Iowa 2004 Presidential Watch: Republican conservative news on the Democrat caucus, primary candidates national campaigns. Daily news report

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.

James Taranto’s Best of the Web column gives his take -- and some others’ -- on the debate Thursday night in Arizona. Excerpts:

“Yeah, we sat through last night's Democratic debate, but somehow all the excitement is gone now that Bob Graham has dropped out of the race. Watching Graham was like watching a high-wire act; despite his perfectly balanced persona, you knew that at any minute he could stumble into saying something totally insane.

· John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, managed to cite his Vietnam service in the course of a rare quintuple pander (to two ethnic groups and three states): ‘Can I say that when I was serving in Vietnam on a small boat, the one thing I learned was nobody asked you where you came from. Nobody worried about your background. You fought together, you lived together and you bled together. And I came back here to a country where I saw a whole bunch of people who'd served in Vietnam discriminated against, a lot of them from Arizona, a lot of them from New Mexico, Southern California, because Latinos and African-Americans I saw were drafted and on the front lines in far greater numbers than my friends from Yale or other people.’
Way to go, Senator.

· Dick Gephardt, meanwhile, seemed to be losing his mind. Here's what he had to say about Iraq: ‘[The president] keeps saying we've got 30 countries helping us. Yes, Togo sent one soldier. That isn't what we need. We need France, Germany, Russia. There's only three countries in the world that can give us both the financial and the military help that we need.’
Only three countries? That's rather insulting to Britain and Australia, is it not?

· National Review's Byron York nicely sums up another Gephardt blooper. A woman in the audience who owns a restaurant asked what Gephardt would do to ease the tax burden on small businesses. Gephardt replied that he would raise their taxes by repealing all the Bush tax cuts, then promised that his health-care plan would cover 60% of the cost of providing insurance to her employees. "The problem was, almost anybody watching could guess that Bobby C's Lounge and Grille, like many small businesses, probably didn't have a full-scale employee health-care plan," York writes. "Even John Kerry could figure that one out." Ouch!

· Wesley Clark provided more evidence that he's not ready for prime time. The Washington Post describes how he responded when opponents faulted him for flip-flopping on Iraq: Said 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." He noted that his position has been "very, very clear" throughout the debate over going to war. "I would never have voted for war," he said. "The war was an unnecessary war, it was an elective war, and it's been a huge strategic mistake for this country." But Clark was attacked because on the day after he announced his candidacy he told reporters that he "probably" would have voted for the resolution. The next day, he reversed himself and said he would not have supported it.”

…It was a Dem-lemon of a debate yester in South Carolina yesterday. The state NAACP-sponsored presidential candidate debate seemed to have a revolving door on it, as Dem candidates came and went. Three candidates showed up so late they missed the entire event – Carol Moseley Braun, John Edwards, and Dick Gephardt. Luckily, their reason was legitimate – all three were stuck on a plane that couldn’t get off the ground in Phoenix.. YahooNews.com today gives a report, by Associated Press’ Jeffrey Collins, headlined, “Dem Candidates Bash Bush at NAACP Forum.” Excerpts: “Three Democratic presidential candidates turned their focus back to a familiar target at an NAACP forum Friday night. One day after other candidates ganged up on Wesley Clark at a debate in Phoenix, the retired general got a free pass as his only two opponents [Sharpton and Kucinich]turned their anger toward President Bush. Then scheduling problems left him the only candidate on the stage for the last 25 minutes, turning the forum into the "Wesley Clark Show." Plane problems kept three candidates from arriving in time to participate in the 90-minute forum, three decided not to attend and two left early to catch flights. … Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich criticized Bush's economic policy, his handling of the war in Iraq and his education policy. They saved some of their sharpest rhetoric for the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. "He's not much of an attorney and I know for sure he's not a general," said Clark, interrupted by applause. … but soon Clark was the only candidate around. … Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman met with South Carolina NAACP leaders individually Friday, but had to leave Charlotte before the forum started so he could return to Washington before sundown to observe the Jewish Sabbath. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was attending parents weekend at his daughter's college and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry had a long-standing commitment to campaign in New Hampshire. Dean, Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards had been Clark's adversaries at the Phoenix debate.

… People-Powered Howard Dean is Top Dog in the battle for Internet voters. Associated Press’ Will Lester article, headlined, “Dean Leads Among Possible Internet Voters.” Excerpts: “A poll of Michigan Democrats found Dean, who has attracted thousands of supporters and millions of dollars through the Internet, led his presidential rivals by 11 percentage points among voters who would prefer to vote on the Internet in the Feb. 7 caucuses. But among those who would rather vote in person or by mail, the former Vermont governor is tied for the lead, according to the Epic-MRA poll released Friday. Michigan plans to allow Internet voting in its caucuses, a policy that has drawn criticism from all the presidential candidates except Dean and Wesley Clark. Several Michigan Democrats have filed a protest, arguing that the policy will put minority voters and low-income voters at a disadvantage. The challenge is pending. Overall, the poll showed Dean with 21 percent support; Clark at 15 percent; Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, both at 13 percent; and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut at 12 percent. The remaining candidates were in the low single digits; 12 percent were undecided. The poll of 400 Democrats who say they are likely to participate in the Michigan caucuses was conducted Oct. 6-9 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

… New poll, released yesterday, shows President Bush easily outdistancing his 2004 Dem rivals. Highlights from the Associated Press article: “Wesley Clark and Howard Dean fare well when matched against Democratic rivals in national and state polls, respectively, but they face an uphill fight against President Bush. Bush easily outdistanced Dean, 50 percent to 32 percent, in a poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs for the Cook Political Report and released Friday. Bush bested Clark, 48 percent to 33 percent. Dean, the former Vermont governor, is tied for the lead among Democrats in Iowa polls and leads in New Hampshire surveys. Clark holds a slight lead over his Democratic foes in national polls. Four in 10 in the poll — 39 percent — said they would definitely vote to re-elect Bush, while 34 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else. Twenty-four percent said they would consider voting for someone else. The poll of 787 registered voters was conducted Oct. 7-9 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

… John Kerry, still in the come-from-behind challenge category -- campaigned yesterday in New Hampshire. The Union Leader carries this report on the latest Kerry effort: “EXETER — Still trying to catch up with fellow New Englander Howard Dean in the polls, Sen. John Kerry yesterday emphasized his experience during a Presidential campaign stop before a historic backdrop. The Massachusetts Democrat, speaking to more than 100 people, including a large group of students from the nearby Phillips Exeter Academy, on the grounds of the American Independence Museum, said he alone among the field of nine Democratic candidates had the right combination of political, military, foreign policy and intelligence skills to qualify him to serve as President — a position that he called inappropriate for “on-the-job training.” … Offering his own solutions to an array of national problems, Kerry proposed:

… Dick Gephardt has bagged another union endorsement – his 17^th -- this time, from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which boasts over a million members. Today’s Boston Globe gives the details, excerpts: “The UFCW is the 17th of the 64 AFL-CIO unions to back the Missourian's candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. It is the fourth-largest union in the labor federation. Gephardt is scheduled to accept the endorsement this afternoon during a campaign stop at a union office in Davenport, Iowa. The union has about 15,000 members in Iowa, which in January will be the first state to hold party caucuses, UFCW spokeswoman Jill Cashen said.

… Kerry’s newest target – Wal-Mart. Kerry says Wat-Mart’s treatment of its employees is ‘disgraceful.’ The rhetoric aimed at the nation’s largest private employer was used as Kerry pushed his health insurance plan. The Union Leader picks up the article as Associated Press writer Holly Ramer offers the details from Kerry’s visit to Newmarket, New Hampshire: “The Massachusetts senator was explaining his plan to workers at Russound when one asked how he could help part-time employees of large retail chains who are ineligible for benefits. Linda Mariotti didn't mention a particular chain, but Kerry did, accusing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of luring workers in with the promise of health insurance then urging them to enroll in government health programs for the poor. "They advertise Medicaid for their workers rather than provide them absolutely with the help. I think it's disgraceful, and I think we need a president who's prepared to help shed light," Kerry said. "I think Wal-Mart's health care practices are unconscionable, and the way they treat employees is not fair." Wal-Mart and other companies that employ such practices should be punished by losing some of their tax deductions, Kerry said. "They throw a lot of money around, they get a lot of things happening, but it ain't necessarily good for the community," he said. "We need to stand up and demand they behave corporately responsibly." A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart said Kerry "simply does not know what he is talking about. "It's irresponsible," said Mona Williams, vice president for communications. "I don't know where Sen. Kerry's getting his facts, but someone better do their homework before he talks about Wal-Mart again."

… USA Today: a news analysis by Judy Keen is taking a look at Team Bush. Headline: “White House moves fast to manage the debate.” Excerpts: “President Bush's fierce defense Thursday of the war with Iraq was part of an effort to regain control of the debate over the wisdom of the conflict. It also was an acknowledgment that he must act quickly to confront some of the problems that could jeopardize his political future. The administration offensive continued Friday as Vice President Cheney gave a speech on the war against terrorism in Washington to the conservative Heritage Foundation. … "We've got to step up our efforts to explain what's at stake, to lay the predicate for why we're doing what we're doing and to be clear with the American people," a high-level Bush adviser says. Bush is facing a slow pace of progress in Iraq, sliding approval in opinion polls, high unemployment and a criminal inquiry into whether administration officials blew the cover of a CIA officer. More immediately, he is focused on winning two vital votes: one in Congress on his request for $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and one in the United Nations Security Council on a resolution that could push more countries to send troops and money to Iraq. That explains the urgency in Bush's rhetoric, the deployment of other administration officials to give high-profile speeches and even a rare public fissure this week between two top aides. … The coordinated PR offensive will continue for several weeks. Bush's Saturday radio addresses will focus on Iraq this month. Rice will appear on Oprah Winfrey's TV talk show Oct. 17. Cabinet secretaries will visit Iraq and boast about progress. In Baghdad, there soon will be regular briefings for reporters to highlight progress. …In speeches at campaign fundraisers, Bush often says, "The political season will come in its own time" and adds that he's focused "on the people's business." But his strong words Thursday suggest that he and his advisers believe it's time to take on critics, including the Democrats who want his job. Bush aimed a question at them when he asked, "Who could possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?"

… New York Senator Hillary Clinton raises her voice on prescription drug coverage through Medicare. In today’s New York Times, writer Richard Perez-Pena gives his account: “The bills in Congress to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare would actually raise costs for millions of New Yorkers and result in poorer coverage for many of them, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Friday. She said that she would oppose any bill that emerged from a House-Senate conference committee, unless the committee came up with a bill more generous than the ones already passed. “Either version, the Senate or the House, would represent a net loss for most retirees," Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference. The bills' supporters have disputed some of the numbers behind these claims and conceded the validity of others. But they say that the argument misses the point: that the bills as drafted would be a net gain for Medicare recipients over all by providing significant relief to the people who need it most — those with very high drug costs. …Both Congressional bills would impose premiums, deductibles and co-payments for the drug plan on all but the poorest Medicare recipients. For people with modest prescription drug needs, the cost of participating in the plan would exceed what they now spend on medicines. Anyone who spends less than $800 a year on prescription drugs would actually pay more under the House bill; those who spend up to $1,100 would pay more under the Senate bill….The existing bills would also increase out-of-pocket costs unrelated to prescription drugs for all but low-income Medicare recipients. Both bills would increase deductibles for doctor visits. The Senate version would also impose a co-payment for laboratory tests… Some employers who pay for drug coverage for retired former employees would probably drop that benefit if Medicare were to pay for medicines. …Mrs. Clinton said that at a time when employers are already finding ways to drop medical coverage, the government should not give them an incentive to do so.

… This haunting op-ed letter can be found in the Austin American-Stateman. It is written by Sergeant Nathan Todd. (Sgt. Todd is an Army reservist.):

“I do not object to all those who oppose the war. I do object those who accuse the United States of war crimes and genocide in order to lend weight to their pacifism.

I have heard and seen those in Austin who call for the United States to leave Iraq, accusing the Bush administration of an unjust invasion, illegal occupation and genocide. Such people don't know what "genocide" means.

I cannot count the number of places I have stood where massacres were committed. In Bosnia, I was among the fortunate few whose duty it was to be aware of what had happened and to help create a plan to salvage the situation. Before and after my deployment, I was involved in analyses of similar situations in Rwanda and Kosovo. In Afghanistan, I got a chance to participate in recovery and reconstruction efforts on the ground, to speak to those who had been survivors of such slaughters, as well as those who probably had been involved in committing them.

I had to become familiar with the massacres and attempted genocides that have shaped modern Iraq, the repression of the Kurds and Iraqi Shiites, the mass graves, gassings, the razing of villages and the attempted destruction of entire cultures and peoples.

There are places on Earth where "police" can arbitrarily arrest and torture whom they like, and ask for bribes not to do so. And some people in the United States, sheltered from such things, will tell you that American soldiers are no different from such fighters.

It is their right to think so. But the children know. The children of those tortured lands laugh and play with American soldiers, wave to them, speak a few American phrases, ask for candy and treats or simply give a shy smile. They crowd around us when we walk the streets, cluster around our bases and safe houses, run out into the streets to wave to passing convoys. They thank us.

They do not do the same for the other soldiers. They vanish when they see them about their business, hide when they sense the trouble coming, run before they can get chased away. They understand the difference, even if our pacifists do not.

I have spoken to children with scars from bullets on the backs of their heads, put there when they were toddlers. I have seen the graves of those who died and commiserated with those who somehow survived. Such things occur too frequently to stop them all. Yet in some situations, we can intervene. Such moments occur too infrequently to allow them to pass unseized, such opportunities are too rare to pass up. Now we have intervened in Iraq and have the historic opportunity to rehabilitate a land that has for too long suffered the law of the gun.

Doing so won't erase the suffering of those who died, nor will it contribute to aiding the people of the Congo, Liberia, Kashmir of Algeria. Yet it will do something, and create a chance for the children of Iraq to grow up without their fathers disappearing, their mothers being raped and killed before their eyes, the sisters taken for the casual use and disposal of by bored soldiers.

Yet there are those who would have us abandon those we liberated to fall back into the old ways until another strongman with better guns or more soldiers than his rivals rises to power. Given the chance to create in Iraq democratic rule by law and a military devoted to defending the populace, they would have us walk away.

After I returned from Bosnia, I visited the "museum" at Dachau. I saw the rebuilt barracks and new barbed wire, the meticulously restored crematoria and killing grounds. I knelt there in a field that had been used to dump the ashes of the victims of the Holocaust, and lit a candle for the souls who suffered there. I cried and prayed there, remembering what had been done, and thought upon the words "never again." Somehow the thought of it made me cry more, because I couldn't stop thinking about how long it took us to decide to stop the madness in Bosnia. How no one even tried to stop the killings in Cambodia, Kurdish Iraq and the Sudan. How we walked away from Somalia after the tragic sacrifice of American soldiers fighting to build a better world. It occurred to me how much we have forgotten and how empty those brave words had become.

We cannot save the world by ourselves. We cannot stop all the genocides and massacres. We cannot make sure that "never again" becomes a fulfilled promise rather than a hope. But we can return a little meaning to those words, stop some killings and end some suffering. I hope we do, and I would be proud to serve again in Iraq to do so.

… Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge-mode yesterday, speaking at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. In an article in today’s Washington Post, written by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, Cheney is clearly and unabashedly clear. Headline, “Cheney Goes on Offensive Over Iraq.” Excerpts: “Vice President Cheney capped a White House effort to regain its equilibrium over the Iraq occupation by delivering a blistering rebuttal yesterday to critics of the administration's foreign policy and arguing that a consensus-based foreign policy is obsolete. After several weeks of domestic and international criticism of President Bush's policy of attacking potential threats, Cheney struck back forcefully by calling the U.N. Security Council's 50-year tradition of giving permanent members a veto a "policy of doing exactly nothing." … he took aim at Democrats and foreign leaders, such as French President Jacques Chirac and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who have raised objections to U.S. "unilateralism." Cheney blasted the criticism "that the United States, when its security is threatened, may not act without unanimous international consent" -- a clear reference to U.N. procedures, under which "the mere objection of even one foreign government would be sufficient to prevent us from acting. "Though often couched in high-sounding terms of unity and cooperation, it is a prescription for perpetual disunity and obstructionism," Cheney said, adding that this would "confer undue power" on dissenters, "while leaving the rest of us powerless to act in our own defense. Yet we continue to hear this attitude in arguments in our own country -- so often, and so conveniently, it amounts to a policy of doing exactly nothing." … Cheney, predicting that "historians will look back on our time and pay tribute to our 43rd president," told his audience of a videotape that showed Hussein allowing two Doberman pinschers to eat a general alive. "Those who declined to support the liberation of Iraq would not deny the evil of Saddam Hussein's regime," he said. "They must concede, however, that had their own advice been followed, that regime would rule Iraq today."