that the public wants Washington to end the war. He comes up with several assertions to support those politicians who want to withdraw US troops…Among them:

"In the public's mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake….The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn't support the troops...The public is waiting for leaders from both political parties to stand up to the president and say enough is enough….Most of the public sees no 'positive' relationship between the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq."

And yet…the Democratic leadership does not seem aggressive right now, with its members looking for a compromise bill to win the support of Republicans…a bill that pushes for US troop withdrawal without a timeline …clearly some momentum Democrats anticipated is not here..A new USA Today poll shows a majority of the American people think the US can win in Iraq, and that the US has an obligation to leave the Iraqi people with some semblance of safety and security.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in today's Wall Street Journal (LINK) assert that anti-war advocates' reasoning for a withdrawal is flawed since "the notion that withdrawing U.S. troops will 'shock them (the Iraqi government) into reconciliation is unsupported by evidence or experience. On the contrary, ordering a retreat will only serve to unravel the hard-fought gains we have won." Moreover, they write, "the increased presence of our soldiers is having a seismic effect on Iraq's politics at the local level."

What do you think?

-- jpt

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

Petraeus

September 08, 2007 11:55 AM

Moving away from less consequential matters such as a senator's bathroom behavior and towards big events such as Monday's Petraeus testimony and report...