|
 George
W. Bush
excerpts
from
the Iowa Daily Report
September
1-15,
2003
... NY Times
Orin reports that GWB is back in “campaign
mode” – but also notes that Karen Hughes’
political fingerprints have started to appear
on Bush’s comments and actions.
Headline from
the New York Post: “President Bush took off
August for a long vacation at his ranch and
his poll ratings slumped, but now he's back
in campaign mode, eager to reassure the nation
that he's on the job to fix the economy and
win the war on terror. Some Republican
strategists claim Bush deliberately played it
low-key in August so he wouldn't get
overexposed and could start fresh and push
hard now -- just as he did last year when he
bounced back from vacation to turn around the
prewar Iraq debate.
His virtual alter ego, longtime adviser Karen
Hughes, was by his side on the stump last week
when he made his first big speech about Iraq
since declaring ‘major combat’ over May 1.
To some, her presence was a clear sign the
White House knows some fixes are needed.
‘Break glass -- pull Karen,’ quipped an
administration official, as if reading an
emergency sign. Hughes remains a key adviser
although she's left the White House, but it
seemed no accident that Bush is suddenly
putting renewed stress on the liberation of
Afghan women and girls, as well as the
hardships faced by U.S. military families back
home. Most analysts believe 2004 will be a
battle over the twin security issues of safety
from terrorism and economic safety. In
other words, Iraq and the economy. So far,
despite economic jitters and negative pundit
chatter on Iraq, Bush leads any Democratic
2004 wannabe by a mile.
Still,
Republican strategists concede there's some
Bush slippage among young moms who trust him
on foreign policy but fret over their family's
financial security. First step: Talk up
the economy. So Bush yesterday began his
back-to-work push in Ohio, part of America's
hurting industrial heartland, then he'll hit
Missouri and Indiana later this week. Second
step: Talk up the Iraq war and convince
Americans that he has a plan to win the peace.
The Sept. 11 anniversary will inevitably
remind Americans of how Bush led the nation
through tragedy. Soon afterward, on Sept. 23
and 24, he comes to New York to speak to the
U.N. General Assembly in what surely will be a
major Iraq speech.” (9/3/2003)
… Bush still solid
against real potential challengers – topping
Hillary by 7%, Kerry by 9%, Dean by 11% -- but
against a generic Dem he’s tied at 42%-42%.
From Rasmussen Reports poll summary: “As
a Presidential candidate, Senator Hillary
Clinton attracts more Democratic votes than
other contenders but still trails President
Bush 48% to 41%. If the Democrats nominate
Senator John Kerry, the President leads
45% to 36%. Against Vermont Governor Howard
Dean, Bush leads 45% to 34%…The national
telephone survey of 1,499 likely voters was
conducted by Rasmussen Reports August
29-September 1, 2003. Margin of sampling error
is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of
confidence…While Bush leads individual
Democrats, his overall poll numbers have
slipped. Against a generic Democrat, the
President is now tied, 42% to 42%. A month
ago, the President led 44% to 41% against a
generic Democrat. The discrepancy between
polls comparing Bush to a generic Democrat and
those suggesting a specific alternative is the
result of several factors. First, the
generic ballot enables Democrats to envision
their ideal candidate as the President's
opponent. This tends to inflate the
Democratic vote. Second, the name
recognition for individual Democratic
candidates (other than Hillary Clinton) is
very low. This tends to decrease the
Democratic vote. Third, the war issue is
still dividing the Democrats. The
President has lost ground compared to Kerry
and Dean since the end of July.”(9/3/2003)
“Bush’s
reelection liabilities mount” – Headline
on column by Robert Kuttner, co-editor of
The American Prospect, in yesterday’s
Boston Globe. Excerpt: “With Labor Day 2003,
the race to November 2004 is on. Seemingly,
President Bush will be seriously on the
defensive on the issues, but with a big
advantage on the politics. However,
voters are likely to be energized in 2004 as
they have rarely been in recent years. And
voter mobilization will ultimately determine
whether Bush gets a second term. First,
the issues. Bush's foreign policy is a
shambles. The architects of the Iraq war
have been proven wrong on every contention
they made -- the imminent weapons of mass
destruction, the alleged Saddam-Al Qaeda
connection, the supposed ease of occupation
and reconstruction. Thumbing America's nose at
‘old Europe’ proved a major blunder. Bush
now needs the United Nations to clean up his
mess, but he is insisting on US control.
France and Germany, not to mention Russia and
China, aren't exactly lining up to donate
money and troops to bail Bush out. The
administration line -- that the Iraq mess
proves that the place is a magnet for
terrorism -- just isn't selling. This is a
hornets' nest that Bush's policy stirred up.
GIs are still getting killed for a war that
the American public is turning against. Bush's
vaunted Israel-Palestine ‘road map’ is a path
to nowhere. Colin Powell, the prudent
internationalist in the nest of reckless
hawks, has been reduced to a pathetic token.
Barring some improbable breakthrough, photo
ops of Bush in a flak jacket won't divert the
spotlight from the real damage. Then
there's the economy. Most economists believe
that the recovery will continue to be jobless
right through next year. Corporations are
in such a profit squeeze that they are cutting
jobs faster than they are accumulating orders.
Even more seriously, the Bush program of
serial tax cuts plus militarism has pushed the
deficit into the half-trillion range for the
foreseeable future. Not only does that kind of
deficit force cuts in public outlays that
voters actually value; at some point, it
starts pushing up interest rates…An
ordinary president would be reeling from these
setbacks. But while Bush's stratospheric
popularity ratings have returned to the normal
range, he is no ordinary president. For
starters, he will have almost limitless
amounts of money and will massively outspend
his opposition thanks to unprecedented
business investment in Republican politics and
a half-baked campaign finance ‘reform’ that
backfired. He also has an incomparable
team of political strategists, speechwriters,
and spinners. And the press is still cutting
him a lot of slack. Second, the
administration retains the capacity to time
another ‘war of choice,’ as it did with the
Iraq war drums on the eve of the 2002 midterm
election. Another terrorist attack on American
soil would rally patriotic support that Bush
could willingly exploit. (At the same
time, terrorist attacks overseas do not stir
the same outrage and seem to demonstrate the
overextension of Bush's policy.) Third, it
remains to be seen whether Democrats will have
a strong candidate. Yet this election will
rouse the base constituencies of both parties
like no election in recent memory. Democrats
are in a state of rage about the stolen
election of 2000, the gutting of public
services, the assault of liberties, the
economic damage, the environmental pillaging,
and the foreign policy calamity. Republican
conservatives, meanwhile, view Bush as Reagan
redux, only better. Recent conventional
political wisdom has it that elections are won
by appealing to swing voters. But in the
great defining elections of American history
-- 1932, 1964, 1980 -- the winner rallied his
base and then persuaded independent voters
that he could be trusted to do the right thing
for the country. The 2004 contest, I suspect,
will be one of those elections. And
here is Bush's greatest potential liability.
His actual administration has been so unlike
his moderate, conciliatory campaign of 2000
that even with the best campaign machinery,
independent voters will be skeptical. After
years of declining turnout and passivity, 2004
will very likely see a reenergized electorate.
Ultimately, the election will be a test of
democracy itself: mobilized voters debating
real substance versus imagery and organized
money.” (9/4/2003)
Good news on the Bush Beat: Columnist Lambro
reports that Dem chances of beating GWB were
“sharply reduced” last week.
Headline on column in yesterday’s Washington
Times: “Upbeat growth numbers” Excerpt
from Lambro’s report: “The Democrats'
chances of beating President Bush in 2004 were
sharply reduced last week by one closely
watched economic number. The Commerce
Department's report that the economy was
expanding at a 3.1 percent annual rate in the
second quarter must have sent a pall over the
Democratic National Committee headquarters
here, not to mention the campaign offices of
the Democratic presidential contenders. Barring
some catastrophic setback in the war on
terrorism, next year's presidential election
is going to be decided by the state of the
economy. Who says so? Why, all the Democratic
candidates. That single issue is at the
core of their campaign agendas, such as they
are. But last week's strong, upward
revision in the nation's gross domestic
product — which measures all the goods and
services America produces and sells — dealt a
sharp blow to the Democrats' chief domestic
issue. It's virtually impossible to
overstate both the economic and political
importance of the elevated GDP growth. The
rate announced in early August was 2.4
percent, much higher than the anemic 1.4
percent of the previous six months. There was
cheering in the White House when the
revised estimate came out Thursday morning,
showing much stronger consumer demand and
business investment, as well as an upsurge in
manufacturing for durable-goods orders. Part
of the growth surge was due to increases in
defense spending in the war on terrorism, but
much of it also is due to the administration's
$350 billion tax-cut package, which is working
its way into the economy. Income tax
withholding rates are down in worker
paychecks, about $30 billion in child
tax-credit refund checks have gone out to 25
million families this summer, and business tax
credits are being implemented to buy equipment
for future expansion. While Mr. Bush's
Democratic opponents have pounded his $1.7
trillion in tax cuts over the past three
years, the fact is that it has resulted in
higher after-tax incomes for most households.
The total economic stimulus from this year's
stepped-up tax cuts won't be known until the
third-quarter GDP numbers are out in November.
That's when we will see the full impact of the
child tax-credit refund checks sent out in
July and August. We have already seen
incremental numbers this summer that bode well
for the rest of the year and beyond. Retail
sales jumped by 1.4 percent in July and will
likely rise higher as a result of
back-to-school buying. In June, U.S. factory
orders saw their biggest increase in three
months. Home sales have been spectacular, too,
due to lower interest rates, though mortgage
rates have crept upward lately and housing
sales have slowed — though they are still in
record territory. But the most
breathtaking number in the revised
second-quarter GDP figures was consumer
spending, which shot up by 3.8 percent —
nearly twice the 2 percent rate between
January and March. Rising corporate
earnings have also been a big story this
summer, driving stock values higher and
boosting worker pensions and other stock
portfolios.”(9/5/2003)
…Post debate
analysis: “Democrats target Bush, not each
other, in debate that may favor front-runner”
– headline from this morning’s The Union
Leader. Excerpt from analysis by AP’s Ron
Fournier: “President Bush was an easy
target. Too easy for eight presidential
candidates who railed, in harmony, against
White House policies in Thursday night's
debate. In doing so, they failed to
distinguish themselves from each other. Their
hands-off approach may have best served Howard
Dean, the former Vermont governor who left the
debate relatively unscathed and still the
party's presidential front-runner. ‘Dean
kept his shine on,’ said Democratic strategist
Donna Brazile who managed Al Gore's
2000 presidential campaign. ‘Nobody took any
of the gloss from the type of message and the
type of campaign he's been running.’ Joe
Lieberman tried. The Connecticut senator
accused Dean of pressing for fair trade
standards that would scuttle existing treaties
and cost millions of jobs. ‘If that ever
happened, I'd say the Bush recession would be
followed by the Dean depression,’
Lieberman said. It was the type of shot
Democratic activists had expected since Dean
surged this summer to the head of the
nine-candidate field. A day before the
first major debate of the 2004 campaign, New
Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson spoke for the
entire party when he predicted verbal
‘fireworks.’ But there was more fizzle than
fireworks. Democrats targeted Bush, not
each other. Sen. John Kerry of
Massachusetts accused the president of a
‘failure of leadership’ in the world.
Lieberman said Bush has been a ‘powerful
failure’ on the economy. Sen. John Edwards
of North Carolina and Dean accused Bush of
refusing to tell the truth about the conflict
in Iraq -- both its costs and risks. But
voters already knew that the Democrats don't
like the president; they learned nothing new
Thursday night about why they should favor one
candidate over another. The campaigns are
unsure how to respond to Dean's rise. Some
strategists fear the former Vermont governor
will pull away with the nomination unless he
is confronted. Others worry that
aggressive tactics will make their candidates
look mean while firing up Dean's
backers. That may be why the most pointed
criticism came outside the University of New
Mexico's Popejoy Hall - in press releases
distributed by campaign aides and in
post-debate interviews. Away from the debate
spotlight, Lieberman said he would have
criticized more Dean policies if given the
opportunity during the 90-minute debate.
Arguments over strategies to confront Dean
have deeply divided Kerry's campaign.
The senator has criticized his own staff while
promising there will be no shake-ups. His
wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, complained publicly
that the campaign waited too long to air its
first television ads. ‘They all have to be
careful’ about attacking each other, said
Kathleen Sullivan, head of the Democratic
Party in New Hampshire. ‘Their job tonight was
to introduce themselves to voters.’…’I
don't think anybody had to win or lose tonight
- and nobody did.’” (9/5/2003)
… Debate
coverage: “Democrats Focus Fire on Bush…Eight
hopefuls save their harshest criticism for his
policies on the war and economy. Trade is one
of the few issues to divide the rivals in the
debate.” – headline from this morning’s Los
Angeles Times. Excerpt from report by the
Times’ Mark Z. Barabak: “Eight of the nine
Democratic presidential hopefuls ganged up on
President Bush on Thursday night, lashing at
his policies on issues ranging from jobs to
Iraq while generally steering clear of attacks
on each other. Former Vermont Gov. Howard
Dean, who has surged to front-runner
status in the race, came away from the
90-minute debate largely unscathed, as rivals
mentioned their differences mostly in passing.
The forum's format did not give each candidate
the chance to answer every question, which
also made it more difficult to draw contrasts
or confront one another. One of the few
sharp exchanges came roughly midway through
the question-and-answer session, which took
place at the University of New Mexico. At
issue was trade. Sen. Joe Lieberman of
Connecticut said Dean's recent
statements in a Washington Post article that
U.S. trading partners should meet tough
American standards on working conditions and
environmental protections ‘would cost us
millions of jobs.’…Dean, who has come under
criticism for altering some of his stances as
his support has grown, responded that he
believed trade partners should meet
international standards, not necessarily the
tougher U.S. requirements. ‘That's a
reassuring change of position,’ Lieberman
shot back. The debate, broadcast live on
public television, brought together all but
one of the candidates for the Democratic
nomination. The Rev. Al Sharpton missed
the debate when bad weather in New York
thwarted his travel plans. While the
candidates have shared the stage several times
before, the forum came at a particularly
significant point in the Democratic race — it
was the first such event since Dean emerged as
the pacesetter in fund-raising and the leader
in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, sites of
the crucial early contests in the nominating
process. These developments had raised
expectations that many of Dean's rivals
would target him for criticism, but that did
not occur. During the debate, several of the
questions were posed in both English and
Spanish, and a handful of the candidates —
Dean, Lieberman and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of
Ohio — sprinkled in a few Spanish phrases
of their own, with varying success. Sen. John
Edwards of North Carolina drew one of
the night's biggest laughs when he mocked
Bush's habit of speaking Spanish to Latino
audiences around the country. ‘The only
Spanish he speaks when it comes to jobs is
Hasta la vista.’ Edwards said, using a
phrase associated with actor and California
gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Edwards cracked himself up; even Dean grew
a bit red-faced from laughing. Bush came
under frequent and withering attack, starting
with his foreign policy, which has long
figured to be his strongest suit in seeking
reelection. Fully a third of the debate was
devoted to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the
turbulent postwar rebuilding effort there.
The war has deeply divided the Democratic
field. Dean's relentless criticism of the war
was key to propelling him to the front of the
pack, ahead of Edwards, Lieberman, Rep.
Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. John
F. Kerry of Massachusetts, all of whom voted
in Congress to support the use of force
against Iraq. Dean on Thursday
mentioned his opposition to the war, but just
in passing. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida
noted his vote against last fall's resolution
authorizing the war, as did Kucinich,
who called for the immediate withdrawal of
U.S. troops from Iraq. For the most part,
though, the candidates found a consensus in
bashing Bush, saying the administration should
have worked more closely with other countries
long before it announced this week that it
wanted more help from the United Nations in
trying to stabilize Iraq.”(9/5/2003)
...
GOP & Bush
team working to find solutions to appease
veterans.
Headline from
yesterday’s Washington Post: “GOP Faces
Uprising on Veterans…Compromise Sought on
Retirement and Disability Benefits” Excerpt
from coverage by the Post’s Juliet Eilperin: “Facing
a rebellion in their ranks, House Republican
leaders and Bush administration officials are
working to come up with compromise legislation
to allow hundreds of thousands of veterans to
collect both retirement and disability
benefits. The move -- which could cost the
government several billion dollars a year --
would change how disabled veterans receive
pensions. Under current law, retirees
generally must forfeit a dollar of their
military pensions for every dollar they
receive from the Veterans Administration in
disability compensation. Lawmakers and the
administration came up with a compromise last
year in the fiscal 2003 defense authorization
bill that provided special compensation equal
to the amount of retirement pay forfeited
because of the disability compensation,
allowing ‘concurrent receipt’ of benefits. But
the compromise applied to only a limited
number of disabled retirees. Veterans
groups have lobbied hard to give the full
benefits to all disabled military retirees.
Pentagon officials have countered that they
cannot afford to provide more generous
benefits. The Defense Department spends
more than $35 billion a year on military
pension and health care benefits. More than a
quarter, or 550,000, of 2 million military
retirees a year collect disability benefits,
according to the Military Officers Association
of America. Any compromise GOP proposal
would likely cover a significant portion, but
not all, of the disabled retirees. Members
of Congress have come under intense political
pressure to accommodate the needs of retired
veterans. House Republicans were deluged with
questions on the issue last month, according
to aides…House Democrats have also put the
squeeze on GOP leaders, introducing a
‘discharge petition’ that would force a vote
on the issue if 218 members sign the measure.
They are 16 votes shy of bringing a full
concurrent receipt bill to the floor, and
several Republicans have threatened to sign
the petition if their leadership does not act
soon.” (9/7/2003)
… Zogby
America poll -- released yesterday -- shows
GWB numbers lowest since he took office, Dean
leading Dem wannabes, Gephardt slipping to
fourth – but nearly two-thirds of likely Dem
voters still expect Bush to be re-elected.
Excerpt from Zogby America news release: “President
George W. Bush’s job performance ratings have
reached the lowest point since his
pre-Inauguration days, continuing a steady
decline since a post-9/11 peak, according
to a new Zogby America poll of 1,013 likely
voters conducted September 3-5. Less than
half (45%) of the respondents said they rated
his job performance good or excellent, while a
majority (54%) said it was fair or poor.
In August Zogby International polling, his
rating was 52% positive, 48% negative.
Today’s results mark the first time a majority
of likely voters have given the president an
unfavorable job performance rating since he
took office. A majority (52%) said it’s
time for someone new in the White House, while
just two in five (40%) said the president
deserves to be re-elected. Last month,
45% said re-election was in order, and 48%
said it was time for someone new. A like
number (52%) said the country is heading in
the wrong direction, while 40% said it is the
right direction. Overall opinion of
President Bush has also slipped to 54%
favorable – 45% unfavorable, compared to
August polling which indicated 58% favorable,
40% unfavorable. Just two in five (40%) said
they would choose Bush if the election were
held today, while 47% said they would elect a
Democratic candidate. In August polling,
respondents were split (43% each) over
President Bush or any Democratic challenger.
In the same poll, likely Democratic primary
voters give a plurality of their support to
former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean (16%),
whose campaign has been gathering support in
recent polling. He is followed by
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry (13%),
Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman (12%),
and Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt
(8%). No other candidate polled more than 3%.
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of the likely
Democratic primary voters said it is somewhat
or very likely that President Bush will be
re-elected in November 2004, regardless of how
they intend to vote. The Zogby America poll
involved 1,013 likely voters selected randomly
from throughout the 48 contiguous states using
listed residential telephone numbers. Polling
was conducted from Zogby International’s Call
Center in Utica, NY. The poll has a margin of
sampling error of +/- 3.2%. The Democratic
candidates’ portion of the poll involved 507
respondents, and has a margin of error of +/-
4.5%.”(9/7/2003)
… CNN/Time
poll analysis poses THE question of THE
campaign -- Can any Democrat beat
President Bush in 2004? Headline on
analysis by CNN’s Keating Holland: “Bush
election win no sure thing” – just 29%
now say they will “definitely” vote for GWB.
Excerpt: “Can any Democrat beat President Bush
in 2004? Only 38 percent of all Americans
think so, and Bush leads any of the active
presidential candidates in hypothetical
head-to-head match-ups. But don't write off
the 2004 election just yet. Some 41 percent of
all registered voters say they will definitely
vote against Bush; just 29 percent say they
will definitely vote for him. So Bush must
woo about seven in ten swing voters -- not a
difficult task for a popular incumbent, but
far from a certainty. Who will the Democrats
throw into the ring against Bush in 2004?
National polls are traditionally unreliable at
predicting the eventual nominee at this stage
of the game. It looks like Massachusetts
Senator John Kerry is benefiting from an
‘announcement bounce,’ gaining support as a
result of this week's carefully choreographed
appearance in front of an aircraft carrier in
South Carolina to announce, yet again, that he
is running for president. We have seen
these ‘announcement bounces’ before (and seen
how ephemeral they are); nonetheless, this
particular bounce is enough to put Kerry at
the top of the list with 16 percent of all
registered Democrats to 13 percent for Joe
Lieberman and 11 percent for Howard Dean.
Dick Gephardt has dropped back into
single digits with 7 percent, putting him in a
tie for fourth place with John Edwards.”
(9/7/2003)
Novak reports on the Lugar Factor.
Excerpt – under the subhead “Bush’s
GOP critic”
– from Bob Novak’s column in today’s Chicago
Sun-Times:
“Cautiously
critical comments last Sunday by Sen. Richard
Lugar about the Bush administration's handling
of Iraq were enough to impel National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice to schedule a special
one-on-one meeting with the Republican
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.
Rice had a meeting set with the full
committee, but she wanted to meet alone with
the prestigious Lugar. He has kept to himself
many misgivings about the Defense Department's
performance in Iraq, but went further last
weekend on ‘Fox News Sunday.’
He called on President Bush to propose a
five-year plan for Iraq and criticized the
Pentagon for being ‘very, very reticent’ to
request more money.
Republican operatives were alarmed by Lugar
joining maverick Republican Sen. John McCain
in calling on the administration to be more
explicit about what's needed in Iraq. White
House aides worry about Lugar getting too
close to McCain and the senior Democrat on the
Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joseph Biden.”(9/8/2003)
“Some
Florida Democrats Losing Enthusiasm for
Rematch With Bush” – headline on Ronald
Brownstein’s column in Sunday’s Los Angeles
Times. An excerpt from Brownstein’s analysis:
“No Democrats anywhere have been
anticipating a rematch with President Bush
more eagerly than those in Florida, the state
whose bitterly contested vote
finally decided the White
House race three years ago. But now that the
2004 campaign is gearing up, some Florida
Democrats are concerned that none of their
party's potential nominees are up to the job
of defeating the president in a state where
his younger brother, Jeb Bush, won a landslide
reelection as governor just 10 months ago.
‘They really have to get their act together,
and they don't seem to have their act
together,’ said Catherine McNaught after she
joined others at a gathering organized by the
state party to watch last week's nationally
televised debate among the Democratic
candidates. ‘Jeb is big down here; he's huge
... and I don't see that we have anybody
stepping up to the plate.’ All signs suggest
that Florida once again will play a pivotal
role in the presidential election. Karl Rove,
Bush's chief political strategist, has already
described it as ‘ground zero’ for 2004.
Given the president's continuing strength in
the South, the Mountain West and the Plains
states, many strategists in both parties
believe it could be almost impossible for the
eventual Democratic nominee to win an
electoral college majority without capturing
Florida. But, in what's looming as a major
challenge for Democrats, Bush looks much
stronger in the state than he did in 2000,
when Florida symbolized the nation's 50-50
partisan divide. Florida's underlying
demographic and partisan balance makes it too
close for either party to view it as safe in
next year's election. But when Bush visits
Jacksonville and Fort Lauderdale on Tuesday,
he will arrive in a state where all the key
indicators show Republicans gaining strength
and Democrats struggling to keep pace.
‘Florida is becoming an increasingly more
Republican state,’ said Bob Buckhorn, a
longtime Democratic activist from Tampa. ‘We
start light-years behind the Republicans in
terms of our fund-raising ability, our farm
team and the technical apparatus to make this
thing work. We are in a rebuilding phase, no
question about it.’ The party's prospects
would immediately improve if Sen. Bob Graham,
one of the state's most popular politicians,
succeeded in his bid for the Democratic
presidential nomination. But his campaign has
so far drawn little support.”(9/9/2003)
… The Hispanic
“litmus test” – will Bush relax policy on
amnesty for illegal aliens” The Dem hopefuls
at the New Mexico debate all support amnesty,
increasing the pressure on the White House.
Headline from yesterday’s Washington
Times: “Democrats embrace amnesty for
illegals” Coverage – excerpted – from
report by the Times’ Stephen Dinan: “All
eight of the Democratic presidential
contenders at Thursday's debate embraced
amnesty for illegal aliens now in the United
States, pushing the issue onto the national
stage for the presidential contest. In a
debate specifically designed to showcase the
candidates for Hispanic voters who were
increasingly intrigued by President Bush's
outreach in 2000 and 2001, the Democrats went
on record in support of amnesty, a
high-profile issue in that community…All of
the candidates agreed that a form of amnesty
is necessary for some or all of the estimated
9 million illegal immigrants living and
working in the United States already. ‘I
believe we have to change it. It's a matter of
human rights, a matter of civil right, a
matter of fairness to Americans. It's
essential to have immigration reform,’ said
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who said
he wants instant citizenship for those who
have lived in the United States for about five
years. Among the others, Rep. Richard A.
Gephardt of Missouri introduced a bill
a year ago to grant legal status to those who
have lived in the United States for five years
and worked for two, and Sen. Joe Lieberman
of Connecticut introduced his own immigration
proposal earlier this week to promote
legalization, a guest-worker program and
increased due process for immigration
applicants. All of the candidates present
spoke about the contributions of immigrants
and criticized the Bush administration, which
had been working on a broad legalization
accord before the September 11 terrorist
attacks, for not having returned to the
issue. Mr. [Frank] Sharry, executive director
of the National Immigration Forum, said the
pressure is now on Mr. Bush. ‘It sets up
an interesting political dynamic. Will the
Bush administration decide they have to do
something before 2004?’ Mr. Sharry said. ‘Will
they decide they'd rather disappoint Latinos
and Catholics and some of their business
supporters, or divide and anger some in the
populist base that think there's too many
immigrants already?’ But Roy Beck,
executive director of Numbers USA, which
lobbies for immigration limits and a crackdown
on illegal immigrants, said the Democrats have
staked out a position at odds with what's best
for average workers. ‘It's the abandonment
of the American worker. It's an astounding
development for the Democratic Party — the
national leaders — to abandon the American
worker like this,’ Mr. Beck said. ‘They've
done something I didn't think was possible.
They're going to make Bush seem very moderate
and pro-worker,’ he said. Polls show a
majority of Americans oppose amnesties, while
a plurality would go even further and begin to
reduce legal immigration. But amnesties or
‘normalization’ of illegal immigrants' status
polls well among Hispanics. One poll last
month from Raul Damas, a Republican pollster,
found that 83 percent of registered Hispanic
voters support legalization. ‘Immigration
has now become a litmus test for Hispanic
voters,’ Mr. Damas said, who added that
kind of support among Hispanics has allowed
Democrats to abuse the issue. He said
Republicans must counter by putting forth
sensible plans that couch immigration reform
as a national-security issue.”(9/8/2003)
… “Democratic
hopefuls debate, attack Bush on war policy,
spending” – headline from this morning’s
Chicago Tribune. Excerpt from coverage of last
night’s debate in Baltimore: “Two days
before the second anniversary of the brutal
attacks that solidified President Bush's
credibility and trust as a national leader,
the Democrats fighting for his seat in the
White House blamed the administration Tuesday
night for abandoning the war against terrorism
and failing to win the peace in Iraq. In
their second debate of the fall campaign, the
party's nine presidential candidates delivered
broad, harsh critiques of Bush's approach to
foreign policy in Iraq and throughout the
Middle East, while questioning whether the
U.S. could afford to spend $87 billion
stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. The
acrimonious remarks, unthinkable two years
ago, underscored the notion that the political
stage is again level and a bitterly
competitive 2004 presidential primary and
general election campaign awaits. ‘They
promised us bin Laden. We are almost at the
second anniversary. Where is bin Laden?’
demanded civil rights activist Al Sharpton,
referring to Osama bin Laden, the mastermind
of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ‘That's what
we need to ask George Bush.’ The Democratic
presidential contenders, in a 90-minute debate
at Morgan State University here, also took new
shots at one another as they sought to
distinguish their own candidacies four months
before the primary election season begins.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
accused Howard Dean, the former Vermont
governor who has ascended to the top of the
field, of turning his back on Israel and
accused him of wanting to reverse a
half-century of U.S. policy there. In a sharp
rebuttal, Dean said he held the same views as
former President Bill Clinton and rebuked
Lieberman. ‘It doesn't help, Joe, to
demagogue this issue,’ said Dean, who
last week drew fire when he said the U.S.
should not take sides in the region. ‘We're
all Democrats. We need to beat George Bush so
we can have peace in the Middle East.’ Rep.
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, one of two
presidential candidates in Congress who voted
against the war, blamed Rep. Richard Gephardt
of Missouri for failing to stand up to Bush
before the president launched the strike on
Iraq. ‘When you were standing there in the
Rose Garden with the president and you were
giving him advice, I wish that you would have
told him no,’ said Kucinich, whose
remarks were heavily applauded by the
Democratic audience. "Your position helped to
inform mightily the direction of the war."
Gephardt, who has become critical of the
war, said: ‘This president's foreign policy is
a miserable failure.’ Sen. Bob Graham of
Florida, the other candidate who voted against
the war, waved a copy of the congressional war
resolution in his hand as he reminded fellow
Democrats that they are partly responsible for
the precarious military state in Iraq.
‘Those who voted for that gave the president a
blank check,’ Graham said. ‘We cannot
trust this president with a blank check.’ Sen.
John Kerry of Massachusetts defended
his support of the resolution, saying ‘it was
the right vote’ because the fear of weapons of
mass destruction in the hands of Saddam
Hussein was too great a risk to ignore. But
Kerry said the administration has blundered in
its handling of postwar Iraq and said he
opposed sending more American forces into the
country.”(9/10/2003)
… “Bush’s
Worst Nightmare?” – headline on
Howard Kurtz’ media column yesterday on
washingtonpost.com. Excerpt from Kurtz’
column: “Even Howard Dean's detractors now
believe he's for real. Real as in: Scoff all
you want, this guy actually could be
president. The good doctor's media
treatment has gone through several distinct
phases. First he was the colorful gadfly who
had no chance of winning the nomination but
was getting plenty of press. Then he was the
serious threat who was suddenly raising
truckloads of cash through some kind of
Internet alchemy. Then he was magically
declared the front-runner, but one who,
critics said, would lead the Democrats to an
'04 defeat of McGovern or Mondale proportions.
Now even some conservatives are saying: watch
out. And there's a Web site called Republicans
for Dean. The new perspective may be
driven in part by Bush's declining popularity
(45 percent, says Zogby) as Iraq turns from
glorious victory to albatross. But it also
reflects a realization that Howard III is hard
to pigeonhole as an unabashed lefty. Yes,
he was against the war, wants to roll back the
Bush tax cuts and approved gay civil unions in
Vermont. But he also governed as a fiscal
conservative, won business support and got
high marks from the NRA. I don't know
whether Dean is a nimble enough politician to
broaden his appeal from angry underdog to
potential commander-in-chief. You saw
signs of that in the New Mexico debate, when
he stressed that he supported the Persian Gulf
and Afghanistan wars rather than harping on
his opposition to the Iraq invasion. As I
noted Sunday in a Washington Post story,
Dean's advertising has been all
issue-driven, as opposed to the biographical
spots that Edwards and Gephardt
are running. Dean rarely talks about his
background, or his wife (who doesn't do the
campaign thing) or the death of his brother.
But at some point he will have to give the
public more of a peek into his persona, if
only because modern campaigning seems to
require that.”(9/10/2003)
… “Democrats
court union with anti-Bush themes” –
headline from yesterday’s Washington Times.
Excerpt from coverage by the Times Stephen
Dinan: “The Democrats seeking the
presidency tried to win approval of the
nation's largest and fastest-growing union
yesterday by portraying President Bush as the
worst option for union members and for the
nation as a whole. ‘This president is the
worst president of the five I have served
with,’ Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of
Missouri told the Service Employees
International Union. ‘He's done a terrible
job. He's wrecking the country. He's a
miserable failure.’ Meanwhile, former
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean criticized the
president for opposing the University of
Michigan's undergraduate and law school
affirmative action programs, and particularly
objected to Mr. Bush's characterization of
them as quota programs. ‘This president played
the race card, and for that alone he deserves
to go back to Crawford, Texas,’ Mr. Dean
said. The campaign for the Democratic
nomination for president is heating up after a
slow summer…The SEIU was a welcoming
audience for Mr. Dean, Mr. Gephardt and six
other candidates seeking the Democratic
nomination for president in 2004 to try out
new one-liners and refine others already used.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida did not attend. The
1,500 members attending their political action
conference at the Washington Hilton cheered
wildly at every critique of Bush policy from
Iraq to health care to the economy. Sen.
John Kerry of Massachusetts said the
president's economic philosophy is failing for
working-class and middle-class
families. ‘They're tired of being trickled on
by George W. Bush,’ Mr. Kerry said. Mr.
Dean said he wouldn't impose new taxes but
would go back on the tax cuts Mr. Bush has
pushed through Congress. ‘I think most people
would be happy to pay the taxes they paid when
Bill Clinton was president of the United
States,’ he said. The candidates also made a
particular appeal for their health care plans
because health care workers are a large
portion of the 1.6 million members of the SEIU…In
addition to the SEIU, the Democratic
candidates met privately with leaders from the
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, which is the nation's
second-largest union. The SEIU's leaders
will meet [Wednesday] to decide whether they
have enough information to make an
endorsement. SEIU President Andrew Stern
said the union has committed 2,004 members to
work full time on politics for the nine months
leading up to the November 2004 election, and
plans to have 50,000 members volunteer to make
phone calls and campaign door to door.”
(9/10/2003)
“Bush
campaign ignores broad sides of opponents”
– headline from yesterday’s Washington Times.
Coverage – an excerpt – from the Times’ Bill
Sammon: “The White House yesterday
shrugged off increasingly sharp criticism from
Democratic presidential candidates, chalking
it up to politics even as other Republicans
branded it ‘hate speech.’…’There's a lot
of talk about politics these days,’ said Mr.
Bush at the first of two Florida fund-raisers
for his re-election campaign. ‘And I'm
loosening up. I'm getting ready. The truth of
the matter is, the political season will come
in its own time. I've got a job to do. I've
got to do the people's work, the people's
business.’ White House Press Secretary Scott
McClellan agreed. ‘We recognize there's a
Democratic primary going on,’ he said in
response to questions from The Washington
Times aboard Air Force One. ‘That's politics.’ During
a Democratic presidential debate last week,
Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt
repeatedly denounced the president as a
‘miserable failure.’ Republican National
Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said this and
other broadsides by Democratic candidates
bordered on ‘hate speech.’ But the White
House is trying to remain above the fray for
as long as possible to keep Mr. Bush looking
presidential. Mr. McClellan even demurred
from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's
assertion that criticism of the president is
giving comfort to America's enemies…But the
White House refrained from going on the
offensive against Democrats who have called
for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. Mr. McClellan
contented himself with proclaiming the
president's confidence in the defense
secretary. ‘Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a
terrific job,’ he said. ‘He shares the
president's strong commitment to confronting
the new threats we face before they reach our
shores.’ The president did not mention his
Democratic detractors during the fund-raisers
in Jacksonville and Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
which netted $2.8 million for his re-election
campaign. But he made clear he intends to
vanquish the political opposition. ‘Today,
we're laying the groundwork for what is going
to be a great national victory in November of
2004,’ he said to thunderous applause in
Jacksonville.” (9/11/2003)
… American
Muslim poll released on 2nd
anniversary of 9/11 shows that only 2% would
vote for Bush re-election, only 3% believe GOP
represents their interests. Under the
subhead “Muslim politics,” John
McCaslin reported in his “Inside the Beltway”
column in today’s Washington Times:
“On
the second anniversary of the September 11
attacks, the Washington-based Council on
American-Islamic Relations has released a poll
that, among other things, reflects American
Muslim political views. Suffice it to say the
majority aren't in George W. Bush's camp. Only
2 percent said they would vote for President
Bush. One in 10 Muslim respondents say they
support the president's Iraq policy. Asked
which 2004 presidential candidate would get
their vote, American Muslims (a large majority
of whom vote in presidential elections) from
41 states favor former Vermont Gov. Howard
Dean (26 percent), followed by Rep. Dennis J.
Kucinich of Ohio (11 percent), Sen. John Kerry
of Massachusetts (7 percent) and former Sen.
Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois (6 percent).
When asked to name the political party
that best represents the interests of the
American Muslim community, far more
respondents named the Democratic Party (27
percent) and Green Party (25 percent) than the
Republican Party (3 percent). As for the
television news outlet that most fairly
provides coverage of Islam and Muslims,
taxpayer-supported PBS topped the list. The
Fox News Channel exhibits the most biased
coverage, according to those polled.”
(9/11/2003)
… “Draft Gore: Gore in
Statistical Dead Heat with Bush, Leads All
Democrats” – headline this morning on U.
S. Newswire report. Excerpt: “For the first
time since the 2000 elections, a major poll
shows the country split evenly between former
Vice President Al Gore and President Bush. The
same poll also shows that half the voters in
America have not forgotten the controversy of
the 2000 election. The results of the
Sept. 5-9 Zogby poll show Bush with less than
majority support and only with the narrowest
of margins over Al Gore, 48 percent to 46
percent -- a difference that's within the
poll's margin of error (3.2 percent).
Moreover, Gore leads Bush among independent
voters by 47 percent to 43 percent. ‘More
than two and a half years after the 2000
election and we are back where we started,’
said pollster John Zogby. ‘The country was
evenly divided then and it is still evenly
divided.’ The poll, conducted on Sept. 5-9 by
Zogby International for Draft Gore (draftgore.com),
also shows Gore easily leading all major
contenders for the Democratic nomination with
24 percent compared to 16 percent for Dean, 12
percent for Lieberman, 11 percent for Kerry, 7
percent for Gephardt, and 2 percent for
Edwards.” (9/12/2003)
… “Public
Says $87 Billion Too Much” – headline from this
morning’s Washington Post. The good news,
however, is that GWB’s numbers are still high – and
he even beats the “generic” Democratic nominee.
Excerpt from report by the Post’s Richard Morin &
Dan Balz: “A majority of Americans disapprove of
President Bush's request to Congress for an
additional $87 billion to fund military and
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan over
the next year, amid growing doubts about the
administration's policies at home and abroad,
according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Six in 10 Americans said they do not support the
proposal, which the president first announced in
his nationally televised address last Sunday night.
That marks the most significant public rejection
of a Bush initiative on national security or
terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In a
second rebuff to the administration, more Americans
said that, if Congress decides to approve the
additional money, lawmakers should roll back the
president's tax cuts to pay for the increased
spending, rather than add to the federal budget
deficit or cut government spending. The survey
findings send a clear signal that many Americans are
unwilling to give the administration a blank check
on peacekeeping efforts in Iraq, despite continued
strong backing for Bush's decision to go to war and
public support for staying there to help stabilize
and rebuild that nation. The president's overall
job approval rating remains stable and relatively
strong, a reflection of broad confidence in his
leadership despite increasing concerns about his
policies. Fifty-eight percent approve of the job he
is doing as president, while 40 percent disapprove.
Bush's approval ratings on the war against terrorism
and homeland security also remain strong. But on
many domestic issues, he has fallen to the lowest
point of his presidency, from his handling of the
economy and health care to the federal budget.
Declining approval ratings on important issues
suggest that the president may be vulnerable in his
bid for reelection next year. Matched against a
generic Democrat, the poll found Bush at 49 percent
and a Democratic nominee at 44 percent. However,
when pitted against any of several Democratic
candidates running for their party's nomination,
Bush is the clear choice. None of the Democratic
candidates has emerged as a significant challenger
and, according to the poll, Bush comfortably leads
all four tested, generally by a margin of about 15
percentage points. At this early stage of the
campaign, few of these candidates' positions are
widely known to the public.” (9/14/2003)
… “Democrats Find
Some Traction on Capitol Hill” – headline from
yesterday’s New York Times. Excerpt from report by
the Times’ Sheryl Gay Stolberg: “With President Bush
on the defensive over his handling of postwar Iraq,
Democrats on Capitol Hill have been scoring a few
victories in the Republican-controlled Congress,
gaining a measure of political momentum that they
hope will grow more pronounced as the 2004 elections
draw nearer. This week, Senate Democrats won
votes on such pocketbook issues as overtime pay and
student aid, as well as financing for special
education. Last week, their long-running filibuster
forced an appeals court nominee, Miguel Estrada, to
withdraw. Next week, they are expected to prevail
in a Senate vote to repeal new rules, backed by the
White House, that would enable large media
conglomerates to expand. Political analysts and
Democrats say it is no coincidence that the recent
gains on overtime and student aid came in the same
week that President Bush announced he was requesting
$87 billion for postwar Iraq, an announcement
followed by a drop in Mr. Bush's approval rating.
Some say the numbers have emboldened Democrats and
made Republicans, especially those up for
re-election, more likely to break ranks with their
party and the president. ‘The president is
losing some of his popularity,’ said Senator Harry
Reid of Nevada, the Democratic whip. Of
Republicans, Mr. Reid said: ‘They no longer feel
that he can be a dictator. They no longer feel that
he is King George. He is President George now.’
Republicans, of course, are hardly relinquishing
control on Capitol Hill. This week, they shut
Democrats out of talks designed to reach an
agreement between the House and Senate on a new
energy bill. Senators Bill Frist of Tennessee, the
Republican leader, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,
the Republican whip, played down the Democrats'
recent gains. ‘We like to let them win one
occasionally to keep their morale up,’ Senator
McConnell said, adding that Republican unity was not
cracking. ‘My response,’ he said, "is: Prove it.
There's no evidence." Dr. Frist called the
Democrats' gains ‘isolated victories.’ But some
scholars and political strategists, both Democrat
and Republican, say Democrats have succeeded in
taking advantage of the limited muscle they have.
News from Iraq, combined with the increasing federal
deficit, high unemployment and recent polls on Mr.
Bush ‘have caused Republicans to get a little
wobbly,’ one Republican strategist said. He added,
"It feels like the wheels are starting to fall off a
little." The polls have been running in the
Democrats' favor. A Gallup poll, conducted after Mr.
Bush's speech on Iraq and released on Thursday,
found his approval rating at 52 percent, down from
59 percent at the end of August. And a recent
poll by the Senate Republican Conference, released
this week, found voters preferred Democratic Senate
candidates to Republicans by 46 percent to 40
percent. The margin of sampling error in both polls
was plus or minus three percentage points.”
(9/14/2003)
…
DNC chief McAuliffe – like some of the Dem wannabes
– criticized the White House on 9/11. Under the
subhead “Vitriol patrol,” Jennifer Harper
reported in Friday’s “Inside Politics” column in the
Washington Times: “Democratic National Committee
(DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe was openly critical
of the White House on the second anniversary of
September 11. In a statement posted yesterday at
the DNC Web site, www.democrats.org, Mr. McAuliffe
said: ‘From the bogus statements in the State of
the Union, to exaggerated claims about aluminum
tubes to the latest revelations about drones, the
Bush administration seems to have engaged in a
pattern of deception in their manipulation of
intelligence.’ The statement continues: ‘With
every story of the Bush administration politicizing
intelligence, America loses credibility with the
rest of the world.’ According to an account in
the Denver Post yesterday, Mr. McAuliffe also told
reporters that Mr. Bush made ‘absolutely ludicrous
and insane statements’ that endangered U.S. troops
in Iraq. He also urged the president to ‘go tell the
parents’ of Americans killed in Iraq why it was
necessary to say ‘mission accomplished’ when Iraq
was not yet secure. ‘These harsh, bitter personal
attacks are unprecedented in the history of
presidential politics,’ said Republican National
Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson. ‘They
continue to seek a new low in presidential
discourse.’”
(9/14/2003)
“Bush poll
ratings flagging” – Headline on column by Noelle
Straub in today’s
BostonHerald.com. Excerpt: “Two years after the
country rallied around President Bush in the wake of
the devastating Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he no
longer can rely on that surge of patriotism to boost
his political fortunes, polls are showing. Bush's
job approval rating soared to 90 percent after the
attacks, but fell last week close to the lowest
levels of his presidency, to between 52 and 58
percent in several national polls. ``I think we
are back to where we were before Sept. 11 as far as
the president's standing is concerned,'' said Thomas
Mann, an expert on politics at the Brookings
Institution. ``After two years, I don't think there
remains any rally effect, any political advantage to
the president by virtue of our patriotic reaction.''
Mann noted that Bush's approval rating has been
falling ``on a fairly steady basis'' since the Iraqi
war began and continued dropping last week despite
Bush's speech to the nation defending his war
planning. … “Those problems on the ground (in Iraq)
have now led the (Democratic) opposition to begin to
speak out in a very critical way.'' Allan J.
Lichtman, professor of history at American
University, noted that Bush's job approval rating is
shored up by support for foreign policy and that the
president scores much lower on his handling of the
economy. ``He'll obviously try to play up whatever
patriotic feeling he can to shore up his poll
numbers,'' Lichtman said. ``It's obviously
not going to be as effective as it once was.'' If
another terrorist attack were to occur on American
soil before the 2004 election, most political
analysts say it's impossible to predict whether
voters would unite around Bush again or if they
would blame him for failing to do enough to protect
the homeland. ``That's the $64,000 question,''
Lichtman said, adding that it would depend on the
severity and type of attack. ``It either could be
the ruination of Bush or his salvation.''
(9/15/2003)
Bush
main page
Homepage
top
of page
|