IPW Daily Report – Friday, January 30, 2004

* QUOTABLE:

“What’s Dean’s new mantra? Leaner and meaner? Perhaps more apt would be, ‘boasted and toasted.’” – Iowa Presidential Watch.

"This race is about the next seven weeks, not the next seven states. We will not let the pundits call this race, the people will, and that means this race comes down to winning delegates. Today, Howard Dean is winning the nomination fight with 114 of the delegates." -- Dean campaign memo.

“But make no mistake about it; this upcoming election is about what kind of America we’ll live in, what kind of choices we will have, and what kind of government will have its way over us,” said Hillary Clinton.

"Republicans are scared stiff," Kerry said. "That's why they are sending their attack dogs out. It isn't going to work, I'm a fighter."

A sign in Columbia, South Carolina: "Kerry or Edwards or Dean or Bubba -- just anybody but Bush."

“But, in many ways, I think that we can't allow the distortion, because Mr. Bush and some of his crowd have said they represent a Christian view against the Islamic. And I don't think Christ could join most of their churches,” said Al Sharpton.

* TODAY’S OFFERINGS:

John Kerry:
*Still on a roll *Donations pour in *Newest endorsements

Howard Dean:
*Dot bomb?

John Edwards:
*A fix for job losses *Fattah endorses *Patterson endorses

Wesley Clark:
*Disobeys own orders *On the website

Just Politics:
*Poll Watching *Dubya is first to file

Hillary:
*Framing the battle

 * CANDIDATES & CAUCUSES:

Kerry still on a roll

Sen. John Kerry is shown moving ahead in Missouri and Arizona in Zogby polls. He is continuing to target veterans, Kerry and Sen. Fritz Hollings, former Sen. Max Cleland, and a former Kerry crew member will join him for a S. Carolina town hall meeting. The campaign calls its veterans outreach the "veterans brigade," and that it's more effective when veterans call other veterans, rather than have civilians call. It is what Kerry first patented in Iowa.

Kerry responded to the Republican National Committee’s attack on him with his characteristic bring it on.

"It's the greatest form of flattery -- bring it on. Let's have this debate. I have voted for the largest defense budgets in the history of this country. I have voted for all the biggest weapons systems. Unfortunately these people haven't met a weapons system they don't like. I have... That's the debate I want to have. That's precisely the strength I bring. I don't think they are doing the best job of making America safe. I want them to know that I'm a fighter -- I'm someone who says what I mean and means what I say. I have a 35-year record of standing up and fighting against special interests in this country...," said Kerry.

The Debate coverage of the debate was almost uniform in expressing that Howard Dean was more subdued than in the past. Most expressed the fact that Dean did not challenge Sen. John Kerry until late into the debate when he challenged him on his 11 bills on health care that never became law.

The person who delivered the most damning attack was Sen. John Edwards against President Bush by questioning if Bush can walk and chew gum at the same time:

I think the problem here is the administration is not doing the things, number one, that need to be done to keep this country safe, both here and abroad.

And number two, the president actually has to be able to do two things at once. This president thinks his presidency is only about the war on terrorism, only about national security. Those things are critical for a commander in chief. The president of the United States has to actually be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time, has to be able to do two things at the same time.

Kerry donations pour in

The Associated Press says John Kerry's lead dog position in the Democratic Presidential Nomination race is giving him big pull with the donors. It seems like only yesterday when we learned of Kerry’s taking out a $6 million mortgage to finance his campaign -- as rival Howard Dean commandeered a monstrous cyber war chest and giddily proclaimed his Declaration of Financial Independence.

– sigh –

Today, “Miracle on 34th Street” Kerry has suddenly found his ‘Santa’; as Howard Dean sits and counts his lumps of coal – his once $41 million  now a mere $5 million. What’s Dean’s new mantra? Leaner and meaner? Perhaps more apt would be, ‘boasted and toasted.’ Even his campaign workers are counting lumps of coal, with a two-week pay loss. And there’s more lumps to come, according the AP story:

When asked whether there would be layoffs as Dean looks to cut costs, a senior official said Dean was serious when he said the campaign would be leaner. The official said that rather than wholesale staff cuts, the campaign would reduce or shift staff as it makes decisions about which primary states to compete in.

Dean is already withholding staff salaries and decided against airing ads in any of the seven states holding delegate contests next Tuesday.

Meanwhile, back at Kerry’s campaign, it’s The Second Coming of Santa. The AP reports he took in more than $500,000 by Internet in 48 hours following his New Hampshire win. That brings his total online dollars to over $1.6 just since the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses.

Newest Kerry endorsements

Prominent South Carolina Official Don Fowler had officially endorsed John Kerry for president. Fowler is the former Democratic National Committee chairman.

The Communications Workers of America (CWA) endorsed John Kerry today on a conference call with CWA President Morton Bahr.

Congressman Kendrick Meek (D-FL) endorsed John Kerry via conference call this morning, citing his strong record of leadership and experience as the primary factors leading to his backing of Kerry.

Dean’s Dot Bomb?

Articles in the Toronto Star and the NY Times are raking over the fading embers of a once hot Howard Dean and his Cyber Campaign. Consensus? Howard Dot Com is a Dot Bomb… here’s an excerpt from the NY Times opinion:

"Howard Dean's implosion calls to mind the fate of too many high-flying dot-com companies in the wake of the 2000-2001 crash. Dr. Dean relished being anointed as the Internet presidential candidate last year, when he was riding high, but now the title is proving disconcertingly prophetic. …Dr. Dean didn't just use the Internet as a tool. His entire message and organization were imbued with an online ethos. Joe Trippi, the recently ousted campaign manager, essentially created the 'Dean.com' brand. Dr. Dean had to ask in a meeting early in the campaign what a blog was ... In retrospect, as at many other dot-coms, the campaign's self-congratulatory buzz and hype masked plenty of serious problems with the business plan. Dr. Dean's volunteers and supporters were like online investors who promoted a company's stock before a single profit -- or vote, in this case."

Edwards ‘fix’ for job losses

Speaking with families in Sumter, South Carolina, Senator John Edwards today outlined his plan to help communities across the country devastated by job loss. In particular, Edwards focused on the need to create jobs in communities losing them, to prevent more jobs from moving overseas, and to oppose military base closings when communities do not get the help they need.

"I understand how job loses impact small communities-they have a domino affect on the entire community from the storeowners to the barbers," Edwards said. "That is why it is so critical for us to have a president who understands-whether it is fighting for fair trade or opposing unfair military base closings-how these decisions impact your lives."

Edwards today outlined his plan to reverse the devastating job loss suffered under George W. Bush. Over the last three years, our nation has lost 2.6 million manufacturing jobs, including almost 46,000 in South Carolina. To help struggling communities, Edwards will:

Overhaul US Trade Policies. Edwards will oppose any trade agreements that fail to include strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards. He will end China’s manipulation of the value of its currency, which gives its industries an unfair advantage, and keep quotas on textiles until China plays by the rules.

Fix the Tax Code to Help American Businesses Compete. Edwards will encourage corporations to create jobs here at home by cutting taxes by 10 percent for companies that produce goods and create jobs within the U.S. He will end tax incentives that give deductions and other special tax breaks to companies that build factories overseas.

Create and Protect Jobs in Hard-Hit Communities. Edwards has opposed new rounds of base closings-known as BRAC (Base Realignment and Closing)-because government has not done nearly enough to help towns devastated by base closings. He will bring venture capital, small business loans, and business expertise to create jobs in struggling communities, and create a Training Works initiative with one goal: to ensure that when people get job training, they are getting training for jobs that exist in their communities.

Increase U.S. Savings And Investment. Edwards will increase national savings by helping regular families save, invest, and get ahead, offering tax credits to match the savings of working families and cut capital gains and dividend taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

"For me, the fight to save these communities is personal," Edwards said. "These are types of towns that I grew up in, and the kinds of towns where my parents still live. The people who live in these communities are the kind of people I grew up with. I will never give up because this is our fight together."

Fattah Endorses Edwards

The Edwards campaign announced today that Congressman Chaka Fattah has officially endorsed Edwards. Fattah will serve as National Honorary Co-Chair of Edwards for President and Senior Advisor on Urban Policy. Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA), a national leader on education policy, today endorsed Senator John Edwards for president of the United States, citing his vision of better schools and a better opportunity for every child.

Grady Patterson endorses Edwards

John Edwards has picked up another presidential endorsement – this time from two-star general and SC State Treasurer Grady Patterson. Excerpt from the press release:

"Senator Edwards has proven that he can win the Democratic nomination," State Treasurer Patterson said. "But most importantly, as a native of a South Carolina mill town, he understands the plight of hard-working South Carolinians. As president, I know he will be an advocate for the working-class people in South Carolina, because those are the people he grew up with, and those are the people he cares about."

Patterson is a native of Abbeville County, South Carolina, and has served as South Carolina's State Treasurer for 35 years. Patterson is the longest serving Democratic Constitutional officer in South Carolina.

Patterson served America as a fighter pilot in World War II, flying combat missions from Iwo Jima. Patterson is a former Chief of the South Carolina Air National Guard, receiving the Distinguished Service Medal from the President of the United States for: "...exceptionally meritorious service in a duty of Great Responsibility."

"State Treasurer Patterson's record of service to his country and the people of South Carolina is unparalleled," Edwards said. "He fought bravely for his country in World War II and for the people of South Carolina as Assistant Attorney State General and State Treasurer. He understands what we as Americans can achieve, and knows that to get there we must offer Americans an optimistic vision for the future. I am honored to have him supporting my campaign to create an America that works for all of us."

Clark disobeys orders – his own

Remember Wesley Clark’s defense of Howard Dean regarding the mud slung at him for his past remarks on Medicare? Clark said such stuff was ancient history and didn’t apply to the 2004 presidential race. Raising his ethics banner high, he vowed not to attack his competition for the Democratic nomination. 

Apparently Clark’s ‘I will not attack my rivals’ vow is irrelevant history now, too. The NY Times reports Clark himself is reaching into the past (John Kerry’s), scooping up mud and slinging it merrily away at Kerry. Excerpts:

But today, General Clark, who made two appearances here before largely African-American audiences, at Benedict College and at a candidates' forum sponsored by an African-American advocacy group, offered unprompted references to comments about affirmative action made by Mr. Kerry in a speech at Yale University 12 years ago.

"Back in 1992, Senator Kerry wrote it was `inherently limited and divisive' and `fostered a culture of dependency,' " General Clark told journalists after the candidates' forum. "Affirmative action's a very important program to me," adding: "If people want to question it, that's their right. But if they do, they ought to admit it, because we're not going to beat George Bush with old style fudge-it-up politics."

Meanwhile, Kerry fought back on his website by posting a press release from the venerable James Clyburn himself:

Statement from Congressman James Clyburn
Responding to General Clark’s Comments

“I am sorry that General Clark is launching negative attacks. The truth is that John Kerry has stood strong all his life to defend affirmative action. John Kerry, President Clinton, myself and many other supporters of affirmative action fought together to overcome adverse judicial decisions and to ensure the survival of affirmative action. That is what President Clinton did with ‘mend it don’t end it.’

“I am supporting John Kerry because I know he will continue to stand up for affirmative action and because I know he will unite us as one nation together and equal for all.”

On the Clark website

Here’s a press release posted on Wesley Clark’s website by Dr. Mary Frances Berry regarding John Kerry's remarks on Affirmative Action:

Today, in a conference call with reporters, Dr. Mary Frances Berry, Chair of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, made the following remarks:

Back in 1992, when I read what Senator Kerry was saying about affirmative action, I felt like someone had kicked me in the stomach. I was deeply disturbed, because Senator Kerry was saying exactly the same thing that opponents of affirmative action were saying - that it was reverse discrimination, that the policy was a failure, that all it did was perpetuate racism. And even worse, he made no suggestions about what legal steps should be taken to improve it.

Last night, at the debate, I was surprised when he invoked the name of Bill Clinton in discussing the "mend it, don't end it" approach to affirmative action. President Clinton was not yet in office when Senator Kerry made that 1992 speech. And once Clinton was in office, and we were engaged in the difficult debate about the future of affirmative action, Senator Kerry was nowhere in sight. While we were struggling to do all we could to make progress on these issues, he was simply missing in action.

Poll Watching

Zogby's surveys, Kerry dominates in Missouri, with 45 percent. Running a distant second in that state is North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at 11 percent. If these numbers hold, Kerry could sweep all 74 of Missouri's delegates.

Dean was at 9 percent, Sen. Joseph Lieberman was at 4 percent, Clark at 3 percent, Al Sharpton at 2 percent and Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 1 percent.

In Arizona, Kerry has 38 percent over Clark’s 17 percent, with Dean at 12 percent, Edwards and Lieberman 6 percent, Kucinich 2 percent and Sharpton 1 percent.

Clark was leading Kerry in Oklahoma 27 percent to 19 percent, with Edwards right behind at 17 percent, Dean at 9 percent, Lieberman at 5 percent and Sharpton and Kucinich at 1 percent.

* ON THE BUSH BEAT:

Bush first to file with FEC

Today’s Washington Post reports President Bush is the first presidential candidate to file FEC papers for the final quarter of 2003. Results show Bush campaign has spent $31.6 million in calendar year 2003. The only other presidential candidate to spend more is Howard Dean – possibly. The Dean campaign refused to answer questions regarding amounts spent this final quarter. But it will all be told soon enough. FEC filed quarterly reports are open to the public, and all candidates must file their final quarterly reports by tomorrow’s deadline.

 * THE CLINTON COMEDIES:

Hillary frames the battle

Hillary Clinton speaking at the National Abortion Rights League 31 anniversary of Roe vs. Wade framed the upcoming contest for the Presidency as a battle of Liberalism against Conservatism. She painted Conservatism as wanting to den science, reason and good judgment. Here organization recently emailed quotes and a link to the speech. Here is the speech:

The pro-choice battle is an essential part of a larger struggle. And for too long those of us who have defended and advocated on behalf of a woman’s right to choose has seen that as one battle and then civil rights and affirmative action as another battle, and protecting the rights of workers as a third battle and on and on. They are all part of the same struggle. There is an effort to undermine our basic rights as Americans.

And you know, so many of the people on the other side value privacy don’t they? They value independence. Part of the struggle over the meaning of the second amendment what is private and what is public.

I respect that. It’s a worthwhile definitional battle to have,but it is also true that the right to privacy which is enshrined in the minds of most Americans is what is really the target of the anti-choice forces. And by that I mean when you say to someone that the battle over choice is really about who we are as human beings, what kind of economy we have, what sort of responsibility we have to accept for ourselves, and how routed it is in a fundamental concept of privacy, most people don’t think that is what’s at stake at all.

But I think it is imperative to recognize that our opponents are attempting to do away with the right to privacy. Now last fall during this Republican-engineered debate that lasted for 36 hours, I’m sure not many of you were glued to your television sets at 6 a.m. on a Friday morning about 28 or 9 hours after the debate had begun. But I wish every American had been watching, because at the early hour of the morning two senators came to the floor and explicitly stated what has been up until now not advertised.

And that is that the right to privacy does not exist. On the floor of the Senate, Senator Rick Santorum held up a pocket version of the constitution and said “I would challenge any person in this country, in the world to find the words rights to privacy in this document; it does not exist.

Later that morning agreeing with his colleague, Senator Brownback from Kansas said with regret that the right to privacy was and I quote, “written by the bench over the last 40 years.”

Now what is particularly disturbing about this is that the right to privacy as many of you know, was an assumption that had to be made manifest in interpreting the constitution and that began with a decision from Connecticut, the Griswold decision, which overturned a Connecticut law that criminalized the right of married couples to use contraception, and the court at that time said you know if our constitution means anything, if our bill of rights stands for any rights it all begins from the fundamental belief that every human being has the right of privacy. Not to be invaded by an intrusive government but to be able to live out one’s life according to one’s values and beliefs.

Well, what we heard on the floor of the Senate last fall turns that absolutely on its head. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. Therefore the line of cases that have protected individuals from that intrusiveness by government have no legitimacy. And it is clear that this line of attack is really at the core of what the opponents believe.

Their goal is to create a society where they and their convictions, albeit held with total good faith on their part, would trump anyone else’s convictions or beliefs and that in this diverse and pluralistic society of ours we would go back to a time when not just by social pressure but by legal compulsion certain beliefs, certain actions, were not permitted.

How that could ever be contemplated as something we could return to in the 21st century may strike some as beyond the pale, but I hope that tonight you will recognize that this battle over choice is a much wider struggle than just what happened to Roe v. Wade. It’s also part of an effort to turn the clock back on evidence and science.

You know I have come to believe that the other side wants to turn Washington into an evidence-free zone. It matters not what evidence there is or what scientific research might tell us, they will dismiss that if it in anyway contradicts their ideology or other beliefs.

So evidence doesn’t matter, science doesn’t matter, privacy doesn’t matter, the constitution doesn’t matter. This is as serious a threat to our way of life and our system of government that we have faced in a very long time.

Now think about the latest State of the Union that was delivered the other night. Constitutional scholars and civil libertarians in Congress from both ends of the political spectrum say we need to examine what works and what doesn’t work and what the costs are of the Patriot Act. This administration made the reinstatement of that act the very first point in the State of the Union.

The constitution was drafted to restrict the rights of government and expand the rights of people. And that is what we have done slowly but surely over more than 200 years. When the Constitution was first written most of us in this room were not explicitly part of it, were we?

But it took the civil war, it took a suffrage movement, it took civil rights legislation, it took a women’s movement, so that we could obtain our rightful place in the constitution. And that has been the history of America, the expansion of rights and opportunities and that has been to the benefit of our country.

Now of course we have an administration that seeks to amend the constitution in ways that empower government to limit our freedom and control our lives. And what is so stunning is that these advocates of great governmental power and reduced personal freedom can turn around and claim to be members of a political party that is supposed to favor limited government and they do it with a totally straight face.

So part of what we have to realize is that perhaps it’s time we took back the rhetoric, you know we are the people in favor of privacy, we are the people in favor of limited government, except where it’s needed to do things like apprehend corporate crooks and folks like that, but on matters of deep personal private conviction and action that is our party, that is our belief.

And if we don’t begin to take back this debate, and if we don’t begin to convince our fellow citizens that they need to take my colleagues seriously who want to do away with the right to privacy, we will wake up in a country we do not recognize. And what will be particularly troubling is that for people my age, Kate’s age, Julian’s age, you know those won’t be struggles that we’ll have to really take on except maybe we want to keep fighting into our declining years.

But it will be a sea change for young people, particularly for young women. And if it is not worth fighting so that each of our children, sons and daughters alike have the opportunity to chart their own course in life to make their own choices, to determine how they define privacy, then what is worth fighting for? And part of what I hope you will do tonight is to spread the word.

We are not attempting to impose our beliefs on anyone. That is at the heart of the pro-choice movement. Our belief is that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. And we want to continue the progress that was made under the Clinton administration and a pro-choice president to bring down the rate of abortion for young women in this country.

But make no mistake about it; this upcoming election is about what kind of America we’ll live in, what kind of choices we will have, and what kind of government will have its way over us. And it falls to all of us, and particularly all of you, to talk to your friends and your neighbors, to talk to people who may not be political, may not even register to vote yet, may not even ever have voted, may have lots of complaints about those of us in public life, but tell them to get over that, what is at stake is their future, not mine, and part of what we have to do is to make the case, we are one Supreme Court justice away from turning the clock back, on women and on every other progressive movement of the 20th century, and if that doesn’t get people excited I don’t know what will.

If our rights are at stake, if our privacy is at stake, if our freedom is at stake, then let’s wake up and go fight in these elections, to make sure we keep America on the track that we believe is right for our country.

 

homepage