Graham Introduces Resolution Ruling Out ‘Containment’ Strategy of Nuclear-Armed Iran
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today introduced a resolution that puts the Senate on record as ruling out a strategy of containment for a nuclear-armed Iran. The bipartisan resolution currently has 27 Senate cosponsors.
“I’m very pleased the Senate will speak with a strong, unified voice that a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable option for our own national security and the security of our allies throughout the world,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “My resolution will afford every Senator the opportunity to speak on this issue and I expect a strong bipartisan vote in support. Having a political consensus between the White House and Congress that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable is a giant step forward in sending an important message at a critical time.”
The Graham resolution:
· Strongly rejects any policy that fails to prevent the Iranian government from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and would settle for future efforts to “contain” a nuclear weapons capable Iran.
· Urges President Obama to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.
· Urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until they agree to the full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, complete cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on all outstanding questions related to their nuclear activities including implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Additional Protocol, and the verified end of their ballistic missile programs.
“It’s obvious to most people that once Iran obtains nuclear capability others in the region will respond in kind,” said Graham. “A nuclear-armed Iran also makes it exponentially more likely this information could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations.”
“I believe, to some extent, sanctions are working and believe they can be successful in helping turn around Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” said Graham. “However it is imperative the Russian and Chinese assist the international community in changing Iranian behavior.
“Finally, as President Obama said in his State of the Union address, ‘All options must remain on the table’ when it comes to stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” concluded Graham.
Co-sponsors of the Graham resolution include: Senators John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts), Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Dan Coats (R-Indiana), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chris Coons (D-Delaware), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nevada), John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut), Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), John McCain (R-Arizona), Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Bill Nelson (D-Florida), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), James E. Risch (R-Idaho),Marco Rubio (R-Florida), and Chuck Schumer (D-New York).
#####
That’s a pretty good list of sponsors he’s got. And like Graham, I, too, endorse what the president said in the SOTU.
Today’s news from OFA, which stands for Obama For America (but always makes me think of that thing that Greeks say when they party):
OBAMA FOR AMERICA LAUNCHES THE TRUTH TEAM TO PROMOTE THE PRESIDENT’S ACHIEVEMENTS AND HOLD REPUBLICANS ACCOUNTABLE
Chicago, IL – Today, Obama for America announced the launch of the Truth Team, a new national effort by President Obama supporters online and on the ground to promote the President’s achievements, respond to attacks on his record and hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable. More than a million people took action as part of the Fight the Smears initiative during the 2008 campaign; the goal of the Truth Team is to double that number, reaching two million grassroots supporters who will communicate the President’s record and fight back against attacks before the Democratic National Convention this fall.
Beginning today with events across the country and continuing through the election, the Truth Team will engage grassroots supporters to spread the truth about the President’s record and respond to Republican attacks. The program will be housed at BarackObama.com/TruthTeam, with individual websites –KeepingHisWord.com, KeepingGOPHonest.com, and AttackWatch.com – serving as quick, comprehensive resources to help set the record straight. Designed to put responsibility for spreading the truth in the hands of the President’s supporters, the websites contain videos and information on the President’s record, and fact checks on Republican claims about the President and themselves. The sites also contain tools for sharing materials via Facebook, Twitter and email, and empowers supporters to take further action by volunteering, writing letters to the editor, sending postcards to undecided voters with information about the President’s record, and more. The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama’s record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives.
Republican Super PACs have committed to spend a half billion dollars on negative ads to defeat the President. But from the start, the Obama for America campaign has relied on grassroots supporters to spread the truth, and today’s announcement builds on and expands that effort.
Truth Teams will be announced today in many states including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Wisconsin with events being held in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. National supporters including the National Education Association (NEA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and the United Steelworkers Union (USW) will be participating in this effort.
I really, really don’t like this kind of stuff. Yes, tell your story; argue your case. But I detest this “truth squad” nonsense that both parties have engaged in since at least the ’80s. It says “our party is the source of truth” and “the other party speaks nothing but lies” and must be “held accountable” them. This stuff oozes from the core of the rottenest assumptions that underlie hyperpartisanship.
I expect better than this from the president. The Republicans have been painting him already (with very thin justification) as having gone back on his promise to rise above such things. The best way to give the lie to what they’re saying is to avoid stuff like this. He is rightly held to a higher standard, because he set the standard himself.
My first memory of encountering this sort of thing was in 1988, at the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta. Then-Gov. Carroll Campbell and other Republicans took turns holding press conferences at an off-site location in the city, and they called it “truth-squading.” This year, we saw practically daily press availabilities held by the Dems in an effort to grab some of the attention being devoted to the Republican primary here in SC.
Not that the Obama people aren’t providing true information, often in reply to some pretty silly nonsense on the other side. But that is often the case. I remember when Campbell appeared in Atlanta, the point was made (either by him or by Tucker Eskew or someone, I forget) that he took almost no security with him, while Lt. Gov. Nick Theodore had taken a small army with him to the convention. Which was true. You should have seen their communications center in the hotel.
But the thing that really gets me is this “truth” rhetoric that they wrap it in.
Yes, I realize each side believes that what it has to say IS the truth, while the others sit on a throne of lies. But they’re both wrong. They need to cut back on the hubris, and those of us in the middle would be more inclined to listen.
I’m beginning to suspect that the Left is dissatisfied at the prospect of an election about real national priorities, and is conspiring to get the Culture Warriors of the Right — heretofore MIA — to enter the 2012 fray.
I’m just going by the top three stories on my most recent email from The Slatest:
Students at Shippensburg University now have easier access to Plan B emergency contraception.
Think about this for a minute, people…
The Culture Warriors of the Right have been pretty quiet lately. Their guy in the GOP presidential contest, Rick Santorum, hasn’t caught fire, in fact has been totally an also-ran since Iowa. It was looking like we might have a presidential election about national security and the economy, which I’ve gotta say, would be nice for a change.
So what happens? Culture Warriors of the Left sue to get a court to overturn a public vote on a hot-button issue, and get a favorable ruling from a panel of… the 9th Circuit. This of course will now be taken all the way to the Supremes (who on the right would ever be satisfied with the judgment of the 9th?), assuring that this attempt to overturn a public vote by judicial fiat (talk about waving a red flag at a bull!) will blaze on through the election.
Some of their comrades then go totally ballistic over a decision by one private organization not to help fund another private organization. These Culture Warriors freak out to such an extent over what — $680,000? And the ramifications continue, with everybody on all sides all worked up.
As for the third thing… I don’t know. I’ve been to Shippensburg a number of times, and I’m trying to square this with the images I have of Amish people riding up the High Street in horse and buggy, and Civil War re-enactments. This is a whole new wrinkle…
All I can conclude is that the left just wasn’t happy with the Culture Warriors of the right being all dormant. It’s like there is a concerted effort to make the 2012 election about all this Kulturkampf stuff. Which I, for one, would not appreciate. And I don’t think it’s a good idea for Obama’s re-election chances to get the right’s Culture Struggle machine all hot and bothered.
Oh, you know what the fourth story on the Slatest email was? It was this:
But with no delegates up for grabs, the Iowa winner will need to be content with PR victories.
Coincidence? Well, yeah, I think it is a coincidence. But those of us who would rather this election be about something other than abortion and sexuality and the like still eye such developments as all of the above with foreboding.
The good news is that the White House appears to be trying to take down the temperature a bit, on one thing it can control. It may dial back on its recent ham-handed effort to make Newt Gingrich’s ravings about a “war on the Catholic Church” seem to be true. That’s good. I like the sound of that. No-Drama Obama, that’s what I want to see. This was yet another completely unnecessary fight (and with a demographic that the president needs to keep in battleground states, which made it seem particularly weird).
Next, could we all talk about Iran and Israel and Afghanistan and consumer confidence? Throwweights, perhaps? Please? Anything but this hyperemotional stuff…
Bob McAlister and other Republicans may be eager to see their particular candidate debate President Obama.
But I ask you, how would Newt Gingrich or any of the others answer the above?
Well, they couldn’t. I was pretty speechless myself. First Bill Clinton and the saxophone, now this.
All Newt could do under such circumstances would be to denounce the president as a blasphemer for imitating the Rev. Al…
Of course, this performance automatically makes my Top Five Soul Covers by a Sitting President list. I just don’t know where I’m going to find the other four to round it out…
Gingrich Response to December Jobs Report:
We Need a Reagan Conservative Hanover, NH – Newt Gingrich made the following statement today in response to this morning’s report of 8.5% unemployment for the month of December 2011:
“Three full years into the Obama presidency, and there are still 1.7 million fewer Americans going to work today than there were on Obama’s Inauguration day.
“Today’s new December unemployment figure doesn’t capture the full scale of the tragedy: almost 24 million Americans still unemployed, working part-time for economic reasons, or discouraged from looking for work.
“The Obama experiment has failed, and it is time to look to proven solutions that have successfully empowered job-creators in the past.
“Ronald Reagan enacted historic income tax rate cuts, a stronger and more stable dollar, regulatory reforms, and spending controls. Three years into his recovery, Americans had created about 9.5 million jobs. When we took control of the House in 1995, we moved quickly to balance the budget, reform entitlements, and make the largest capital gains tax cut in history – three years later, 8 million more Americans were going into work every day.
“Now more than ever, America needs a Reagan conservative in the White House.”
###
Now, before you laugh too hard at his desperation to find a dark lining in a silver cloud… Newt definitely has a point. More than one, even. I can attest to the fact that there’s plenty of pain out there. Someone very close to me lost his longtime job just this week — along with most of the people in his office. And there are no statistics telling the story of the tons of people who remain profoundly underemployed, compared to the jobs they had before September 2008.
But still… Newt mentions Reagan here. Does anyone doubt that, if Reagan were in the White House now, Mr. Gingrich would be insisting, vehemently, that we embrace the good news in the report? I don’t.
I don’t know whether the policies President Obama has pursued have helped improve the economy or not, and I’m suspicious of anyone who claims to know.
But good news is good news. And Obama looks more like a two-term president than ever. And some of the candidates who did not get into this race — Huckabee, Barbour, Christie — are probably quietly congratulating themselves right now.
When I received the above cartoon from Bill Day, it caused me to go look for Robert Ariail‘s latest on the subject (more or less).
There’s an interesting area of agreement there — interesting because, given their political predilections, Bill would welcome the idea of the GOP being led into obsolescence, while the idea of Obama being the beneficiary would be distressing to Robert.
Politics aside, I hope this New Year will be a great one for both of these guys. Which reminds me: It’s past time Robert and I got together again at Yesterday’s. I need to find out when he’ll be in town…
Over the last couple of months, I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions that I’m perceiving a certain… lack of enthusiasm… over the GOP presidential nominating process in South Carolina this year.
Today, at the very height of hoopla in that neck of the woods, I see an indication that there is a similar dearth of excitement in Iowa (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for bringing this Philip Klein piece to my attention):
Those following the Iowa caucuses from home, hearing a steady stream of reports such as this about “packed rooms” that are “standing room only” with people still waiting outside, may be getting the impression that there’s a groundswell of enthusiasm for this year’s candidates that will drive turnout for the caucuses to stratospheric levels.
But don’t be fooled. The truth is that the venues candidates are holding events at this year are much smaller than in 2008, back when some candidates were filling large ballrooms or even small arenas. When going into a Barack Obama event in 2008, it wouldn’t be unusual have to get there early and still park a five or 10 minute walk away from the actual rally site, only to come into a massive venue where crowds in the thousands were going wild. Even on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee was filling larger venues.
Yet yesterday, reporters, photograhers and a few actual patrons were packed into a tiny diner at a Mitt Romney event in Atlantic, Iowa. True, later that evening, he attracted hundreds to a town hall-style building in Council Bluffs, but it was still a relatively small venue.
On Saturday, Newt Gingrich squeezed people into a diner in Council Bluffs and a small corner of a Coca Cola bottling factory in Atlantic.
At the same time, the audiences seem a lot more subdued than in 2008 — less shouting and sign waving….
Clever of the candidates’ handlers to make it look like they’re in demand by shrinking the venues. But I’m grateful to hear that this certain lack of vitality is not just a South Carolina phenomenon — and even more importantly, not in my imagination.
The causes? I haven’t sorted that out entirely, but among the causes I suspect are lack of enchantment with the field, an ongoing identity crisis in the GOP (are they about fiscal libertarianism? or is it values? and what happened to a muscular foreign policy?) and a general gut feeling, fairly broadly held, that the incumbent will win in the end.
The table is open to entertain other theories — as well as evidence to the contrary regarding this diminution of enthusiasm.
I was pleased when I heard, on the radio yesterday, President Obama saying this at Fort Bragg:
As your Commander-in-Chief, I can tell you that it will indeed be a part of history. Those last American troops will move south on desert sands, and then they will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high. One of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of the American military will come to an end. Iraq’s future will be in the hands of its people. America’s war in Iraq will be over.
I appreciated it because he said “America’s war in Iraq will be over.” At another point in the speech, he referred to the “end of our combat mission,” which was even better, and emphasized that what was happening was that responsibility was being handed over to Iraqi forces.
I was grateful that he had not said this was “the end of the war.” (I was also gratified that he, only slightly grudgingly, spoke of the troops accomplishment: “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” Something that, of course, we would not have done had Mr. Obama had his way.)
This was, unfortunately, about the only place where I would be so gratified. Elsewhere in the speech, he said “end of the war” over and over and over again. But I don’t blame the president. The news media were worse:
And on and on. Among those I saw in a quick survey, only NPR got it right, in a headline that said “Iraq Mission Ends.”
Maybe I’m the only one who cares. But I became hypersensitized to the matter over all these years of antiwar folks saying “end the war,” when what they meant was that they wanted the U.S. forces to withdraw. Which is an entirely different thing.
The “end of the war in Iraq” is either something that happened several years in the past (the interpretation I prefer), or, more ominously, has yet to occur. There are a number of ways that you can speak, legitimately, of “the end of the Iraq war:”
You can say it ended with the fall of Baghdad in the spring of 2003, as that was when “war” in the Clausewitzian sense of armies clashing on battlefields with battle lines, and the control of a government at stake.
You can say it ended with the Surge, which settled down the various insurgencies that erupted after the fall of Baghdad, leading most people speaking of a “war” continuing to that point.
You can say it never ended, because Iraq’s security is far from that, say, of a Switzerland.
But in that last case — if you believe the “war” has continued up to this point — then withdrawing U.S. forces most assuredly does not “end” that war. In fact, it’s hard to imagine anything more likely to make fighting flare back up dramatically.
I hope that doesn’t happen. I hope that President Obama (and Bush before him) are right in their projection that things are sufficiently stable for Iraq to deal with the security vacuum created by a U.S. departure. I don’t know whether they are or not.
But I know this: Speaking of what is happening this month as “the end of the war” is highly inaccurate.
Sooner or later, we’ll turn to more profane matters, but to follow up on a question from Bud:
Does anyone besides me find it offputting when the POTUS says “God Bless America”? Who started this practice? I never noticed it before George W. used it at every opportunity. Now Obama is getting carried away with it.
My first reaction was that every president in my memory had done it. But I thought I’d check, however cursorily. My quick search turned up this piece from TIME magazine. Apparently, no president from FDR through LBJ had ended speeches that way. But then…
On the evening of April 30, 1973, Richard Nixon addressed the nation live from the Oval Office in an attempt to manage the growing Watergate scandal. It was a difficult speech for Nixon: He announced the resignations of three Administration officials, including Attorney General Richard Kleindienst — but Nixon nonetheless tried to sound optimistic. As he approached the end of his speech, Nixon noted that he had “exactly 1,361 days remaining” in his term and wanted them “to be the best days in America’s history.” “Tonight,” he continued, “I ask for your prayers to help me in everything that I do throughout the days of my presidency.” Then came the magic words: “God bless America and God bless each and every one of you.”
Not an auspicious beginning, give the extent to which Nixon was given to self-pitying self-interest.
According to this source, neither Gerald Ford nor Jimmy Carter (surprised?) used the phrase to end speeches. But Ronald Reagan did, big-time. And every president since.
Of course, this account is rather nitpicking. Presidents before Nixon DID invoke the Deity’s blessing, just in different words:
Presidents from Roosevelt to Carter did sometimes conclude their addresses by seeking God’s blessing, often using language such as “May God give us wisdom” or “With God’s help.” But they didn’t make a habit of it.
As for whether presidents should do this or not (and Bud thinks not), I think it’s fine either way. As I said in response to Bud earlier, I generally like it. No matter how pompous the speaker, those words end the speech on a note of humility. It’s a nod to that which is greater than the speaker and all the power he commands.
It is an invocation. OK, technically, since it’s at the end, it’s a benediction. But basically, it’s a plea sent aloft — Please bless this nation which I have been elected to serve. It’s impossible to imagine anything more benign, or more appropriate, for an elected leader to say.
AT THE SAME TIME…
I respect that some presidents have generally avoided such an invocation. Declining to do so is another way of demonstrating humility, and proper respect toward a deity. A serious, thoughtful politician might well consider it crass to invoke God in connection with a political speech, as the rest of the speech is necessarily tied to petty temporal concerns and usually designed to advance the position of the speaker.
I excuse the practice to the extent that it is a sort of departure from the rest of the speech. I tend to hear it as the speaker saying, “Whether you go along with what I said just now or not, whether I continue to serve you or not, whether I and my party prevail or be consigned to the dustbin of history, I ask that God bless our country.”
It at least gives me one thing I can always agree with.
Don’t know if you heard about the snafu whereby a reporter for Yahoo (and I didn’t even know Yahoo had reporters) was inadvertently allowed to listen in on a private GOP strategy session…
Anyway, the headline from it was, the Republicans on the call were warned not to attack President Obama too directly as they try to get him fired by the electorate:
Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.
“We’re hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks” personally against President Obama, Nicholas Thompson, the vice president of polling firm the Tarrance Group, said on the call. “There’s a lot of people who feel sorry for him.”
Recent polling data indicates that while the president suffers from significantly low job approval ratings, voters still give “high approval” to Obama personally, Thompson said.
Voters “don’t think he’s an evil man who’s out to change the United States” for the worse–even though many of the same survey respondents agree that his policies have harmed the country, Thompson said. The upshot, Thompson stressed, is that Republicans should “exercise some caution” when talking about the president personally…
How about that? There’s hope for the world when we see that top Republican strategists don’t see Obama as the incarnation of all evil — or are at least reluctant to say so. Now, if I can just persuade my Democratic friends that calling other people “vicious” is not conducive to a meeting of the minds, maybe we can get together and solve some problems in this country…
Still, it’s interesting that the administration — which apologized for killing that other American (Samir Khan, from North Carolina) who was with Anwar al-Awlaki — doesn’t want to say “sorry” on this one:
WASHINGTON — The White House has decided that President Obama will not offer formal condolences — at least for now — toPakistan for the deaths of two dozen soldiers in NATO airstrikes last week, overruling State Department officials who argued for such a show of remorse to help salvage America’s relationship with Pakistan, administration officials said.
On Monday, Cameron Munter, the United States ambassador to Pakistan, told a group of White House officials that a formal video statement from Mr. Obama was needed to help prevent the rapidly deteriorating relations between Islamabad and Washington from cratering, administration officials said. The ambassador, speaking by videoconference from Islamabad, said that anger in Pakistan had reached a fever pitch, and that the United States needed to move to defuse it as quickly as possible, the officials recounted.
Defense Department officials balked. While they did not deny some American culpability in the episode, they said expressions of remorse offered by senior department officials and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were enough, at least until the completion of a United States military investigation establishing what went wrong…
Increasingly, we see signs of the U.S. just writing off Pakistan. This appears to be another such sign.
Or, you could go with this explanation, I suppose:
Some administration aides also worried that if Mr. Obama were to overrule the military and apologize to Pakistan, such a step could become fodder for his Republican opponents in the presidential campaign, according to several officials who declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly…
I refuse to attach much importance to this, but it’s an interesting exercise nonetheless.
Project VoteSmart has long been a wonkish thing, an organization that gets answers to issue-related questions from candidates for all sorts of political offices, and posts them for voters to see. Of all my friends and acquaintances who care deeply about politics, my one friend who is really, really into Project VoteSmart is Cindi Scoppe. This proves my point. About the wonkishness.
But now they have a little toy that might bring in a broader group. Just in time, too, because it seems that all the candidates for president are blowing off Project VoteSmart and refusing to answer its questions. Which is a shame, because it actually was a good source, if you’re the issue-oriented type.
I am not, relatively speaking. As I’ve gotten older, character and judgment have come to mean more. You might think that “judgment” is the same as positions on issues, but not really. The “issues” that tend to end up on surveys often have little to do either with what I’m looking for in a candidate, or what that person might actually face in office. And even when it’s an issue I care about, in order to get simple “yes/no” answers (which are rare in real life, in terms of the decisions leaders have to make), the issue is dumbed-down to where a completely honest and accurate answer is impossible.
Take, for instance, one of the questions on VoteSmart’s new “VoteEasy” mechanism: “Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?” That’s a tough one for me. Do I advocate further restrictions on the sale of rifles, shotguns and handguns? Not really, but mainly because I see it as a political impossibility. And I believe that even if you restricted the sales, there would still be way too many millions of guns already in circulation to lessen much the ill effects of their presence among us. (Also, I’m more ambivalent about guns than unequivocal gun controllers. I don’t hunt, but I enjoy shooting at targets from time to time.) I believe that any operable gun that exists is quite likely to someday fall into the hands of someone who will not handle it responsibly. That seems almost inevitable to me. And I know we’ll never go out and round them up, however much the more extreme 2nd Amendment defenders may fear that. So I’m not inclined to spend political capital on the issue — there are so many other things to be done in our society. But… I think the question is asking me philosophically, do I believe restricting the sale of guns is a permissible thing to do under our Consitution? And I believe it is; the Framers wouldn’t have put in that language about “militia” otherwise. So, keeping it simple, I said “yes.”
I can quibble that way over every other question on the survey. And many I can answer any way. Say, take “Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?” I don’t know. When do you mean? Now, or two years ago? What kind of spending — tax rebates, filling gaps in agency budgets, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, what? But because I assumed it meant “ever, under any circumstances, I said “yes.” But you see how misleading that is, right?
And you can see how my willingness to leave things on the table for consideration would tend to push me toward the pragmatic Barack Obama, seeing as so many of his opponents are of the “never, ever” persuasion (or so they say, now, while not in office).
But it didn’t start out that way, as I took the survey. The first question was about abortion, and that pushed Obama way to the background, while every Republican was with me 100 percent. At one point it appeared that Gingrich was moving to the front of the pack. Obama stayed to the background until about halfway through, after which he pulled steadily to the fore and stayed there. And sometimes for reasons that are counterintuitive to people who follow government and politics only casually. For instance, Obama and I both say a big, emphatic “yes” to “Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict?” Some still, against all reason, see Obama as a dove. Yet he is far more aggressive in this regard than George W. Bush.
Anyway, here’s how it ended up:
Obama — 69
Huntsman — 58
Bachmann — 47
Perry — 47
Roemer — 47
Romney — 47
Santorum — 47
Gingrich — 42
Cain — 39
Johnson — 33
Paul — 31
Notice how the differences aren’t all that stark. I’m not a 100 percent this guy, 0 percent that guy kind of voter. That the candidate I agree with the most only gets 69 percent, and the one I disagree with least gets a 31 (and five of them tie for just under 50 percent) says a lot about why I can’t subscribe to either political party. Parties perpetuate the notion that everything is one way or the other, and act accordingly. That worldview is not me.
Since I look at candidates more holistically, I don’t expect something like this to predict how I will vote. I’m not a check-off box kind of voter. And yet, my own mushy methods have reached similar conclusions up to now — Obama’s looking better to me than he did when I voted for McCain in 2008, and out of a weak Republican field only Huntsman has stood out positively to me, while no one is less likely to get my vote than Ron Paul.
Libya’s ex-leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has been killed after an assault on his home town of Sirte, officials from the transitional authorities have said.
Information Minister Mahmoud Shammam said fighters had told him they had seen Col Gaddafi’s body, and other officials also said he was dead.
The claims have not yet been independently verified, and other reports said he was captured alive…
The colonel was toppled in August after 42 years in power.
… Grainy video footage has been circulating among NTC fighters appearing to show Col Gaddafi’s corpse.
The video shows a large number of NTC fighters yelling in chaotic scenes around a khaki-clad body, which has blood oozing from the face and neck.
Another video broadcast by al-Jazeera TV showed a body being dragged through the streets which the channel said was that of Col Gaddafi.
NTC official Abdel Hafez Ghoga told AFP: “We announce to the world that Gaddafi has been killed at the hands of the revolution.
“It is an historic moment. It is the end of tyranny and dictatorship. Gaddafi has met his fate.”
An NTC fighter told the BBC he found Col Gaddafi hiding in a hole in Sirte, and the former leader begged him not to shoot.
The fighter showed reporters a golden pistol he said he had taken from Col Gaddafi…
I thought I’d go ahead and put this up and give y’all a chance to comment. Political Wire has already called it a “Big foreign policy win for Obama”… for those inclined to interpret such events in political terms…
Maybe it’s always this way. I don’t recall having looked at fund-raising numbers in quite this way before, at this point, in a campaign shaped like this one. Cindi Scoppe probably has — she compiled The State‘s first campaign-contribution website if I recall correctly. She’s into stuff like that. As for me — well, it’s about money, so MEGO.
Rick Perry is the leading Republican presidential fundraiser in South Carolina, and he did most of it on one day in August.
The Texas governor took in $55,000 of the $103,000 that he has raised in South Carolina on Aug. 25. Katon Dawson, who is advising Perry’s S.C. campaign, confirmed Perry held an S.C. fundraiser that day but told a reporter, “I can’t tell you anything about it.”
While languishing in the polls, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania also is popular among S.C. donors. Santorum has raised $80,080 in the state, the second-highest of any Republican candidate, just ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who raised $75,230.
President Barack Obama, a Democrat, actually was the top fundraiser in South Carolina, collecting $238,291. However, Obama is not expected to carry South Carolina, which last went for a Democratic presidential candidate in 1976.
Say what? Repeat that last?
Yeah, I get it. He’s the incumbent. But he raised way over twice as much money as the richest fund-raiser among all GOP candidates, and he raised it in South Carolina — a state he doesn’t have a prayer of winning in 2012. Which is why his bus tour somehow magically appeared in North Carolina on a trip northward without having passed through South Carolina, far as we could tell. (Did you hear his teleprompter got stolen in Virginia?)
He’s raised $238,291 in our state — more than 90 grand of it in Richland County (three times as much as all Republicans combined in the capital city) — and has spent… $2,385 (that’s according to a graphic in The State that I couldn’t find online). Yep, 1 percent.
You realize this makes South Carolina a Democratic Party donor state? So much for Democrats being all about what Washington can send to them… I guess this is payback time, huh?
Who are these rich Columbians? And how come they aren’t buying ads on bradwarthen.com? (If I were still at the paper, I’d get Cindi to go find out for me. I didn’t find names in a cursory Web glance at the data Adam drew his story from. Of course, if I were still at the paper, I wouldn’t get to sell ads and keep the money, so… Anyway, more as I know more. I just wanted to go ahead and get something up on this before the day was out.)
Meanwhile, over on the fiscally conservative side, Jon Huntsman has raised $2,550 here, and spent $277,744 in SC. According to the FEC’s website, which is where Adam’s numbers come from. Michelle Bachmann has raised $23,197 and spent $83,156. Others, such as Perry and Santorum, are staying within their SC-raised means in SC.
All told, if young Adam did his sums right, presidential candidates have raised $382,902 from SC sources and spent $719,276 here. So on the GOP side, SC is a beneficiary of political welfare — which makes sense, we being an earlier-primary state than the places where their money likely came from.
Which depends. For Perry, it’s Texas. For Obama, it’s California and the Northeast. For Romney — well, the map looks kind of the way it does for Obama, except the Republican is getting a larger proportion from Florida. Here’s where you can look all that up. Now you don’t need me. Let me know if you find the names of those donors. Get their contact info…
On my way back to the office from Rotary today, I heard this guy Jonathan Turley on NPR going on and on about how Barack Obama is — gasp — “worse than Bush” on civil liberties (or words to that effect; I wasn’t taking notes while driving).
Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.
However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the “just following orders” defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.
Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.
But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama’s personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured…
What’s really amazing about Obama is that he managed to persuade people before the election, and many after, that he’s this antiwar guy who was going to undo all the supposedly wicked deeds of the Bush administration. I wasn’t hearing that.
But even I was unprepared for how much further Obama would take things than Bush. I guess he’s able to do it because he has the political permission within his own party. Sort of like it took Nixon to go to China, Obama is allowed the latitude to more aggressively pursue the (I’m going to use the term that his base avoids) global War on Terror. As you recall, I made the analogy earlier that Bush was like Sonny Corleone (the blusterer who had trouble getting the job done), and Obama is Michael (who speaks softly and convinces everyone he’s the peaceful don, but wipes out his enemies efficiently without a word of warning). Of course, I don’t see them as heading a criminal enterprise. Others disagree.
It really does put Democrats in a weird place. Some of my most reasonable Democratic friends used to make these extravagant claims about how George W. Bush had trashed the Constitution. They really seemed to believe it. They are quieter now.
(AP) WASHINGTON – Public disclosure of graphic photos and video taken of Osama bin Laden after U.S. commandos killed him would damage national security and lead to attacks on American property and personnel, the Obama administration contends in court documents.
Here’s the lame argument for releasing the images:
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, accused the Obama administration of making a “political decision” to keep the bin Laden imagery secret. “We shouldn’t throw out our transparency laws because complying with them might offend terrorists,” Fitton said in a statement. “The historical record of Osama bin Laden’s death should be released to the American people as the law requires.”
As you’ll recall, I disagreed with Lindsey Graham about this subject earlier. He was right at the Abu Ghraib pictures, but wrong about this.
And while the AP is just doing its job as it sees it, I believe its own request should be denied as well:
The Associated Press has filed Freedom of Information Act requests to review a range of materials, such as contingency plans for bin Laden’s capture, reports on the performance of equipment during the assault on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and copies of DNA tests confirming the al Qaeda leader’s identity. The AP also has asked for video and photographs taken from the mission, including photos made of bin Laden after he was killed.
The Obama administration refused AP’s request to consider quickly its request for the records. AP appealed the decision, arguing that unnecessary bureaucratic delays harm the public interest and allow anonymous U.S. officials to selectively leak details of the mission. Without expedited processing, requests for sensitive materials can be delayed for months and even years. The AP submitted its request to the Pentagon less than one day after bin Laden’s death.
OK, maybe not denied. I think a delay of maybe 25 years would be about right. Leave it to historians. Ones with strong stomachs.
A lot of people — including a lot of this administration’s strongest supporters — don’t believe there is such a thing as information that should be withheld for national security reasons. They are wrong. One can have arguments about what should be classified and what should not, but the fact remains that some things should be.
Or breeches, if you prefer to be proper. I just like using the colloquial version in this context.
I was not set off by the video above, but rather by this headline in the paper this morning:
DeMint mocks Obama in video, won’t attend speech
What I’m saying is that boycotting the speech is what gets me much more than the video, which is fairly run-of-the-mill, even tame. But the part where he won’t deign to listen to the president, after the president has already been dissed by the House, takes us to a new level.
Jim DeMint, between refusing to tolerate the presence of the president of the United States (perhaps our latter-day Wellington is frustrated not to have brought about Mr. Obama’s “Waterloo” yet) to his peremptorily summoning those who would replace the president before him, to be questioned one at a time like prisoners in the dock, seems to be trying to carve out a unique space for himself in American politics.
It seems to be a position something like that of a king (or something more powerful, a kingmaker). In any case, it’s nothing that our Framers envisioned in setting up this system of governance. It’s personal. It’s specific to him. And it answers to no one. We need to come up with a whole new system of political science (or at least, hark back to a very old one) even to come up with the terminology with which to explain what he is doing.
I keep going back and forth between live-blogging, and recording my impressions on Twitter, during live TV debates and speeches.
Last night, I went with Twitter. Here are some of the thoughts I had, mixed in with some thoughts from others that were in response to me, or which I reTweeted (the responses are distinguished by the avatars):
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Needless to say, Michele Bachmann isn’t aiming for the Energy Party vote, with all that “cut energy prices” stuff.
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Why is Paul going after Perry? It’s not like Paul has a chance to win. Why not use opportunity to push his own ideas instead?
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Romney running hard tonight for the “not crazy” vote.
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Will they EVER let Huntsman speak?
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Hey! Huntsman got to say something!
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Poor Perry — having to get defensive about the sensible things he’s done. This is not where he wants to be. #ReaganDebate
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: If Republicans cared at ALL about beating Obama next year, they’d stage a debate between Romney and Huntsman, and leave out the rest.
@wexlerNu Wexler: North Carolina should blame education issues on sharing a border with South Carolina. #reagandebate
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: @wexler I confess I’ve gone up there MANY times — without papers, amigos!
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Bachmann keeps talking about what “the American people” have confided to her… I haven’t been talking to her. You?
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Huntsman — on immigration this time — is edging out Romney for the “not crazy” vote (if there’s any justice in this world).
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Whoa: Ron Paul started trying to out-sane Huntsman on immigration. But then he reverted to form with that “fence to keep us in” stuff.
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Check it out: Huntsman is the ONLY one with the cojones to say no pledges, no way. My hat off to you, sir.
@SCHotlineSCHotline Editor: @BradWarthen yeah your kind of guy, why dont the two of you move to effing China?
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: I agree with Perry on the good things he said about Obama. Something you won’t hear Democrats do…
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: @SCHotline He already did. He went there and served his country.
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Whoa. Bachmann just dissed our successful involvement in Libya…
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Santorum just called Reagan the “Wicked Witch of the West!”
BradWarthen Brad Warthen: Which is saying something, given the lowness of the bar… “@adamsbaldwin: Stupidest question EVER!!!”
@mpbaldaufMary Pat Baldauf: @bradwarthen Thank you! Do you like Hunstman? Lee Bandy and I do – saw him at the gym after work, and we talked pre-debate trash.
Allan Lichtman, the American University professor whose election formula has correctly called every president since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election, has a belated birthday present for Barack Obama: Rest easy, your re-election is in the bag.
“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” says Lichtman, the brains behind The Keys to the White House.
Lichtman’s prediction helps to explain a quirk in some polling that finds that while Americans disapprove of the president, they still think he will win re-election. [Check out political cartoons about the 2012 GOP field.]
Working for the president are several of Lichtman’s keys, tops among them incumbency and the scandal-free nature of his administration.Undermining his re-election is a lack of charisma and leadership on key issues, says Lichtman, even including healthcare, Obama’s crowning achievement.
Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”…
Of course, things can change, and Obama’s had a bad run of luck in recent weeks. I still wouldn’t yet change my prediction that he will win the general election, mainly because Republicans (so far) seem determined to nominate a Perry rather than a Huntsman.
CHARLESTON — As Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was still talking to the 2011 RedState Gathering at the Francis Marion Hotel today, I sent out this Tweet from the sweaty, charged-up ballroom:
I’ll go out on a limb here, even as he announces, and say Rick Perry WILL be the Republican nominee. But he won’t be president…
And an hour later, somewhat cooled off, I stand by it. Sure, I could be wrong, but if I can’t get at least one overbold statement out of driving down here and stumping around in this steamroom of a town (the only room in the hotel where the A/C seemed to be working was another ballroom where they were having an event called “GOP Leaders Meeting.” After all the leaders were let in, they allowed anyone else who wanted to come in, except for one demographic group: the press.)
So basically, y’all can quit worrying about all this, and pay attention to more fun stuff. I told Tim Smith of The Greenville News (the cowboy hat guy) about my realizations right after the speech, and I could tell he was relieved just knowing what was going to happen. Strangely, he did not close his notebook and head home to enjoy his weekend. He started interviewing RedStaters as though it mattered, as though it weren’t all over. I guess he figured, as long as he had come this far…
Then again, maybe he was hedging his bets, because I could be wrong (I hope that doesn’t shock you). Perhaps I should amend my statement, and say Rick Perry will be the GOP nominee IF every day of the campaign is like today. Yeah, that’s the ticket…
I guess it was fitting that it was so sweaty in that hotel, given all the bottled-up passion. And it was, literally — every SC GOP politician I ran into and shook hands with had sweaty palms. They, unlike the RedState conventioneers, were in full uniform: dark suit, red tie, white shirt. I, who would normally dress that way, did not today. I wore an open-necked shirt, my ragged-cuffed brown chinos, and my cheap sandals from Walmart. And inspired by Trey Gowdy, I did not shave today. Of course, this was Saturday, and I wasn’t speaking to the state’s largest Rotary, but still… he was my role model.
Anyway, back to Rick Perry, even though, as I said, there’s no point talking about it because it’s all over. Why do I think he’s going to be the nominee? Well, here are some of the reasons:
The way he pulled off this free-media coup. Remember the front-page advance story in The State yesterday? Well, there was also a front-page story in the WSJ today, in advance, about this thing that hadn’t happened yet, and written as though this speech in South Carolina was to be the 9/11 of political events, the event That Changes Everything. Based on the play of similar stories last night on the websites of the WashPost and the NYT, I’m guessing those, too, were on their respective fronts (those of you who have seen dead-tree versions of those today can confirm or deny).
He did this in the face of THE biggest event of the GOP nomination contest thus far. You may not have noticed (none of the media here was noticing), but the Iowa Straw Poll was held today. Perry was not on the ballot. And it seemed clear by the way media were treating this event that that didn’t matter a bit. THIS was the event. Forget those other guys and gal. As the WSJ put it today:
Everything about the Perry launch is designed to poke a finger in the eyes of the other candidates. His Saturday speech comes on the same day as a closely watched GOP straw poll in Ames, Iowa, the campaign’s most notable set-piece so far. His name won’t be on that ballot, and his speech seems designed to steal thunder from the event.
His entry is already stirring widespread excitement in elite GOP circles. Many predict he could pick up the backing of an array of top GOP governors, including the influential Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a major fund-raiser in his own right.
And Mr. Perry may already be benefiting from a lack of enthusiasm for other candidates, as polls show that none has garnered support from even a quarter of the GOP electorate. Mr. Romney’s Massachusetts health-care law, Rep. Michele Bachman’s relative inexperience and Tim Pawlenty’s inability to catch fire appear to have left the door open for a new candidate…
How successful was this stunt in pulling free media? Well, you can see the media mob scene. You might say, well, you’ve seen ’em that big before. So have I, but not that often, outside of a national convention. And I asked conference publicist Soren Dayton, just before Perry spoke, for his perspective on it. He said that at last year’s RedState conference, in Austin (with Gov. Perry in attendance), he had “zero” media to deal with. Today, he had 120 of the unruly creatures.
But the press can show up and do all the front-page stories about the Perry juggernaut (before it even starts rolling) all they want. That doesn’t nominate presidential candidates, does it? Well, the thing is, Perry showed up and met expectations — not only of the ink-stained wretches, but of the salt-of-the-earth (just ask ’em; they’ll tell ya) folk who show up at a conference like this one. And they had turned out en masse as well. Dayton estimated the crowd in that room about about 750, and there was a spillover room. I found myself wondering whether it was any cooler there…
It was not cool where we were, I can assure you. Aside from the humidity, Perry was on and hot and the crowd was hot, too (over that Obama, of course). And Perry, bringing all the talents of a bareknuckle Texas politico and a wannabe televangelist, threw them all the certified USDA RedMeat this RedState crowd could inhale. And they feasted on it. Watch the video. It doesn’t capture the sound fully, or the atmosphere (especially the humidity), but you’ll get an idea about how easily he spotted all their political erogenous zones and stroked them mercilessly.
He used every cliche in the book, and the tone of the response clearly said that this folks had never heard anything like it! They had waited their whole lives to hear a candidate — to hear anyone! — say these things! Such insights! He was their hero. Afterwards, I didn’t interview anyone for their reactions, because I had heard their true, spontaneous, visceral response. It wasn’t the most intense crowd response I’ve ever heard — I’ve visited black churches. It was more like the feel of the Sarah Palin-Nikki Haley rally last year, turned up several notches. (And of course, many of the same things were said — only in a more masculine manner.) I only recorded two reactions from individuals. As I was leaving the room, a woman behind me said, “I got chills!” A moment later, a man said, “He’s very direct.” Who could argue?
With this crowd (and this crowd was a great litmus test for the nomination — but not for election), he came across more clearly than any other Republican running this cycle as the AntiObama. And that’s the key, right? Because we all know where the emotional center of this passion lies.
At one point during the speech, I posted back-to-back Tweets that may have seemed to contradict each other. First, I wrote, “It astounds me that a crowd like this so wildly applauds assertions that are… obvious… things everyone knows, that OBAMA believes…” Then, I said, “Perry definitely positioning himself, more clearly than anyone, as the hyper-aggressive anti-Obama.”
What I meant was that whether he was saying things that everyone knows and believes, painfully obvious things (such as pointing out that every tax dollar had to be earned first by the sweat of an American taxpayer, which this crowd greeted like it was the most fresh, original and profound thing they had ever heard), or mischaracterizing what that wicked Obama and his minions believe in order to define what he (and everyone in the crowd!) opposed so passionately, it was all about saying that he, Rick Perry, was the one who believed, with the greatest purity and passion, all the right and good things that true Americans believed, and the one guy with the know-how, strength and determination to undo all the foolish evil associated with “Washington, D.C.” in general and Barack Obama in particular.
Some examples that illustrate what I was trying to say in that run-on sentence just now (most or all are on the video above, and most or all were applause lines):
“Washington is not our caretaker.”
“In America, the people are not subjects of the government; the government is subject to the people.”
“It is up to us, to this present generation of Americans, to take a stand for freedom, to send a message to Washington that we’re takin’ our future back from the grips of these central planners who would control our healthcare, who would spend our treasure, who downgrade our future and micromanage our lives.”
“And we will repeal this president’s misguided, one-size-fits-all government healthcare plan immediately!”
“We’ll get America working again.” (This, they say, is to be his campaign theme.)
“And I’ll promise you this: I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, DC, as inconsequential in your life as I can.
“… basing our domestic agenda on importing those failed Western European social values…”
“We don’t need a president who apologizes for America. We need a president who protects and projects those values.”
“America is not broken; Washington, DC, is broken.”
Again, I could (theoretically) be wrong in my predictions. This guy hasn’t been tested in the bigs (although there’s no bigger farm team than Texas) beyond this one speech. We’ll see. But right now, I expect this is the guy the GOP will be nominating at their convention about this time next year.
