|
Harkin supports surrender
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who lied about being a combat veteran in Vietnam,
now wants to surrender to terrorists in Iraq. The
Des Moines Register reports that Harkin is offering a Senate Resolution
to withdraw American troops no later than Dec. 31:
Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa called Wednesday for U.S. troops to
withdraw from Iraq by Dec. 31.
Harkin was expected to offer a resolution on the Senate floor saying that
the United States should not maintain a permanent military presence or bases
in Iraq and should not attempt to control the flow of Iraqi oil.
The resolution also says that U.S. armed forces should be redeployed from
Iraq as soon as practical after the completion of Iraq's constitution-making
process or Dec. 31, whichever comes first.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is attempting to attach similar language to an
emergency spending bill.
Harkin voted in 2002 for the resolution to go to war against Iraq. Harkin
didn’t vote to go to war in the first Iraq war.
Harkin further stated that the president's policy "is not a strategy for
success; it is a strategy for continued stalemate and stagnation." That was
the policy Democrat President Harry Truman set against the last ideology to
threaten democracy. The term used wasn’t stagnation, but rather a policy of
Communist containment.
Snow’s memo
New press secretary for the White House Tony Snow has had his strategy
exposed by ABC News. The following is the memo obtained by the news
organization:
To: Josh Bolten, Dan Bartlett and Nicolle Wallace
From: Tony Snow
Re: Our message
After observing how the Press Office has operated, first from the outside
and for the last week from the inside, I wanted to share some initial
thoughts about what I think needs to be done. Thank you so much for the
trust you've placed in me and the risk you took by making an unconventional
choice in a most conventional White House. I promise I won't screw it up.
First, I want to clear the air about something that I know has been
bothering some people in the building — and frankly has been bothering me,
too. When I was at the podium with the President and Scott McClellan, I
meant to recognize Scottie and say something nice about him and the big
shoes I have to fill. He was standing right next to me, and I know it really
rubbed people the wrong way and looked ludicrous for me to ignore him.
Like Hilary Swank after she won for "Boys Don't Cry" and failed to mention,
Chad Lowe, I had intended to say something, and I just blanked. I really
felt badly about it, and said so right away. I know Scott had told his
friends he would be welcoming, and he has been, and I really appreciate his
help with the transition. After talking to reporters and other staffers, I
realize better why people like him so much. (And all those cats and dogs at
home! The man's a saint!) I recognize that Scott has a hard-won, first-hand
understanding of the ecology of Bushworld that I can only hope to gain by
osmosis. I respect that, and I plan to stay in regular touch with Scott — if
he'll take my calls when he's off making all that speakers' bureau buckage.
Second, I've been doing my own reporting and I know there are concerns
inside that I might mistake the George Bush Show for the Tony Snow Show. I
am extremely conscious of this and am going to be very careful. Jim
Rutenberg always knows the right word, and he wrote that I'm "something of a
showman." That stung, but it was an astute insight and I get what he was
saying. I assure you that I'm going to keep the spotlight where it belongs —
on the President. I'm the gigolo — paid to meet specific needs, and then
leave. Unfortunately, Halperin thinks I'm an ugly gigolo.
LINK
(Funny stuff, although not as funny as Ms. Gladstone seems to have thought.
But he does make some good points.)
All right, enough throat-clearing. The number one thing we need to do is
RE-HUMANIZE THE PRESIDENT. All my other suggestions are just variations on
that theme. People WANT to like this President, and we need to give them
more chances. They love the regular guy thing that worked so well for you in
the first campaign, and we need to tap back into that on a regular basis as
a fundamental part of our communications strategy, not a when-can add-on.
There's nothing the Press shop can do about facts on the ground, but we can
HELP people remember why they originally liked the President so much. In
December and January, Dan and Nicolle did a great job of getting the
President out more, talking to the pool nearly every day and answering all
those questions from the good red-blooded, red-stated Americans who come to
our events. There have been lulls in this strategy as plans got overtaken by
the news and the schedule, but we need to make it a priority instead of an
if-can. I know the President was reluctant to do the questions from the
general public, concerned that he would say some tiny thing that the press
would blow it up into some huge deal. But he has nailed nearly every one of
these outings, and I know he now enjoys them and has gotten more confident.
I know you realize the dirty little secret: Truly nasty questions, ones the
President can't defuse with his quick wit, are rare. And when we DO get
asked them, we get brownie points for openness. So these free-for-alls are
almost can't-lose propositions.
Similarly, the President should take questions from the pool all the time.
For him, this is just batting practice. With all due respect, all press
corps are predictable. And when we give them two questions, I'll go back to
my radio show if I can't usually predict what they're going to be. But it
makes it harder for the press to rag on the President when they're in close
touch with him, and it's an opportunity for us to remind people of our
message. When we don't answer questions, it looks like we believe the
critics. We want to be out there at every opportunity, like my uncle at
Thanksgiving dinner, saying: And ANOTHER thing. . .
The President looked strong and decisive swinging a hammer down in New
Orleans for a few minutes the other day. If he wants to, and I bet he'd be
thrilled, let's suggest that he spend a whole day working down there, and
really have something to show for it. I understand we had to call an audible
and make that quick stop at the BP station to make the statement about CAFE
standards, but that became the news and drowned out the real empathy the
President had shown for the folks on the Gulf Coast. You know how he likes
working up a sweat at the ranch. Let's remind people that he's not trapped
at the desk. He got along great with the workers down there—I saw the video
of the back pats and the shared jokes. That's the George W. Bush we need to
showcase.
One of the most important changes I'd like to make in the operation is to
empower the other spokespeople so they can develop relationships with
reporters and work with them on stories and give them guidance and tidbits
we might not be able to dispense from the podium. In my canvassing of
reporters, I've learned that the only spokesperson who had any real rapport
with the press was Trent Duffy. That's not helpful to the President. We need
our spokespeople to be proactively reaching out to A-list reporters, which
gives us a ripple effect of good will as they talk to others in the press
corps and reach their large audiences.
As far as the podium: Josh, that was sheer genius of you to float the idea
of cutting back on on-camera briefings. Obviously, we can't do that, because
it would make the White House look like it was going backwards instead of
forwards, and like we had something to hide, when in fact I wish we could
open all the doors and windows and have every good American just walk on
through. But now when we spell out our policy on briefings, it'll look like
we took the press's side.
There are two tweaks I'd make to the briefings, though. One, we need to
reengage the press by really making some news from the podium. We need to
have people literally running out of the briefing room to file bulletins or
do a quick hit from the lawn. Muscles atrophy if you don't use them and the
podium is a powerful platform that we should be using the heck out of. I'm
amazed at how empty the briefing room sometimes is when it is shown on the
cut-away shots. We need to remind this press corps that with this
reenergized White House, if you snooze, you lose. Second, let's take a page
from the Pentagon and the mega-churches and include some electronic and
graphic elements in our presentations. We don't want to be predictable, and
a clip that provides a preview of the next day's event might give us two
pops where we would have gotten only one.
A quick housekeeping matter: We need to assure the young people in the Press
Office right away that we need them and are going to keep them and if
anything are going to expand their responsibilities. They're understandably
worried about change, and they shouldn't be. I understand I'm not an expert
on operations, and I value their expertise and will defer to them. The Press
Office wouldn't run without your Nathan Carletons and Carlton Carrolls and
John Robertses. And we can only dream of having the approval rating of Josh
Deckard. Let's make sure the Press Office knows we're still a team and that
I think they're all starters.
Thank you for letting me vent. I'm thrilled by this opportunity, and look
forward to the day, not far down the road, when all of America sees this
President as we do.
And by the way: Let's have a little fun!
Your friend, colleague, and servant, Tony
Lobbying reform
The
Washington Post reports on the passage of lobbying reform legislation in
the House of Representatives:
The House narrowly approved ethics legislation yesterday that would expand
the amount of information that lobbyists must disclose about their
interactions with lawmakers and would also rein in big-money political
groups that spent heavily in the last presidential election.
By
a vote of 217 to 213, the House agreed to require lobbyists to file
quarterly instead of semiannual reports, to include in those reports
donations they give to federal candidates and political action committees,
and to make public gifts that they give to lawmakers or congressional aides.
Brownback marriage amendment
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) says that the marriage amendment should be voted
out of the Senate Judiciary Committee according to
GOPUSA:
Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback says the federal marriage amendment
will finally see action within a matter of days. "We will have it up
probably coming to the full Judiciary Committee in two weeks," he says. "It
will probably pass on a strict party line vote, defining marriage as a union
of a man and a woman."
Then the measure will come to the Senate floor, he explains. "And I wouldn't
doubt that the same thing will happen this time around that happened last
time. That is, the Republicans will vote for it, and the Democrats will vote
against it," he states.
That could be a problem -- because the current make-up of the U.S. Senate
shows 55 in the Republican column. A two-thirds vote (67) would be necessary
for the bill to move out of the Senate to the House for consideration.
Brownback says without help, the amendment will not make it out of the
Senate.
Pataki toxic
The
NY Daily reports that political pollster Frank Lutnz says it could hurt
Republicans if Governor George Pataki campaigns for them:
In a private meeting of about 20 Republican state senators, pollster Frank
Luntz told the group to spurn any offers of campaign help made by Pataki,
according to people who attended the Albany gathering last week.
"He told us if the governor offers help, just tell him you are going to be
out of town or on vacation," said one source.
Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (R-Rensselaer) invited Luntz, who has
worked as a strategist for ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to give the speech.
"Frank Luntz told us we should be talking to voters about our plans for tax
cuts and to get away from Pataki," said another source. "But we already knew
it's not a smart idea to be running with Pataki this year. The Senate is
basically at war with the governor right now."
New Hampshire schedule
The
Manchester Union Leader writes that probably only one more caucus before
New Hampshire:
There are indications that New Hampshire is making progress in its fight
with the Democratic National Committee to preserve the status of its
first-in-the-nation primary.
The Washington, D.C., political Web site The Hotline last week claimed the
DNC’s rules committee is likely to recommend one caucus between Iowa’s
leadoff 2008 caucus and the New Hampshire primary eight days later.
Even after speaking with several committee members this week, we’re not
about to predict what a 30-member panel will do — especially since the
members can’t even agree on when they will vote on the issue
Gingrich touring Iowa
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich continued to travel throughout
Iowa following his fundraising event for the Iowa Republican Party.
One example was his stop in Ft. Dodge where he was joined by Rep. Jim Nussle
and his gubernatorial running mate Bob Vander Plaats at a community college
dental hygiene training unit. Gingrich brought his experience in trying to
reform healthcare to the front page of the Fort Dodge Messenger newspaper
and that community’s residence.
|
