Iowa 2004 presidential primary precinct caucus and caucuses news">

Iowa 2004 presidential primary precinct caucus and caucuses news, reports and information on 2004 Democrat and Republican candidates, campaigns and issues Iowa Presidential Watch's IOWA DAILY REPORT Holding the Democrats accountable today, tomorrow...forever. Our Mission: to hold the Democrat presidential candidates accountable for their comments and allegations against President George W. Bush, to make citizens aware of false statements or claims by the Democrat candidates, and to defend the Bush Administration and set the record straight when the Democrats make false or misleading statements about the Bush-Republican record. THE DAILY REPORT for Friday, October 10, 2003 ... QUOTABLE: “Wesley Clark… welcome to the Democratic presidential race. None of us are above questioning. That’s what this is all about.” – Joe Lieberman to a bristling Wesley Clark. “I think it’s really embarrassing that a group of candidates up here are working on changing the leadership in this country and can’t get their own story straight.” – Wesley Clark at the Democratic presidential debate last night in Tucson, Arizona. “Clark’s inability to discern the negative from the valid was evident, as he put in yet another amateur performance” – IPW on Wesley Clark’s performance in last night’s Dem debate. "Clark has started off faster than any of the candidates. Now, we'll see if he can sustain his momentum as he gets tested with his handling of these controversies [including the resignation of his campaign manager, Donnie Fowler, and challenges to the propriety of some of his paid speech-making.]” -- an uncommitted Democratic donor to Clark’s campaign. “I took this office to make a difference, not to mark time.” – President Bush, speaking yesterday in New Hampshire. “Yeah, right. Every Democrat, starting with Bill Clinton, flew out to California in a futile bid to beat Schwarzenegger because they really wanted him to win by a landslide.” – New York Times’ Deborah Orin on the Democrats’ claim that the loss of Dem-lemon Gray Davis to Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger was a good thing for Democrats. “You can say this about Richard Gephardt: He sticks to his ideas, even when they make absolutely no sense.” – National Review’s White House correspondent Byron York. “There are two winners in every debate. The first winner is the intellectual winner. Last night, that was Edwards. The second and most important winner is the person who remains intact or gains ground. Last night, that winner was us.”  -- an insightful ‘BobbyO’ on the Dean Blog [web log] this morning.  … Among the offerings in today’s update: Last night’s debate: No more kid glove treatment for Clark Camp Clark dents Dr. Dean’s campaign Bush takes aim at Dem candidates InsidePolitics’ Greg Pierce, on Dems’ newest spin of the California Republican win Will Schwarzenegger get to run for Prez??? Who's getting the Bob Graham goods? U of Iowa Law dean spins his opinion of the Clark speech * CANDIDATES/CAUCUSES: … Kid glove treatment was clearly over regarding newcomer candidate Wesley Clark.  Knocked off the newcomer pedestal when Joe Lieberman said he was “very disappointed” by Clark’s changing positions on Iraq (the flip-flops of which began the very day Clark entered the race), Clark responded by saying, “I think it’s really embarrassing that a group of candidates up here are working on changing the leadership in this country and can’t get their own story straight.” Wasn’t that what Lieberman’s point? -- that Clark was not getting his story straight? Political veteran Lieberman flashed Clark a ‘Lieberman grin’ and replied, “Wesley Clark… welcome to the Democratic presidential race. None of us are above questioning. That’s what this is all about.” Clark’s inability to discern the negative from the valid was evident, as he put in yet another amateur performance. Clark has no prior experience running for any political office. News articles abound today, covering the debate from various angles. Here is a hefty helping of them. Click away! ·        Des Moines Register (written by AP writer Nedra Pickler) ·        NationalReview (written by Byron York) ·        BostonGlobe (written by Patrick Healy and Glen Johnson) ·        WashingtonPost (a long article, written by Dan Balz), ·        WashingtonTimes (by Stephen Dinan) ·        New York Times (this is a rather dry, excerpts only article – missing a lot of comments) ·        New York Times, again (written by Katharine Seelye and Jodi Wilgoren) ·        New Hampshire’s The UnionLeader (using the AP story by Ron Fournier) ·        CNN (who broadcasted the debate) ·        FoxNews (an early in the evening AP story) ·        and for those who really want to know… the complete transcript of the debate … Camp Clark is making successful gains at the expense of the Dean campaign, denting Dr. Dean’s top-dog status on the Internet and in Hollywood. According to an article in today’s WashingtonPost , written by Thomas Edsall, Clark’s campaign has signed up around 100,000 supporters and half of these were gleaned through the Internet. Excerpts: “… the campaign is trying to overtake Dean, who as of yesterday had enlisted 461,206 people through the Internet…. Most major fundraisers and donors in California are remaining uncommitted, waiting to see how well the candidates do in the early jockeying, debates, polls and fundraising. But Clark's initial success has eaten away at some of Dean's potential support, especially in the Los Angeles area. According to many political activists there, Clark has supplanted Dean as the star attraction and the main focus of political attention…the candidate has lined up a solid commitment from Peter Morton, founder and chairman of the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Inc. Morton said he plans to host a dinner for Clark in Las Vegas later this month and a November fundraiser in Los Angeles. … "Clark has started off faster than any of the candidates," an uncommitted Democratic donor commented. "Now, we'll see if he can sustain his momentum as he gets tested with his handling of these controversies," including the resignation of his campaign manager, Donnie Fowler, and challenges to the propriety of some of his paid speech-making. … Who gets the bounty of staff left over from the Bob Graham withdrawal from the Presidential Race? According to an article in today’s Des Moines Register, by Thomas Beaumont, here is the situation so far… Wesley Clark’s campaign: Steve Bouchard, Graham’s New Hampshire campaign director – HIRED in same capacity Julie Stauch, Graham’s Iowa political director – contacted Sarah Benzing, Graham’s Iowa field director – contacted John Kerry’s campaign: Julie Stauch, -- contacted Howard Dean’s campaign: Sarah Benzing – contacted John Edwards’ campaign: Sarah Benzing -- contacted … Following directly on the heals of last night’s DNC-sponsored presidential debate in Arizona comes the NAACP debate today in South Carolina. As reported Wednesday in the IPW Daily Report, South Carolina NAACP president James Gallman objected to the lack of presidential candidates responding to the cattle call to all, prompting a hasty inclusion of more of the pack of nine. It appears that there are still three holdout, however: John Kerry, Wesley Clark and Howard Dean (whose loyal web log ‘bloggers’ say should get legitimate pass on this one – he promised his daughter he would  Clark Follow up Story -- U of Iowa Dean of Law William Hines spins his opinion regarding Clark speech at University As reported yesterday in IPW’s Daily Report, a legal complaint has been filed against the University of Iowa in the wake of possible FEC/Federal law violations concerning the payment of fees and travel expenses (for two) to Democratic candidate Wesley Clark. Clark spoke at the University on September 19th. Today’s Des Moines Register (Thomas Beaumont’s report) gives this brief accounting on the matter: “Law school Dean William Hines said he had not heard from Clark’s campaign, but was confident no rules had been broken by the university. ‘No public funds were allocated for this purpose,’ Hines said Thursday. “The speech was funded with the income from an endowment created by the Levitt family.” IPW Editorial Comment Nice spin, but the thin veil of the Levitt Foundation is easily pierced. The Dean and the University of Iowa control the foundation, the university’s communication offices were used for publicity, the event was held at the university’s Memorial Union and it utilized university staff and resources. The complaint, filed on by two of the three students and were present during the Clark speech at the University on Sept. 19th, cites the following facts in support of the FEC-filed complaint: ·        In his speech Clark discussed his qualifications and spoke disparagingly about President Bush’s qualifications; ·        Individuals gathered in the Union with Clark for President buttons and signs; ·        People close to Clark’s presidential campaign organized supporters from out of state to travel to the University of Iowa to attend Clark’s lecture; ·        Clark participated in a collateral campaign rally while in Iowa City at the Hamburg Inn that included the media. It would appear that Clark did step ‘outside the box’ of FEC Federal Campaign laws. And if he did, he did so under the auspices of the University of Iowa.  Clark’s words and actions were done while under the ‘contractual control’ and responsibility of the University. The University was the boss of Clark during Clark’s time at the University on September 19, 2003 (regardless of whose nickel paid for it). The University of Iowa’s Law School Dean, William Hines, signed the contract with Wesley Clark. Hines’s signature on the contract with Clark put the full weight of the University behind enforcing that contract in all of its scope, implicit and implied. In this case, that meant making certain FEC Federal Campaign laws were not broken. We’re talking about a law school, here, and the dean thereof. Certainly the dean of one of the greatest law colleges in the country understood what his signature on that contract meant -- or did he? So, when the Clark for President buttons and signs appeared in the lecture hall during Clark’s speech – despite earlier University efforts to avoid it – it was then the responsibility of the University to step in and stop the violation. They did not do so. When Clark touted his ‘qualifications’ and slammed President Bush’s qualifications during his speech – despite dean Hines’ clear guidelines when introducing Clark -- it was the responsibility of the University to step in and stop the violation. Again, they did not do so. Dean of Law Hines comments today in the Daily Iowan that it was a ‘standard Clark speech’ that Clark ‘had given on many occasions’ doesn’t cut it Why? Because Clark used this same speech in announcing his candidacy for President. As for Dean of Law Hines, he heads up one of the greatest law colleges in this country. It was his responsibility, or those representing his authority during the Clark speech, to stop the violations. They did not do so. And now, one of the greatest universities in America is being held accountable for Dean of Law Hines’ lapse. Why? Because the University of Iowa is the boss of Hines.  In the report of the Daily Iowan today the following is reported: ·        FEC spokesman Ian Stirton said all complaints to the agency are private and would not say whether the commission is investigating the Clark situation. ·        Stirton said a 1992 FEC advisory opinion regarding a speech by then-presidential candidate David Duke at the University of Nashville found that the law is not violated if a candidate, not the campaign, was paid directly, no campaign contributions were solicited at the event, and the speaker's candidacy was not mentioned - which was the case in Clark's speech at the IMU. Further analysis Clearly Clark’s candidacy was mentioned with the ‘Clark for President’ signs and buttons. More importantly, that is not the full standard according to the FEC Advisory Opinion 1992-6. In that opinion, it outlines that personal attributions or derogatory comments about the opponent may not be a part of the speech delivered and paid for by anyone other than normal contributions to a campaign. This does not include a $30,000 speaking fee paid for by a foundation controlled by a University, like the Levitt Foundation.   * ON THE BUSH BEAT: … President Bush was in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, yesterday – the six-month anniversary of the victory in Baghdad. An article in today’s WashingtonTimes.com by Bill Sammon reports on a confident President, firing back at the Democratic presidential candidates. Here are excerpts of what the President had to say: “The challenges we face today cannot be met with timid actions or bitter words." "I acted [regarding decision to wage war on Iraq] because I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman. I was not about to stand by and wait and trust in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein. So in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history, we removed the threat." “When you become the president, you can't predict all the challenges that will come. But you do know the principles you bring to office. And they should not change. They shouldn't change with time and they shouldn't change with polls." “I took this office to make a difference, not to mark time. I came to this office to confront problems directly and forcefully, not to pass them on to future presidents and future generations. These committed killers will not be stopped by negotiations. They won't respond to therapy or to reason." "Our challenges will be overcome with optimism and resolve and confidence in the ideals of our country. Our work in Iraq has been long and hard, and it is not finished.” "Last month, the economy exceeded expectations and added net new jobs. Just as our economy is coming around, some are saying now is the time to raise taxes. To be fair, they [Democrats] think anytime is a good time to raise taxes. At least they're consistent. But I strongly disagree.”   * NATIONAL POLITICS: ... Trying to make lemonade out of the very sour loss by Dem-lemon Gray Davis to Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger in the California recall race, Democrats are now declaring it’s a good thing. A beneficial thing. Greg Pierce of the Washington Times takes exception to that in his Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. quoting New York Post’s Deborah Orin: “Yeah, right. Every Democrat, starting with Bill Clinton, flew out to California in a futile bid to beat Schwarzenegger because they really wanted him to win by a landslide.”  * FEDERAL POLITICS: … OnPolitic’s Greg Pierce hits this nail on the head by correctly identifying the most definitive example of a foreign-born running for the highest office in the land – he says that Arnold Schwarzenegger could have a shot at running for president someday, under a congressional proposal to amend the Constitution, allowing foreign-born citizens to seek the highest office. Excerpt: "The history of the United States is replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born outside of her borders," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican and sponsor of the proposal. …"Our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations," said Mr. Hatch, who noted that foreign-born citizens can already hold other high U.S. government positions. He pointed to former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm                                                                                                       click here  to read past Iowa Daily Reports Paid for by the Iowa Presidential Watch PAC P.O. Box 171, Webster City, IA 50595 privacy  /  agreement  /    /  homepage / search engine