Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com Politics Daily http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/feedlogo.gif Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/Obama Jokes for His Supper at His First Gridiron Dinner Appearance as Presidenthttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/13/obama-jokes-for-his-supper-at-his-first-appearance-at-exclusive/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/13/obama-jokes-for-his-supper-at-his-first-appearance-at-exclusive/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/13/obama-jokes-for-his-supper-at-his-first-appearance-at-exclusive/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bowing to precedent -- and perhaps the advice of his 2012 campaign staff -- President Obama attended a Gridiron Dinner on Saturday night for the first time since winning the White House.

He had skipped the two previous white-tie banquets and amateur theatricals where some of Washington's top journalists spoof the political/media establishment in song, dance and ridiculous costumes. But on Saturday night, Obama duly snarked for his supper by mocking himself, potential rivals and the tradition-bound club that even in this age of Twitter and You Tube, steadfastly bars TV coverage.

As commander-in-chief, he signaled Marine Gunnery Sgt. Kevin Bennear, one of the club's musically gifted ringer members, to "play that song we talked about," meaning the loud and proud "Born in the U-S-A, Born in the U-S-A" refrain made famous by Bruce Springsteen.

"Some things just bear repeating," Obama said of the lyrics, as if there might be any birthers questioning his citizenship among more than 630 politicians, government and media heavyweights who packed the Renaissance Hotel ballroom for the priciest and most exclusive of Washington's press celebrations of itself. ($300 per ticket, and a fraction of the more than 2,000 expected at next month's White House Correspondents' Association Dinner).

Then, taking aim at his hosts, whose predecessors entertained their first White House guests 126 years ago, Obama ticked off the heady events of 2011 that topped old regimes elsewhere in the world and said, "Look out, Gridiron Club."

Related Stories

He had other targets, of course, some of them in the audience and most already ridiculed onstage in elaborately costumed Republican and Democratic skits.

Commenting on the "unusual skin tone" (translate orange) of the absent Speaker John Boehner, Obama said he used to think it was a tan until he saw how often his nemesis got weepy: "I realize that's not a tan, it's rust."

Noting a new civility (really?) that has "people with strong disagreements getting along as never before," Obama cited Mitt Romney, the "former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate working together by sharing a host body. It's inspiring...and creepy."

Obama thanked the rotund Republican Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi -- not known for his athleticism -- for backing first lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" anti-obesity initiative. "Haley, when Michelle said you should run, she didn't mean for president," the president said.

As for the also-absent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama said her passion for recent Middle East regime change made it "hard to sleep with Hillary out on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting and throwing rocks."

The president had barbs for the dinner's two other speakers, Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, a possible 2012 White House contender, and Democratic Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a former Kansas governor who has struggled to push Obama's embattled health care plan.

"Mitch tore into his filet like it was a public employee," Obama said of Daniels, who reversed the requirement that state workers be union members. He cited Daniels's prior experience as a pharmaceutical executive and President George W. Bush's budget chief. "I don't have a joke here," Obama said. "I just wanted to put that out."

Having asked his own cabinet members to "cut things they care about, in Kathleen's case it was her once-promising political career."

Earlier Daniels, his right arm in a sling following rotator cuff surgery, went after Obama by recalling the Democratic candidate's private remarks to big party donors about conservatives clinging hard to their guns and their religion. "Mr. President, until I get this thing off, I can cling to my gun or my Bible, but not both," Daniels said.

At 5 feet 7 inches and balding, Daniels, who said he's still mulling whether to run, ticked off
a string adjectives used to describe him in recent news stories. "Small, stiff, short, pale, unimposing, unassuming, uninspiring, understated, uncharismatic, accountant-like, non-telegenic, boring, balding, blunt, nerdy, wooden, wonky, puny, and pint-sized," he said. "Really, it all points to one inescapable conclusion: It's destiny!"

In her speech, Sebelius told Daniels they had much in common. "We're both Midwest governors, we've both been cabinet members and neither of us is going to be president in 2012," she said.

Saying one reason she took her current job was because "it came with great health insurance," Sebelius then announced a plan to put TSA airport screeners in the HHS building "making it a lot easier for the businessman on the go by allowing him to get a boarding pass and a colonoscopy at the same time."

Among all that levity a couple of backstories played out.

At a time of toxic partisanship in Washington, the 65-member Gridiron Club (disclosure alert: I was tapped to join in 1990) and its swank dinner offers the chance for political adversaries to share a night of conversation, merriment, political gossip and agenda promoting.

But it's also the kind of gathering that make cynical voters outside the Beltway think there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two political parties, and that the relationship between the pols and the press is entirely too cozy and elitist.

The Gridiron president, Susan Page of USA Today, took note of that when she said in her welcoming speech that all those swells dressing up in white tie and sipping fine wine and hanging out for an evening "is exactly what the tea party suspected."

Then there is the irony of the Gridiron's policy of barring TV cameras, photographers and non-member, non-guest journalists from covering the dinner.

This is the 25th consecutive year C-SPAN has been denied access, prompting Mark Knoller, longtime White House correspondent for CBS Radio and not a Gridiron member, to Tweet that although Gridiron members attending the event are allowed to cover it, "barring WH press pool coverage of a presidential event is indefensible."

But Page told Politics Daily that transparency is maintained by all those reporters at the dinner who file stories after it's over, and who attend the Friday dress rehearsal to see the costumes and hear the lyrics. She also told me there is no great move afoot among members to push for TV cameras inside the room.

In part, it's to preserve a little mystery and exclusivity. But let's not kid ourselves. There probably aren't too many Gridiron members -- or their bosses who pick up the considerable dinner tab - very eager to end up on C-SPAN or You Tube dressed as a Hell's Angel, a drag queen or a dancing oil rig.

As Obama left the ballroom Saturday night, he had one bit of cheery news for the crowd: "The bar will be open till midnight and last time I checked, so will the government." Actually, the after-party was still going strong early Sunday.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Haley BarbourAnnie Groer2011-03-13T11:48:00+00:00Lack of a GOP Front-Runner for 2012 at Odds With Republican Historyhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/07/lack-of-a-gop-front-runner-for-2012-at-odds-with-republican-hist/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/07/lack-of-a-gop-front-runner-for-2012-at-odds-with-republican-hist/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/07/lack-of-a-gop-front-runner-for-2012-at-odds-with-republican-hist/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , ,

Although the contest for the GOP presidential nomination may seem far away (for all except those gearing up for it), there has been a lot of comment about the potential Republican field, ranging from those who regard it as weak to the fact that no one has emerged yet as a front-runner, at least according to polls.

Gallup says that situation is not typical. In reviewing its polling dating back to 1952, Gallup notes that in every presidential year up until now, there was a clear front-runner at this stage of the campaign and that, in most but not all cases, the front-runner won the nomination.

There have been a few twists and turns in that general pattern. It may have faded from memory now, but in 2007, Rudolph Giuliani was way out in front in Republican preference polls, leading John McCain by 42 percent to 25 percent in February of that year, with the remainder of support spread among other candidates or undecided. Giuliani faded fast after making the mistake of skipping the early primary states, and McCain, who had been the presumed front-runner aside from the 2007 poll, got a scare when Mike Huckabee went from a blip on pollsters' radar screens to winning the Iowa caucuses.

Related Stories

In February 1963, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was the clear favorite, leading Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater by 45 percent to 19 percent. However, Goldwater steadily crept up on Rockefeller and then passed him, and when former Massachusetts Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge entered the race, the three candidates were in a statistical tie in Gallup's last poll before the GOP convention. Goldwater emerged as the nominee.

As far as the current field of Republicans is concerned, the top four in Republican preference polls have consistently been Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. None has formally launched a campaign, although Gingrich -- who usually runs last in that group -- has come the closest. Last week, he filed paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service to explore a possible candidacy and launched a website, NewtExplore2012.

There is a large field of others who are unannounced but eyeing a race, like former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. But the challenge for these candidates, who all poll mostly in the low single digits, is that they are still largely unknown.

A Quinnipiac University survey released Monday found nearly all of those potential Republican candidates at the top of the list when it came to the percentage of voters who didn't know enough about them to express a pro or con opinion. These included former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman (84 percent don't know him); Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana (78 percent); Pawlenty (67 percent); Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi (65 percent); and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (63 percent).

"History thus provides no guidelines for how today's highly fragmented Republican race might play out, or for when a strong front-runner is likely to emerge, or who it will be," Gallup said. "If the race remains close throughout 2011, it may also create unfamiliar political and fundraising dynamics for the national party."

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>barry goldwaterGOP presidential nominationnelson rockefellerRepublican presidential frontrunnerRepublican presidential nominationRudolph GiulianiBruce Drake2011-03-07T11:51:00+00:00John McCain Pressing Hard for Consideration of Libyan No-Fly Zonehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/john-mccain-pressing-hard-for-consideration-of-libyan-no-fly-zon/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/john-mccain-pressing-hard-for-consideration-of-libyan-no-fly-zon/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/john-mccain-pressing-hard-for-consideration-of-libyan-no-fly-zon/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

Sen. John McCain said Thursday that establishing a no-fly zone over Libya should be a viable option for the United States military -- and saying so does not amount to "loose talk."

McCain (R-Ariz.) did not mention Defense Secretary Robert Gates by name at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, according to the Associated Press. But Gates has warned Congress about loose talk in connection with the difficult task of setting up a no-fly zone in response to Moammar Gadhafi's air offensive against rebel positions.

On Wednesday, in an appearance before House Appropriations Committee, Gates said establishing a no-fly zone to police Gadhafi's warplanes would involve a "big operation in a big country." It is doable, Gates testified, but he added, "Let's just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. . . . And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down."

The debate came as Gadhafi launched airstrikes Thursday against two rebel-held towns. Gates, the highest ranking Republican in the Obama administration, is well respected on Capitol Hill, but McCain also has credibility as a onetime Navy pilot whose plane was shot down over Hanoi during the Vietnam war.

McCain said Thursday U.S. experience in southern Iraq beginning in 1992 suggests that keeping the skies clear over a contested zone is "not hard to do," The Hill newspaper reported. Even threatening a no-fly zone would amount to a "strategic deterrent," he said during an exchange with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey. "Deterrence" is an option the national command "should always have," Dempsey said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) also endorsed serious consideration of a no-fly zone.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceRobert GatesTom Diemer2011-03-03T12:06:00+00:00Gay Marriage Decision May Not Hurt Obama or Help the Religious Righthttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/25/gay-marriage-decision-may-not-hurt-obama-or-help-the-religious-r/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/25/gay-marriage-decision-may-not-hurt-obama-or-help-the-religious-r/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/25/gay-marriage-decision-may-not-hurt-obama-or-help-the-religious-r/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When the Obama administration announced that it would adopt a matador defense on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the reaction from conservative Christian activists alternated between rage and celebration that the president had basically allowed the political right a slam dunk for the 2012 campaign.

The Justice Department declared that it would no longer argue in court on behalf of a key restriction against gay marriage contained in the law, which effectively gives gay marriage a pass from the executive branch -- and gives the religious right a debating point.

Related Stories

But social conservatives may want to hold off on the high fives. Unlike abortion, gay marriage is not the automatic winner for the right that it was as recently as the 1990s when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

Even among evangelicals and other conservatives, opposition is eroding, especially among a younger generation that doesn't see anything all that wrong with gay and lesbian couples.

Mike Huckabee, a possible 2012 presidential candidate who is far and away the front runner among Republican voters when it comes to social issues and moral values, this week conceded that reality. The former Baptist pastor noted that younger evangelicals have shown an "alarming" trend toward acceptance of homosexual relationships that could complicate political prospects for a candidate like himself who sees gay marriage as a moral threat on par with abortion.

The numbers certainly give Huckabee and his fellow opponents of gay marriage reason to worry.

Surveys in the last year show that for the first time more Americans are accepting than disapproving of "homosexual relations" (52-43 percent in a Gallup poll). Both Gallup and Pew Forum surveys last fall showed the gap is narrowing between those who disapprove of gay marriage itself and those who accept, suggesting acceptance will soon win out.

White evangelicals who form the core of the Republican right (and the tea party movement) remain the most opposed to gay marriage. However, even that opposition is easing, and it is significantly weaker among younger Christians, as Huckabee lamented. Not even a majority (just 48 percent) of white evangelicals said they opposed gays serving openly in the military, in a poll taken just before Congress voted to repeal the "Don't ask, Don't tell" (DADT) law last December. Even most Republicans under age 45 said same-sex couples should have the same benefits as opposite-sex couples, according to an Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll last summer.

As authors Robert Putnam and David Campbell write in their sweeping new study of faith in the United States, "American Grace," given these trends "homosexuality will become less attractive as a wedge issue in politics and will likely cease to be a potent issue at all." If anything, homosexuality is becoming a dividing line within the Republican Party rather than between Republicans and Democrats, as shown by the boycott of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference by some groups of social conservatives (and not others) over the presence of the conservative gay organization, GOProud.

These attitudinal shifts, along with the overriding concern about jobs and the economy, may help explain the decidedly low-key response this week from Republican leaders to Obama's DOMA decision.

Sarah Palin was quiet, and old bulls like Newt Gingrich largely confined their protests to the constitutionality of Obama's move rather than the impact on America's moral life. Tim Pawlenty said only that he was "disappointed," and a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner had an equally mild response: "While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation."

As Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist who worked for President George W. Bush during his 2004 campaign, told The New York Times, "The wedge has lost its edge."

Indeed, marriage traditionalists like New York Times' columnist Ross Douthat has suggested gay marriage is no longer worth fighting, and in the wake of the 2009 California court ruling overturning Proposition 8, a number of leading evangelicals also said the battle wasn't justified.

There are several reasons why the Christian right is yielding this front in the culture war.

One is the disparity between what Christian conservatives preach about the sanctity of marriage and how some Christian conservatives and their leaders behave, as they seem to divorce and cheat at much the same rate as other Americans.

"In short, we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue," Christianity Today Editor Mark Galli wrote in 2009. "Until we admit that, and take steps to amend our ways, our cries of alarm about gay marriage will echo off into oblivion."

Another factor may be related, paradoxically, to the success of the pro-life movement.

America's continuing unease with abortion -- in contrast with a growing comfort level about homosexuality -- means that conservative jeremiads against allowing gay couples to adopt babies who might otherwise have been orphaned or aborted just doesn't make sense, emotionally or morally, to many traditional Christians.

"I find myself convinced of the truth of the Church's teaching, but also without a good argument for why orphans are better off languishing without loving parents than they are being in a nurturing home with a same-sex couple," blogger Rod Dreher has written.

A chief reason for the evolution among religious conservatives is one that is driving acceptance of gays among the wider public as well: familiarity.

Huckabee said this week that the change is "not surprising because every movie, every television show, every novel that many young people are exposed to is an affirmation of the rightness of gay marriage and the idiocy, if not the antiquity, of views of people like me who think some social institutions matter for a reason."

But homosexuals are emerging not just in popular culture but in the conservative world, too.

In the 2004 presidential race, gay marriage ballot measures in a dozen states (for and against) helped rally conservative voters. The head of George W. Bush's campaign at that time -- and subsequently GOP chairman -- was Ken Mehlman, who last August came out publicly as gay. A few months before that, Bush's wife, Laura, wrote in her memoir that she supports the right of gays to marry, and Cindy McCain, wife of 2008 presidential runner-up and gay marriage opponent Sen. John McCain, last year posed for an ad campaign in support of gay rights.

In April 2010, Christian music star Jennifer Knapp returned to performing after a seven-year absence, and announced that she had been in an eight-year relationship with another woman -- and was still a Christian. Gospel star Tonex came out as gay in 2009 as did Christian singer/songwriter Ray Boltz in 2008.

After this week's DOMA decision, some Republicans and their allies are making noises about passing a resolution in the House to fill the legal void left by the Obama administration's defection.

But when popular Christian singers and well-known Republicans are out of the closet or supporting their gay friends, it begins to look as though Obama has handed the GOP the one issue it doesn't need.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Christian conservativesChristianConservativesDefense of Marriage ActDefenseOfMarriageActDOMAgay marriageGayMarriagehomosexualityJustice DepartmentJustice Department and Defense of Marriage Actreligious rightsame-sex marriageDavid Gibson2011-02-25T20:42:00+00:00Maverick Days Long Gone, McCain Among Most Conservative in Senatehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/24/maverick-days-long-gone-mccain-among-most-conservative-in-senat/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/24/maverick-days-long-gone-mccain-among-most-conservative-in-senat/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/24/maverick-days-long-gone-mccain-among-most-conservative-in-senat/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , ,

Onetime maverick John McCain ties for the top spot as the most conservative senator in new rankings by the National Journal. Granted, he shares the billing with seven other Republican senators but it is still a far cry from his 2000 Republican presidential race when he was viewed as an unconventional alternative to George W. Bush.

McCain tacked right in 2008 during his presidential campaign, and stayed there in his successful bid for reelection to the Senate in Arizona. He chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in the national campaign and insists that he's always been an across-the-board conservative.

Related Stories

He called himself a "maverick" as recently as 2008, hinting that he wouldn't always go along with conservative or Republican orthodoxy. But in the last two years, he backed away from a bipartisan effort to reform immigration law and fought against President Obama's health care bill.

McCain's political shift in recent years is indisputable, the National Journal said. Between 2002 and 2006, he was in the middle of the road, ranking between the 44th and 49th most conservative in the 100-member Senate.

The National Journal, a respected public policy and politics magazine, measured senators' conservatism on the basis of 96 votes in last year's session. McCain scored 89.7 on a scale topped out at 100. Grouped with him: Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming; Saxby Chambliss of Georgia; John Cornyn of Texas; Mike Crapo of Idaho; Jim DeMint of South Carolina; Jim Risch of Idaho, and John Thune of South Dakota. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was all alone in second place.

Five Republicans were ranked as as the most conservative members of the House of Representatives: Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona; Sam Johnson of Texas; Jim Jordan of Ohio; Doug Lamborn of Colorado and Randy Neugebauer of Texas. All scored 95. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was eighth.

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>conservativesdailyguidanceJim DeMintJim RischJohn BarrassoJohn Cornynjohn mccainJohn ThuneMike Craposaxby chamblissTom Diemer2011-02-24T16:38:00+00:00Mike Huckabee Keeps Up Criticism of Islam in Americahttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/23/mike-huckabee-keeps-up-criticism-of-islam-in-america/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/23/mike-huckabee-keeps-up-criticism-of-islam-in-america/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/23/mike-huckabee-keeps-up-criticism-of-islam-in-america/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , ,

Just days after stirring Muslim ire for ripping Islam as "the antithesis of the gospel of Christ," Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee again sharply critiqued the religion, telling an evangelical magazine that Muslims are receiving special treatment "at the expense of others" -- apparently referring to Christians -- and that is "un-American."

In the interview with Christianity Today, Huckabee was asked about New York Rep. Peter King's controversial plan to hold hearings in March on the alleged radicalization of American Muslims, and Huckabee responded by talking about concerns that Muslims wanted to "impose" the Islamic religious law code known as Sharia on Americans.

Sharia law cannot be used to trump U.S. laws, but conservatives, including Newt Gingrich -- another GOP hopeful for 2012 -- have gained traction with their base by arguing that it can, and Huckabee seemed to be joining that camp.

"We live in a country where people are free to be Muslim. They're not free, however, to impose a Muslim law as if it were civil law," Huckabee, a Baptist and former pastor, said. "If I were to say, okay, everyone must tithe to their local church, people would be outraged."

Huckabee cited a story from 2007 when a campus of the University of Michigan installed foot baths to accommodate Muslim students -- who comprised 10 percent of the student body -- who wanted a safe facility to wash before their daily prayers. At least 18 other universities also have foot baths for Muslims and any others who want to use them.

"I don't remember anyone ever accommodating me and saying we're going to erect a cross so that we can make sure you're comfortable when you walk across campus," Huckabee said. "I find that the accommodation we're making to one religion at the expense of the others is very un-American." (Many universities do have Christian facilities and symbols, such as chapels and crosses, to accommodate believers or as a legacy of their original church affiliation.)

Appearing on a Fox News show over the weekend, Huckabee also took aim at Islam as he criticized two Protestant churches that allowed Muslims to worship in their facilities when mosques in the area were too small or under construction.

"If the purpose of a church is to push forward the gospel of Jesus Christ, and then you have a Muslim group that says that Jesus Christ and all the people that follow him are a bunch of infidels who should be essentially obliterated, I have a hard time understanding that," Huckabee, a Fox host, said while he was a guest on "Fox & Friends." "I mean if a church is nothing more than a facility and a meeting place free for any and all viewpoints, without regard to what it is, then should the church be rented out to show adult movies on the weekend?"

Huckabee added that Islam "is the antithesis of the gospel of Christ." A leading Islamic advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), called Huckabee's remarks "inaccurate and offensive" and asked him to apologize. CAIR said it would also help arrange a meeting between the former Arkansas governor and Muslim leaders "to discuss growing Islamophobia in American society."

Huckabee has not responded to either request.

In his Christianity Today interview, Huckabee did weigh in on the "birther" controversy -- about those who allege President Obama was not born in the United States -- and suspicions among many conservative Christians that Obama is not a Christian or may even be a Muslim. He said Obama is clearly a Christian and dismissed as "inappropriate, wrong-headed, and not helpful to the overall discussion when people try to say he doesn't have a birth certificate or he's a Muslim."

He said people should be focusing on whether Obama's policies are good for the country, "not what did he hear when he sat in church."

"If people went back and heard every sermon I heard when I was a little kid and some of the more fundamentalist pastors were yelling from the pulpit at me, if they took every one of those sermons and lifted out of them certain phrases and things, it could be scandalous, but only out of the context of the bigger picture."

In a similar vein, Huckabee seemed to give his close rival in the Republican sweepstakes, Mitt Romney, a boost when he said evangelicals should not consider Romney's Mormon faith when they weigh their preferences.

"I don't think they should, unless that person advances something truly bizarre," Huckabee said. (Evangelicals remain deeply suspicious of Mormon beliefs despite the fact that the two groups share many conservative values.) Huckabee said he was more interested in whether candidates live up to the teachings of their own faith.

Elsewhere in the interview, Huckabee maintained his standard line about a 2012 presidential run, saying he has not made up his mind. He said he projects a late summer decision, which would likely be three or four months after candidates including Mitt Romney make their official announcements.

He also casts social conservatives like himself as integral to fiscal conservatism and conservatism in general, pushing back at some of the more libertarian-minded conservatives who want to focus on economic issues at the expense of opposition to things like gay marriage and abortion.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>birthersEvangelicalsHuckabeeMormonsmuslimsreligious rightReligiousRightDavid Gibson2011-02-23T21:50:00+00:00Glenn Beck Meets Billy Graham, Later Blasts the Left as 'Evil'http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/22/glenn-beck-meets-billy-graham-later-blasts-the-left-as-evil/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/22/glenn-beck-meets-billy-graham-later-blasts-the-left-as-evil/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/22/glenn-beck-meets-billy-graham-later-blasts-the-left-as-evil/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , ,

Controversial Fox News host Glenn Beck met quietly with the aging and revered evangelist Billy Graham on Saturday and said that after their three-hour encounter he is convinced that the political left -- including "the average Democrat" -- is "standing now with profound and clear evil."

"In sitting there and speaking to Reverend Graham, I thought, here is a man who has been all around the world," Beck explained on his website on Tuesday, apparently a transcript of comments made on his radio show on Monday. "Here's a man who has seen it all. Here's a man who's done profound good. One of the first to stand in Alabama as a white preacher and stand and say we must come together."

Related Stories

"My message to you," Beck continued, "is we must come together. Evil has ‑‑ the left has stood ‑‑ is standing now with profound and clear evil and they've connected from evil all the way to the average Democrat and everything in between.

With characteristic melodrama, Beck cast his post-Graham impressions in apocalyptic tones, saying the United States had fallen away from the path of righteousness and that "America is going to find it more and more difficult to do the right thing even though we have, I fear, done the wrong thing for too long."

Beck also expressed concerns for the situation in Libya, saying that Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi is "a brutal dictator who we don't like," but now "you take him out and you destabilize the whole world."

Beck had for months sought an audience with Graham, whose aura, even at 92 and in seclusion as his health has failed, retains a powerful lure for public figures. John McCain met with Graham during the 2008 campaign, and Sarah Palin, who has struck up a close friendship with Franklin Graham, Billy's son and his apparent heir, went to see the man known as "America's pastor" early in 2010. And in April last year, Barack Obama made a pilgrimage to meet Graham at his home in Montreat, N.C.

Beck first tried to meet with Graham last summer as he was planning his patriotic rally and tent revival on the Mall in Washington in August, but Graham's aides told Beck they did not feel that "the time was right."

After that rally, Beck was portrayed by some as the next Billy Graham, and on Tuesday, Beck's website hit that note as well, saying that "Billy Graham was probably the only other person who had tried to do something on the scale of what Glenn was hoping to accomplish" with the "Restoring Honor" event.

But as Christianity Today noted, Beck is also a Mormon whose beliefs remain anathema to many of the evangelicals and conservative Christians who form an important part of his fan base. Some Christians were dismayed by his calls for believers to "leave your church" if it promotes social justice.

Moreover, Beck has faced a steep and sudden decline in his once sky-high ratings, leading some to wonder if his 15 minutes of fame are winding down.

A meeting with Graham, apart from the inherent appeal of meeting such a grand figure of American history, could potentially benefit Beck by easing concerns about Beck's Mormonism among Graham's millions of evangelical followers.

In his remarks, Beck stressed the importance of spiritual solidarity among believers, as he has elsewhere, and implied various religious differences should not obscure the greater challenges to be met together.

"While none of us can sacrifice what we believe as an individual, we must stand together with those who believe in God and that God endows each individual with the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," Beck said.

Graham is also known for embracing social justice and eschewing the Religious Right, so he could provide Beck with some cover on that score. (In refusing to join Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in 1979, Graham said: "I'm for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice.")

Diana Butler Bass, a popular author and scholar of American religion, wrote at Beliefnet that Beck's meeting with Graham and Beck's description of it "amounts to a sort of theological dog-whistle for those in the conservative religious-political community."

"According to Beck, the Baptist Graham passed his mantle onto the Mormon Beck as the spiritual and political leader of the next Great American Awakening," wrote Butler Bass. She compared the energetic Beck's encounter with the blind and deaf Graham to the bibical story of Jacob putting one over on his aging father Isaac in order to steal his twin brother Easu's inheritance.

"To Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the familiar Religious Right leaders, you need to go check on Billy Graham," she wrote. "Glenn Beck's no patriarch of Israel, but I think he might just have made off with your birthright."

Whatever else Beck's meeting with Graham accomplished, it could simply help create some much-needed buzz for Beck. A spokesperson for Graham told Christianity Today via e-mail that the meeting was a private, personal meeting arranged by a family member and was not an interview.

Beck explained that he reached out to the Graham family about two weeks ago "as I have been struggling with some ideas and some things that I am working on for the future and I am trying to get clarity again."

He said Graham's family called and said Graham "feels it's time to meet," and a scheduled one-hour talk went for three. (Beck's wife was also there.)

"He is a very clear individual," Beck wrote of the meeting. "He's slowed down quite a bit. . . . You have to be pretty close to him for him to be able to see you. His eyes are going and his hearing is gone. So I had to talk to him like I used to have to talk to my grandfather. But he is of sound mind and a man of great peace.

"We spoke of the things to come and where we were in history, and I will tell you it is for him to say what he wishes to say. I will tell you what my impressions were walking away and what I felt walking away. These are not his views but mine."

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>billy grahamChristianity Todayevangelicalsglenn beckglenn beck meet billy grahamMormonsDavid Gibson2011-02-22T22:46:00+00:00Jon Kyl to Retire From Senate, Is Open to Being Vice Presidential Candidatehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/10/jon-kyl-expected-to-announce-his-retirement-from-senate/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/10/jon-kyl-expected-to-announce-his-retirement-from-senate/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/10/jon-kyl-expected-to-announce-his-retirement-from-senate/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl announced Thursday that he will not seek reelection to the Senate for a fourth term in 2012.

At a press conference in Phoenix, the stalwart Republican offered no explanation for the decision "other than the fact than I think it's time."

He did, however, add: "I wouldn't close my mind to being a vice presidential candidate. Having said that, I expect the chances of that are zero."

Politico's Mike Allen was among the first to post the news, saying on Twitter Thursday morning that the three-term Republican "will announce his plans to retire at a press conference in Arizona later today, a source confirms."

The Arizona Republic had reported that Kyl would hold a surprise news conference "amid speculation that he may retire."

Kyl, a lawyer who turns 69 in April, was elected to the Senate in 1994 after serving eight years in the U.S. House. A strong conservative, he ranks second in the GOP Senate leadership and serves on the Finance and Judiciary committees. Kyl led an unsuccessful fight last December against the START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, which won Senate ratification after a big push from the Obama administration.

He becomes the latest in a growing list of incumbent senators who will not seek reelection in 2012. On Wednesday, Jim Webb (D-Va.) joined Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) in saying he would leave the Senate after the current term.

Unlike the Webb departure, which promises a competitive race for the open seat, Kyl is leaving in a Republican-leaning state where the Democratic candidate will face a significant challenge. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) defeated Barack Obama in his home state in the 2008 presidential race, although Obama captured 45 percent of the vote.

Several Republicans are already being talked up as possible 2012 candidates, including Rep. Jeff Flake and former Rep. John Shadegg. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Thursday he is "confident that this seat will remain in Republican hands."

But the rival Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee seemed up for the fight, calling Arizona a "prime pick-up opportunity" for Democrats. Republicans now likely face a divisive primary in Arizona, the campaign committee said, "similar to impending free-for-alls in nearly every other state" with an open Senate seat.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>jim webbJoe Liebermanjon kylkay bailey hutchisonKent ConradPolitics Daily Staff2011-02-10T10:33:00+00:00McCain Tells Rumsfeld: I Was Right on Iraqhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/04/mccain-tells-rumsfeld-i-was-right-on-iraq/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/04/mccain-tells-rumsfeld-i-was-right-on-iraq/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/04/mccain-tells-rumsfeld-i-was-right-on-iraq/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

Rummy and Mac are still having a spat over Iraq. Sen. John McCain says history has proven him correct in his insistence that the United States needed more boots on the ground in its battle against a bloody insurgency in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resisted the call for more troops -- arguing that a leaner, more efficient Army could get the job done -- and he largely defends his prosecution of the war in a new memoir, "Known and Unkown."

Related Stories

Rumsfeld "didn't believe we needed additional troops," McCain (R-Ariz.) said on CNN's "John King USA." "That was a huge bone of contention beween myself and Secretary Rumsfeld, and fortunately after the election of 2006 the president decided to replace him. We had the [troop] surge and we've achieved a significant degree of success in Iraq, which we wouldn't have under Secretary Rumsfeld."

The two Republicans clashed more than a few times during Bush's presidency last decade -- and it appears their differences have not been resolved.

In his memoir, due out next week, Rumsfeld concedes there may have been times where "more troops could have helped" in Iraq. But he also gets in a sharp jab at McCain, saying the 2008 GOP presidential nominee has a "hair-trigger temper" and seemed to shift his positions to gain media attention.

McCain, a onetime Navy pilot who was shot down and held as a POW during the Vietnam War, said Thursday that he and Rumsfeld had pitched battles over the issue of a troop surge -- and Rumsfeld "steadfastly opposed it."

He told ABC's "Good Morning America" that he had strong differences with Rumsfeld "about the strategy he was employing in Iraq, which I predicted was doomed to failure."

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidancedonald rumseldVietnam WarTom Diemer2011-02-04T09:15:00+00:00The State of Our Union's Political Civility: Many Are Hungry for Morehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/01/23/the-state-of-our-unions-political-civility-many-are-hungry-for/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/01/23/the-state-of-our-unions-political-civility-many-are-hungry-for/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/01/23/the-state-of-our-unions-political-civility-many-are-hungry-for/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Does "the American people" want President Obama to make a case for political civility in his State of the Union address?

Of course not. Despite the too-common political rhetoric, "American people" is a plural, not a singular, noun. There's no point of even slight controversy about which all 300 million of us stand as one. And even if I restate the question with the proper plural-noun grammar - "Do the American people...?" - I am not going to pretend that there's an unarguable answer for a majority.

But there is some evidence that a lot of us would not mind another nod from the president in the direction of civil discourse.

Related Stories

Back in November, with the stink of some of the election language still fresh, about half of those responding to a national poll by the Public Religion Research Institute said they thought "the lack of civil or respectful discourse in our political system" was a very serious problem. Another third considered the lack of civility as a "somewhat serious problem."

In a national Zogby poll conducted last March, about half of those surveyed said they thought the level of political civility was going down. And that was before the convulsive reaction to the Arizona massacre. Obama used his speech at the memorial service in Tucson to make a case for civil political discourse:

"And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud."

Another eloquent defense of and argument for civility was offered a few days later by Sen. John McCain in The Washington Post. You should read the whole thing, but I'll excerpt a nugget:

We Americans have different opinions on how best to serve that noble purpose. We need not pretend otherwise or be timid in our advocacy of the means we believe will achieve it. But we should be mindful as we argue about our differences that so much more unites than divides us....

I disagree with many of the president's policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals. And I reject accusations that Americans who vigorously oppose his policies are less intelligent, compassionate or just than those who support them.
And then there is the symbolic gesture now offered by some members of Congress - an offer to break the longtime tradition of seating by party for this State of the Union speech. "Symbolic" is not necessarily a synonym for "meaningless," as can be quickly demonstrated by the American flag, a cross, a peace sign or the vote by the House of Representatives last week to repeal the health care reform law passed by the previous session of Congress.

Whether a symbol has meaning depends on what actions people are wiling to take that can be tied to that symbol. So we'll not know for a while whether mixed seating for this speech is indicative of any long-term changes.

It would, perhaps, be useful for the president to offer a definition of civility in this speech: Civility does not require weakness of principle or language. It's not code for compromise or surrender. It's not mind control. It's self-censorship only in the same way that not taking a whiz in your neighbor's living room is self-censorship.

Political civility is nothing more - or less - than a continuing acknowledgment that the motives and patriotism of your opponent are at least as pure as your own. That the other side is not occupied by Nazis, Communists, socialists, fascists or people otherwise determined to destroy our nation. That the half of the nation, more or less, that voted against your side during one of the recent elections is not un-American, Satanic or unworthy. That the sharpest and most pointed criticism of positions should not leak over into an attack on the person.

(Unless, of course, you have conclusive evidence that it should. Civility should not blind us to the fact that there have been Nazis, Communists, socialists, fascists or people otherwise determined to destroy our nation. You'd better have courtroom-ready goods, however, before you roll out that kind of accusation.)

But is this just what my friends in religious denominations call a "preacher war"? That's an argument that seems as deep and bitter and corrosive as you can imagine if you talk to the folks in the battle - generally members of the clergy. But when you get to the pews, the same topic won't get you a loud yawn.

So the odd poll aside, do many Americans really care enough about the nastiness to want to do anything about it? I asked Jim Leach, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Leach was a Republican congressman from Iowa for 15 terms, from 1997 to 2007, generally considered a "moderate" when such a thing was more common. He was later part of a relatively heavyweight bipartisan group that seriously considered backing a third party presidential candidate in early 2008. (And he still thinks there may really be room for a third party if neither the Democrats nor GOP move back to what Leach considers the center.) He eventually spoke in support of Barack Obama - at the Democratic convention.

So you can think of him as either a remarkable political boundary spanner or someone with uncertain principles. You'll find both evaluations out there. For my purposes, though, he may be the best known and most widely traveled partisan for political civility over the past year or so.

Leach launched his "American Civility Tour" in November 2009 and is still working his way through all 50 states. That may give him an unusually good perspective about what "the American people" think about political civility and the lack. Based on what he's heard, a call for civility will find a receptive audience.

"The hunger out there for greater civility is very large," he said.

He blames much of the lack of civility on a primary election system that gives vastly disproportionate power to the party extremes, and on a system of campaign financing that allows those extremes to dominate the public discourse.

The largely unrepresented middle is where the hunger for civility can be most easily identified, Leach said.

He considered Obama's Tucson memorial address "one of the most unusual and unusually effective speeches delivered by a president." He was impressed at how it delivered personal comfort and public encouragement "in a moment not only of grief but embarrassment."

He suggested that Obama return to the civility theme in the State of the Union speech. And if he does, Leach said, Obama can have an impact on our discourse.

"I would hope that he follows the logical model that he set up in Tucson -- of not blaming anyone, yet pointing out that we've got to come together," Leach said. "There is no greater pulpit in the history of man than the State of the Union address. He has Congress at his feet and the American public tuned in."

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>arizona shootingcivilitycivilogueSOTUJeffrey Weiss2011-01-23T23:00:00+00:00Giuliani Mulling Another White House Bid; Mike Huckabee Biding His Timehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/01/21/guiliani-mulling-another-white-house-bid-mike-huckabee-biding-h/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/01/21/guiliani-mulling-another-white-house-bid-mike-huckabee-biding-h/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/01/21/guiliani-mulling-another-white-house-bid-mike-huckabee-biding-h/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who stumbled early in the Republican presidential campaign two years ago, says he's leaving the door open to trying again in 2012. Meanwhile, another 2008 GOP candidate, Mike Huckabee, says he's not in any rush to decide on a national race.

Giuliani told CNBC's Kudlow Report he would "take a look at 2012" to determine whether he can play a useful role and has any realistic shot at getting the nomination. "Those are things that I'll have to evaluate as the year goes along," he said in an interview for the Friday night program.

Asked by host Larry Kudlow if that means the door is open to a second national campaign, Giuliani answered, "Yes, yes, absolutely Larry."

Giuliani, who was in the national spotlight early last decade for his strong response to the 9/11 attacks in New York, got off to a slow start in 2008. He skipped the Iowa caucuses and bet on the Florida primary as a launch pad for his campaign. But he finished a weak third in Florida and soon dropped out.

Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, told Fox News he won't make up his mind on another campaign until this summer because "people get sick of us" and he doesn't want to seem like a "stale loaf of bread" to voters.

"For me, having done this four years ago, I realize that very few people can sustain the burn rate of a campaign if it's going to have to last 18 months," he said.

Huckabee entered the last race in January 2007 and hung on, finishing second to Sen. John McCain in the delegate count. He shows up near the top in most polls looking ahead to the 2012 Republican primary season and has a platform at Fox News where he hosts a weekend talk show.

Although Huckabee appeals to a conservative base that might also be supportive of Sarah Palin, he said his decision will be made independent of "whether it's a go or no go" for the former governor of Alaska.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>911dailyguidanceIowa caucusesMike HuckabeeRudy GiulianiPolitics Daily Staff2011-01-21T15:54:00+00:00McCain Calls Obama a 'Patriot,' Rejects Critics Who Say He's 'Unworthy' to Leadhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/01/16/mccain-calls-obama-a-patriot-rejects-critics-who-say-hes-un/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/01/16/mccain-calls-obama-a-patriot-rejects-critics-who-say-hes-un/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/01/16/mccain-calls-obama-a-patriot-rejects-critics-who-say-hes-un/#commentsFiled under: ,

Sen. John McCain lost a bitter campaign against Barack Obama in 2008 and has been at loggerheads with him for much of Obama's first two years in office. But the Arizona Republican this weekend called Obama a "patriot" intent on using his presidency to "advance our country's cause" and rejected accusations -- many coming from members of his own party and the tea party movement -- "that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America."

McCain made his comments in an article he wrote for The Washington Post opinion page, posted on Saturday, in which he praised Obama for giving a "terrific speech" in Tucson at a tribute for victims of the shooting rampage that took place there a week ago.

McCain said that Obama had "comforted and inspired the country" and performed an important service by encouraging "every American who participates in our political debates -- whether we are on the left or right or in the media -- to aspire to a more generous appreciation of one another and a more modest one of ourselves."

Cindy McCain and John McCain"Our political discourse should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so," McCain said.

The shootings in Arizona have prompted much introspection about the tone and tenor of American politics even though the reasons why the suspected gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, carried out the massacre remain obscured by his history of bizarre behavior.

But the fact that his victims included a congresswoman holding a community meeting and the constituents who came to speak with her was likely a factor in connecting the violent incident to the political debate, along with suggestions and accusations that the rhetoric of political partisans had contributed to what had happened.

Obama has been one target of harsh political rhetoric since running for and becoming president. Some of it has questioned whether he really shares the values of most Americans; accused him of pushing the country in a socialist direction; and, suggested that he does not have an appreciation for the United States as an "exceptional" nation.

Related Stories

On the other side of the spectrum, some critics have implied or outrightly suggested that the rhetoric of McCain's former running mate, Sarah Palin, and some in the tea party movement, was responsible for what occurred in Arizona by using inflammatory imagery, including Palin's now-famous map putting gunsights over congressional districts she was targeting and the 2009 quote from Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota in which she said she wanted people "armed and dangerous" on the issue of the Democrats' energy proposal.

McCain wrote that Obama had "appropriately disputed the injurious suggestion that some participants in our political debates were responsible for a depraved man's inhumanity."

While not specifically mentioning Palin, McCain appeared to be referring to her, in saying, "Imagine how it must feel to have watched one week ago the incomprehensible massacre of innocents committed by someone who had lost some essential part of his humanity, to have shared in the heartache for its victims and in the admiration for those who acted heroically to save the lives of others -- and to have heard in the coverage of that tragedy voices accusing you of complicity in it."

But as the former GOP standard-bearer, McCain also spoke out against those who have sought to paint Obama's views as inimical to American ideals.

"I disagree with many of the president's policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause," McCain said. "I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals. And I reject accusations that Americans who vigorously oppose his policies are less intelligent, compassionate or just than those who support them."

During the 2008 campaign, Palin had said of Obama: "This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America. ... Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?" (She was referring to onetime left wing radical William Ayers, who participated in some Chicago educational projects with which Obama had been involved).

"His worldview is dramatically different than any president, Republican or Democrat, we've had," Mike Huckabee told Politico last August.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, a possible GOP presidential contender in 2012, said to the National Review in September, "What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

While there is no way to tell whether those particular statements had an impact, a USA Today/Gallup poll in December found that while 80 percent of Americans thought that America "has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world," more than a third said Obama does not share that belief.
McCain said in his article: "It probably asks too much of human nature to expect any of us to be restrained at all times by persistent modesty and empathy from committing rhetorical excesses that exaggerate our differences and ignore our similarities. But I do not think it is beyond our ability and virtue to refrain from substituting character assassination for spirited and respectful debate."

McCain's sentiments were echoed on CBS' "Face the Nation" by former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York: "In the first moments after this, there was a rush to judgment on both sides, you know, left-wingers trying to blame it on right-wing tea party, Sarah Palin; right-wingers trying to fight back and defend themselves against what was really an outrageous charge. ... And I thought the president's speech put it on a different tone. And I think we have a chance, even though a couple of days later; I think we have a chance to do the same thing that we did after September 11."

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Arizona massacreArizona shootingsBarack ObamadailyguidanceGabrielle GiffordsJared Lee LoughnerMike HuckabeeObama Tucson speechRudolph GiulianiRudy GiulianiSarah PalinBruce Drake2011-01-16T08:56:00+00:00John McCain & Lindsey Graham: The Mean Girls of the U.S. Senatehttp://politicsdaily.com/2010/12/21/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-the-mean-girls-of-the-us-senate/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/12/21/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-the-mean-girls-of-the-us-senate/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/12/21/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-the-mean-girls-of-the-us-senate/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

I have a theory about human social evolution: life doesn't progress much after high school. This week, I can thank John McCain and Lindsey Graham for providing empirical data that supports this hypothesis.

Here's how government should work: lawmakers ponder the great issues of the day in serious manner and then decide, according to their own beliefs and values, which policies are best for their constituents and the public. But in the past few days, we've seen government-by-hissy-fit, with Sens. McCain and Graham, the Batman and Robin of cranky self-proclaimed GOP mavericks, placing personal petulance ahead of the common good.

As the Senate on Saturday was in the process of repealing the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans out-in-the-open gays and lesbians from serving in the military, McCain practically threw a tantrum on the Senate floor, decrying "this bizarro world" and denouncing senators in favor of repeal for "acting in direct repudiation of the message of the American people." (Never mind that most polls show majority support for repealing DADT.) Looking as if steam would shoot out of his ears at any moment, McCain went on to exclaim that ending DADT would endanger "the survival of our young men and women in the military."

Them are fighting words. But what made McCain's over-the-top performance so bizarro itself was that only four years ago he had said that he would back repeal if military leaders endorsed it -- and now the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of the military were supporting the change. Not only had McCain flip-flopped, he had become an angry crusader, seemingly full of rage at a policy initiative he once quasi-endorsed. How to explain this? It seemed more personal than policy -- as in he really doesn't fancy seeing a victory for President Obama, the fellow who prevented McCain from becoming BMOC.

Graham's behavior was more outlandish. On Sunday, the South Carolina Republican said that he wouldn't vote for the START treaty that will reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arms because "this lame duck [congressional session] has been poisoned." And what poisoned it? In part, Graham said, it was the passage of the "Don't ask, don't tell" repeal. Here was a U.S. senator saying he wouldn't take up the critical issue of nuclear nonproliferation because he was peeved by the repeal of DADT, which sailed through on a 65-to-31 vote. Governing via tantrum?

It gets worse. The day before the Senate overturned DADT, Graham was complaining that the workload in the Senate was too much for him and he was too close to physical collapse to handle a vote on START:
It's been a week from hell. It's been a week where you are dealing with a lot of big issues from taxes to funding the government to special interest politics. And I've had some to think about START but not a lot and it's really wearing on the body.
Poor Graham. Many Americans work more than one job just to feed their family and to keep from being tossed out of their home. Yet he was bellyaching about some end-of-the-year heavy-lifting that was occurring because the Senate, partly due to GOP obstructionism, had not finished its important business. By the way, the START treaty was signed by the United States and Russia in April; that had allowed Graham and other senators plenty of time to think about it. (Previous START pacts were ratified by the Senate after much less time for Senate consideration.) Graham was whining. Two words: man up.

And it gets worse. On Monday, the Huffington Post reported that early last week, McCain and Graham had tried to cut a deal with the White House: they offered to deliver enough GOP votes to ratify the START treaty, if Obama and the Democrats would sideline any vote on DADT. The White House said no, thanks. But this was a cynical maneuver on the senators' part: if you don't give us what we want (no DADT repeal), we won't give you something you want (START ratification). Forget about the merits of the treaty. McCain and Graham, who fashion themselves serious students of national security, were engaged in playground politics concerning a nuclear arms treaty. They were willing to vote for it -- only if the White House would appease them. The substance didn't matter.

When McCain and Graham didn't get their way, Graham groused he was too overwhelmed to deal with the treaty, and McCain tried to kill the agreement by offering an amendment that would force the United States and Russia to renegotiate the pact. The Senate rejected his amendment on Saturday. Which probably irritated the hell out of him. On Monday, Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser for President George H.W. Bush and who supports START ratification, accused McCain of assailing the treaty because of his anger over the repeal of DADT: "To play politics with what is in the fundamental national interest is pretty scary stuff." I look forward to McCain yelling at Scowcroft to get off his lawn.

But McCain and Graham have not merely been grumpy old men. They have been behaving like mean girls -- hatching plots, acting spoiled, wallowing in self-absorption and melodrama, and having cows when they don't win. It's a sorry spectacle, especially because both men in the past have tried to be reasonable adults within the Senate. Now they're embarrassing themselves, as they flail about in a puddle of pique. The best news for them is that within days, school will be out.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dadtLindsey Grahamstart treatyDavid Corn2010-12-21T05:00:00+00:00'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal Passes Senate, But Change Will Take Timehttp://politicsdaily.com/2010/12/18/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-clears-major-senate-hurdle/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/12/18/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-clears-major-senate-hurdle/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/12/18/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-clears-major-senate-hurdle/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , ,

After months of fits and starts, a bill repealing "don't ask, don't tell," the ban against gays serving openly in the military, passed the Senate 65 to 31 on Saturday.

Eight Republicans -- Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John Ensign of Nevada, Richard Burr of North Carolina, and George Voinovich of Ohio -- joined 57 members of the Democratic caucus in support of the historic measure. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) did not vote Saturday, but released a statement saying he could not support repeal "at this time."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama will sign the bill this week.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the lead Senate sponsor of the bill, framed the issue as a civil rights imperative, calling the ban on gays in the military "inconsistent with basic American values."

"To force the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on the military is to force them to be less than they want to be -- and less than they can be," Lieberman said Saturday. "These people simply want to serve their country." Under the Clinton-era policy, armed services members are expected to keep their sexual orientation private, with the promise that recruiters and officers will not delve into their personal lives.

President Obama applauded the Senate and said "thousands of patriotic Americans" would no longer have to "live a lie" to serve in the military.

During the debate Saturday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was alarmed by the number of Arabic and Farsi linguists who had been discharged under the policy at a time the military needs them most, noting that nearly 10,000 of the 14,000 men and women forced out since 1993 were language specialists.

"I don't care who you love. If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you should be able to serve as you are," Wyden said. "Today the Senate has the opportunity to be on the right side of history. 'Don't ask, don't tell' is a wrong that should never have been perpetrated."

Related Stories

At a congressional hearing earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen testified that lifting the DADT policy would likely have only a limited impact on the services. They said they preferred congressional action -- which would give the military some time to implement the change -- to a judicial decision, which would alter the policy immediately.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, cited that testimony, as well as the results of a Pentagon study on implementing the change, as the reasons he believed ending the policy that bans gays from serving openly is the right thing to do.

"The final report of a working group concluded that changing the policy would present a low risk to the military's effectiveness, even during a time of war, and that 70 percent believe it would be positive, mixed or no effect," Levin said. "The troops told us that what matters is doing the job."

But several Republicans on the Armed Services panel disagreed with Levin and stood up Saturday to vocally oppose changing the policy.

Sen. John McCain, a former Navy flier and POW during the Vietnam war, had filibustered the repeal bill throughout the year. Yet he said he was resigned to the fact that it would pass an earlier test vote Saturday.

But McCain (R-Ariz.) said he remained convinced that repealing the ban would cost American lives.

"I understand the other side's argument about their social political agenda, but to somehow argue that ['don't ask, don't tell'] has harmed our military is not consistent with the facts," he said.

Although McCain said he was confident that the military will comply with a change in the law, he warned that troops will be put at greater risk as a result. "They will do what is asked of them, but don't think it won't be at great cost," he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a JAG officer in the Air Force Reserves, excoriated the bill's proponents for pushing forward with the change when the military is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"You care more about politics...than you care about governing this country," Graham said.

Now that the bill has passed the House and Senate, it goes to Obama to be signed into law some time next week.

But a change in the law will not automatically change the policy. Rather, the bill stipulates that the policy will only be discarded after the president, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that changing it will not hurt the armed services' readiness, morale or cohesion. After a 60-day review by Congress, the Pentagon is to develop procedures for ending it altogether, a process that could take months or years to complete.

Sen. Levin said he would be watching the military carefully as the certification and implementation process moves forward. But he could not yet say how long would be too long.

"I just think we'll know it when we see it," Levin told Politics Daily. "But right now we've got to just be optimistic and be confident, particularly with these leaders." Levin credited Mullen's early support of repeal for giving the legislative process momentum when it needed it most.

"I don't have any doubt that he is going to be pushing this quickly and at the appropriate speed and in the appropriate way," Levin said. "This is a totally doable deal."

Sen. Collins told Politics Daily that she expects it to take months, not years, but said that the military needs time to create and hold training sessions for servicemembers and to work through any issues associated with the implementation.

But Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), an early advocate for repeal this year, said Congressional passage of the bill makes one immediate change in military policy.

"No one will be dismissed under this policy ever again," she said.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Patricia Murphy2010-12-18T12:14:00+00:00Democrat Ben Chandler Squeaks Out Victory in Kentuckyhttp://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/13/democrat-ben-chandler-squeaks-out-democratic-victory-in-kenturck/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/13/democrat-ben-chandler-squeaks-out-democratic-victory-in-kenturck/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/13/democrat-ben-chandler-squeaks-out-democratic-victory-in-kenturck/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

It took a famous family name to do it, but the Democrats have won one in the Bluegrass state. Ten days after the election, a U.S. House contest has been called for Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) over Republican Andy Barr.

The margin of victory Friday at the close of a re-canvass: 648 votes, the Associated Press reported. Chandler's reelection to a fifth term was all the more satisfying for Democrats coming in a Kentucky district that was captured in the 2008 presidential election by Sen. John McCain.

Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) wins reelection.Barr phoned Chandler to congratulate him. "Some of my friends said that I am the Zenyatta of political candidates this year," he told the AP, referring to the great filly that finished a close second in the Breeders Cup race at Churchill Downs last weekend. "We came up short by a nose."

Chandler, 51, is the grandson of Happy Chandler, onetime Kentucky governor, senator -- and also baseball commissioner.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceTom Diemer2010-11-13T17:00:00+00:00Cindy McCain Knocks 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Ban on Gays in Militaryhttp://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/12/cindy-mccain-knocks-dont-ask-dont-tell-ban-on-gays-in-milit/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/12/cindy-mccain-knocks-dont-ask-dont-tell-ban-on-gays-in-milit/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/12/cindy-mccain-knocks-dont-ask-dont-tell-ban-on-gays-in-milit/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

Cindy McCain is appearing in a new video ad sharply critical of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays -- the very law her husband, Sen. John McCain, is battling to keep on the books.

"Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] youth that they have no future," McCain says in the ad, which also features celebrities and rock stars. "They can't serve our country openly." Later in the video, referring to bullies, she adds, "Our government treats the LGBT community like second-class citizens -- why shouldn't they?"

Related: Supreme Court Leaves 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in Place During Challenges

On Capitol Hill, Sen. McCain, a former Navy flier who was held in a North Vietnamese prison for 5½ years, is in the middle of a fight to defeat Senate legislation that would repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces. The House has already passed a repeal bill and President Obama has vowed to do away with the Clinton-era policy.

The new ad, produced by the California-based organization NOH8, is part of a campaign against the bullying of gay teenagers, begun after several highly publicized suicides by tormented young gay people.

Watch video of ad below.



 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>cindy mccaindailyguidanceTom Diemer2010-11-12T09:45:00+00:00Little Risk in Lifting Ban on Gays in Military, Pentagon Survey Reportedly Findshttp://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/11/little-risk-in-lifting-ban-on-gays-in-military-pentagon-survey/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/11/little-risk-in-lifting-ban-on-gays-in-military-pentagon-survey/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/11/little-risk-in-lifting-ban-on-gays-in-military-pentagon-survey/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces would present only a small risk of hindering the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, a Pentagon study on ending "Don't ask, don't tell" has concluded, according to sources familiar with a draft report.

The report, due on President Obama's desk on Dec. 1, includes results of a troop survey showing that 70 percent of active-duty service members and reserves think the effect of ending the policy would be positive, mixed or without impact, two sources told the Washington Post.

U.S. Marines on patrol in AfghanistanWhen it is unveiled, the report is expected to be lengthy and detailed, as the military prepares for what most regard as the inevitable repeal of DADT. The Clinton-era policy requires members of the volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to keep their sexual orientation private. In return, officers are not supposed to grill them about their personal lives.

Obama wants to do away with the policy, and the U.S. House has passed legislation repealing it.

Separately, a U.S. District Court in California ruled the ban unconstitutional, but an appeals court stayed that order, leaving the policy in effect.

One of the sources briefed on the Defense Department report told the Post, "There are challenges here, and we want the time so we can make the process of implementation as smooth as possible." In its 370 or so pages, the report is likely to have information providing fodder for both sides of the gays-in-the-military debate.

And opposition remains. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who spent 5½ years in a North Vietnamese prison when his Navy jet was shot down, says he will fight the repeal legislation in the Senate. And Gen. James Amos, the head of the Marine Corps, said last weekend that lifting the ban while the country is at war would pose a risk to "combat effectiveness."

In a related development Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union planned to sue the government to get full separation pay for a gay Air Force officer who says he was forced out under the don't ask, don't tell rule. Former Staff Sgt. Richard Collins, who was honorably discharged in early 2006, said he received only about half of the $25,702 he expected after nine years in the service, the AP said. The Defense Department has a list of conditions that can bring about a reduction in separation pay, including homosexual behavior. Collins was stationed at an air base in eastern New Mexico.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceDont askdont telljames amosjohn mccainTom Diemer2010-11-11T12:08:00+00:00John McCain Coasts to Easy Victory in Arizona Senate Racehttp://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/02/john-mccain-coasts-to-easy-victory-in-arizona-senate-race/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/02/john-mccain-coasts-to-easy-victory-in-arizona-senate-race/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/11/02/john-mccain-coasts-to-easy-victory-in-arizona-senate-race/#commentsFiled under: ,

Republican Sen. John McCain coasted to victory Tuesday, easily beating former Tuscon city councilman Rodney Glassman to hang onto his Arizona Senate seat.

With 70% of the precincts reporting, McCain held a commanding 24 point lead over Glassman, 59% to 35%. While the election was a clear victory for McCain, it remains his closest Senate race since 1992.

McCain thanked the voters of Arizona, but despite his win, warned his own party of hubris. In vintage iconoclastic McCain style, he reminded Republicans that the tea party supporters are "the messengers," and that the sweeping conservative victories are not an affirmation of the Republicans so much as a referendum on the president, and that there is still work to be done. "So Republicans have got to come through and satisfy this outcry," he said.

Glassman, a Democrat, was unable to direct any of the national anti-incumbent fervor toward McCain, who led considerably in the polls throughout the race. Even McCain's much-publicized shift to the right on many key platform positions -- prompted by a strong primary challenge -- didn't hurt him, as Arizona voters sent him back for a fifth term.

In an election season marked by bitter rivalries and negative campaigning, McCain and Glassman's race was comparatively civil. The men attacked each other's positions, but resisted the type of ad-hominem smears that have defined the 2010 midterms. This is despite (or perhaps because) Glassman trailed McCain by at least 15 points in every poll since March.

Arizona hasn't elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 22 years.

Glassman, 32, faced an uphill race since he announced his intention to run last October. The relatively young businessman was not the Democratic Party's top pick to square off against the powerful senator, winning his primary with only 35 percent of the vote. Party leaders in Washington said last year that they weren't bothering to recruit a local Democrat to face McCain, who hasn't faced a serious Senate challenger since he took office in 1987.

According to the Federal Elections Commission, McCain had a campaign war chest of $20 million, compared to Glassman's $1.4 million.

Both men made immigration one of the race's primary issues. McCain insisted that the border needs to be secured before any progress can be made. He supported Arizona's controversial new immigration law, SB 1070, calling it "a good tool" that "needs to be used." Glassman, on the other hand, wrote that it is "a wrongheaded bill that will do nothing to secure the border, and will have little effect on immigration nationally," and said in the debates that compromise and compassion is required. The bill has caused a furor in some parts of the country but remains popular within Arizona.

The other dominating issue in the race was the appropriation of federal funds. McCain has made a career of railing against "pork barrel" spending, which Glassman tried to cast in a different light. "The average state receives $45 per person in federal projects," Glassman said, "Arizona receives $15. John McCain calls that pork." Glassman campaigned on getting Arizona's share of federal funding for infrastructure and energy projects, but in the national climate of overwhelming fiscal conservatism, the issue failed to win him the traction he needed.

Most of the drama in the race took place in the bitter Republican Primary, in which McCain spent $20 million to beat former congressman and conservative talk-radio host J.D. Hayworth.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>2010 Senate Elections2010 Senate RacesArizona ElectionsArizona Senate RaceJohn McCainJohnMccainRodneyGlassmanJason O'Bryan2010-11-02T22:33:00+00:00Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor Says He Voted for McCainhttp://politicsdaily.com/2010/10/26/democratic-rep-gene-taylor-says-he-voted-for-mccain-in-2008/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/10/26/democratic-rep-gene-taylor-says-he-voted-for-mccain-in-2008/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/10/26/democratic-rep-gene-taylor-says-he-voted-for-mccain-in-2008/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After first saying he would not support Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House, a conservative Mississippi Democrat now says he voted for John McCain for president in 2008 over Barack Obama, the candidate of his own party.

"I did not vote for Obama, I voted for Senator McCain," Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) told Maria Recio, a national reporter for the
Sun Herald of Biloxi. "Better the devil you know."

Taylor's Republican foe, state Sen. Steven Palazzo, has linked him to Obama and Pelosi in a campaign season that portends sweeping Republican victories, in part due to dissatisfaction with Democratic leaders' inability to fix the economy. Taylor, one of the most conservative members of the House Democratic caucus, voted against the health care reform bill and the cap-and-trade climate bill. But Palazzo says Taylor was on Pelosi's side 82 percent of the time.

As for McCain, he's not looking back to 2008, nor is he ready to jump into the looming 2012 fray. He said Tuesday that his vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, would be an "outstanding candidate" for president, but noted it's way too soon to endorse anyone in the next presidential campaign. "I don't think Sarah would want me to before she's even able to make a decision," he told CBS' "The Early Show."

"It's very early to start picking winners and losers," he said -- especially since McCain must first win reelection to his own Senate seat in Arizona next Tuesday.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>2010 Elections2010 House Electionsdailyguidancegene taylorTom Diemer2010-10-26T10:49:00+00:00Sarah Palin's Unlikely Admirer: Rocker (and Obama Supporter) John Mellencamphttp://politicsdaily.com/2010/10/22/sarah-palins-not-so-secret-admirer-rocker-john-mellencamp/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/10/22/sarah-palins-not-so-secret-admirer-rocker-john-mellencamp/http://politicsdaily.com/2010/10/22/sarah-palins-not-so-secret-admirer-rocker-john-mellencamp/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

The Cougar is impressed with the Barracuda.

Rocker John Mellencamp, a supporter of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, says he is impressed with Obama critic Sarah Palin, even though he doesn't agree with her stands on issues. Palin, he tells the Associated Press, is "pushing the right buttons" and "know exactly what's she doing." Political adversaries, he said, get the wrong idea about her smartness, "just because she says things and winks."

Mellencamp's comments were a rare positive assessment from an Obama backer for Palin, who, since her 2008 campaign for vice president, has emerged as one of the administration's most biting critics. During that campaign, Mellencamp, known for a rough-hewn working-class style of rock and roll, asked her running mate, John McCain, to stop playing his anthemic rock songs at their rallies.

john mellencampSince then, Mellencamp says he has admired the way Palin adroitly navigates the rough-and-tumble world of American politics. "You can't be stupid and do that," he said. Early in his career, the 59-year-old Indiana native called himself "John Cougar." Palin was known as "Sarah Barracuda" during her time playing high school basketball.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidancejohn mellencampSarah PalinPolitics Daily Staff2010-10-22T11:42:00+00:00