|
|
|||
|
|
OBAMA
IS NOT A MIRACLE ELIXIR By
FRANK RICH
With an approval rating of 16 percent — 16! — in the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Congress has matched the Democrats of 1994 or, for that matter, Michael Jackson during his own version of Foleygate. As for Mr. Bush, he is once more hiding behind children in an elementary school, as he did last week when the monthly death toll for Americans in Iraq approached a nearly two-year high. And where else could he go? Some top Republican Congressional candidates in the red state he was visiting, North Carolina, would not appear with him. When the president did find a grateful campaign mate at his next stop, Pennsylvania, it was the married congressman who paid $5.5 million to settle a lawsuit by a mistress who accused him of throttling her. Maybe the Democrats can blow 2006 as they did 2004, but not without herculean effort. As George Will memorably wrote, if they can’t at least win back the House under these conditions, “they should go into another line of work.” The tough question is not whether the Democrats can win, but what will happen if they do win. The party’s message in this campaign has offered no vision beyond bashing Mr. Bush and pledging to revisit the scandals and the disastrous legislation that went down on his watch. Last spring Nancy Pelosi did promote a “New Direction for America” full of golden oldies — raising the minimum wage, enacting lobbying reform, cutting Medicare drug costs, etc. She promised that Democrats would “own August” by staging 250 campaign events to publicize it. But this rollout caused so few ripples that its participants might as well have been in the witness protection program. Meanwhile, it was up to John Murtha, a congressman with no presidential ambitions, to goad his peers to start focusing on a specific Iraq exit strategy. Enter Barack Obama. To understand the hysteria about a Democratic senator who has not yet served two years and is mainly known for a single speech at the 2004 convention, you have to appreciate just how desperate the Democrats are for a panacea for all their ills. In the many glossy cover articles about Obamamania, the only real suspense is whether a Jack or Bobby Kennedy analogy will be made in the second paragraph or the fifth. Men’s Vogue (cover by Annie Leibovitz) went so far as to say that the Illinois senator “alone has the potential to one day be mentioned in the same breath” as Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. Why not throw in Mark Twain and Sammy Davis Jr.? This is a lot to put on the shoulders of anyone, even someone as impressive as Mr. Obama. Though he remains a modest and self-effacing guy from all appearances, he is encouraging the speculation about seeking higher office — and not as a coy Colin Powell-style maneuver to sell his new book, “The Audacity of Hope.” Mr. Obama hasn’t been turning up in Iowa for the corn dogs. He consistently concedes he’s entertaining the prospect of a presidential run. There’s no reason to rush that decision now, but it’s a no-brainer. Of course he should run, assuming his family is on the same page. He’s 45, not 30, and his slender résumé in public office (which also includes seven years as a state senator) should be no more of an impediment to him than it was to the White House’s current occupant. As his Illinois colleague Dick Durbin told The Chicago Tribune last week, “I said to him, ‘Do you really think sticking around the Senate for four more years and casting a thousand more votes will make you more qualified for president?’ ” Instead, such added experience is more likely to transform an unusually eloquent writer, speaker and public servant into another windbag like Joe Biden. The more important issue is not whether Mr. Obama will seek the presidency, but what kind of candidate he would be. If the Democratic Party is to be more than a throw-out-Bush party, it can’t settle for yet again repackaging its well-worn ideas, however worthy, with a new slogan containing the word “New.” It needs a major infusion of steadfast leadership. That’s the one lesson it should learn from George Bush. Call him arrogant or misguided or foolish, this president has been a leader. He had a controversial agenda — enacting big tax cuts, privatizing Social Security, waging “pre-emptive” war, packing the courts with judges who support his elisions of constitutional rights — and he didn’t fudge it. He didn’t care if half the country despised him along the way. The interminable Iraq fiasco has branded the Democrats as the party of fecklessness. The failure of its leaders to challenge the administration’s blatant propaganda to gin up the war is a failure of historic proportions (as it was for much of the press and liberal punditry). When Tom Daschle, then the Senate leader, presided over the rushed passing of the war resolution before the 2002 midterms, he explained that the “bottom line” was for Democrats “to move on”; they couldn’t wait to campaign on the economy. The party’s subsequent loss of the Senate did not prevent it two years later from nominating a candidate who voted for the war’s funding before he voted against it. What makes the liberal establishment’s crush on Mr. Obama disconcerting is that it too often sees him as a love child of a pollster’s focus group: a one-man Benetton ad who can be all things to all people. He’s black and he’s white. He’s both of immigrant stock (Kenya) and the American heartland (Kansas, yet). He speaks openly about his faith without disowning evolution. He has both gravitas and unpretentious humor. He was the editor of The Harvard Law Review and also won a Grammy (for the audiobook of his touching memoir, “Dreams From My Father”). He exudes perfection but has owned up to youthful indiscretions with drugs. He is post-boomer and post-civil-rights-movement. He is Bill Clinton without the baggage, a fail-safe 21st-century bridge from “A Place Called Hope” to “The Audacity of Hope.” Mr. Obama has offended no one (a silly tiff with John McCain excepted). Search right-wing blogs and you’ll find none of the invective showered on other liberal Democrats in general and black liberal leaders in particular. What little criticism Mr. Obama has received is from those in his own camp who find him cautious to a fault, especially on issues that might cause controversy. The sum of all his terrific parts, this theory goes, may be less than the whole: another Democrat who won’t tell you what day it is before calling a consultant, another human weather vane who waits to see which way the wind is blowing before taking a stand. That has been the Democrats’ fatal malady, but it’s way too early and there’s too little evidence to say Mr. Obama has been infected by it. If he is conciliatory by nature and eager to entertain adversaries’ views in good faith, that’s not necessarily a fault, particularly in these poisonous times. The question is whether Mr. Obama will stick up for core principles when tested and get others to follow him. That’s why it’s important to remember that on one true test for his party, Iraq, he was consistent from the start. On the long trail to a hotly competitive senatorial primary in Illinois, he repeatedly questioned the rationale for the war before it began, finally to protest it at a large rally in Chicago on the eve of the invasion. He judged Saddam to pose no immediate threat to America and argued for containment over a war he would soon label “dumb” and “political-driven.” He hasn’t changed. In his new book, he gives a specific date (the end of this year) for beginning “a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops” and doesn’t seem to care who calls it “cut and run.” Contrast this with Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, who last week said that failed American policy in Iraq should be revisited if there’s no improvement in “maybe 60 to 90 days.” This might qualify as leadership, even at this late date, if only John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, hadn’t proposed exactly the same time frame for a re-evaluation of the war almost a week before she did. The Democrats may well win on Election Day this year. But one of their best hopes for long-term viability in the post-Bush era is that Barack Obama steps up and changes the party before the party of terminal timidity and equivocation changes him. -30-
NED
LAMONT, A WEALTHY POPULIST, MAKES May 27, 2006 While Harry and
Hillary were divining new ways for Democrats to get along (see story
below), screaming Howard Dean's brother Jim and his liberal Democracy
For American PAC, were scheming on behalf of Connecticut "Gucci
populist" Ned Lamont, a JP Morgan estate trust fund benefactor
from Greenwich worth $30-60 million, give or take, who faces incumbent
Senator Joe Lieberman in the state's party primary election in August. -30- ABORTION
DEBATE SHUNS PREVENTION --- Harry Reid is a Democratic senator from Nevada and is his party's leader in the U.S. Senate. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also a Democrat, is a senator from New York. --- As
two senators on opposite sides of the abortion debate, we recognize
that one side will not suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply
held beliefs. There is no question that the rate of unintended pregnancy is too high in the United States. Half of the 6 million pregnancies each year in this country are unintended, and nearly half of these unplanned pregnancies end in abortion. It doesn't have to be this way. Most of these unintended pregnancies -- and the resulting abortions -- can be prevented if we eliminate the barriers that prevent women from having access to affordable and effective contraception. In the Senate, we have long championed the Prevention First Act. This legislation would help to reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy in our nation, decrease abortions and improve access to women's health care. Our proposal includes common- ground, common-sense policies. It makes family-planning services more accessible to low-income women. It improves awareness and understanding of emergency contraception, a poorly understood yet highly effective form of contraception. It ensures that government-funded sex education programs provide medically accurate information about contraception. It also ends insurance discrimination against women. Right now, many policies cover Viagra, but not prescription contraceptives. That is wrong, and our legislation will change it. Ironically, those advocating the loudest for an outright ban on abortion are too often the same people who oppose prevention initiatives and instead support making contraception less accessible, particularly for low-income women who are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies. For example, a recent analysis by the non-partisan Guttmacher Institute revealed that South Dakota is one of the most difficult states for low-income women to obtain contraceptives. Unfortunately, the same hypocrisy applies when it comes to funding programs that support women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term. President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress have promoted budget cuts for a wide range of programs that would provide critical supports for low-income pregnant women and their children. This includes cuts to maternal and child health programs, child care programs, the Community Services Block Grant and the Healthy Start program. We agree that it makes the most sense to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place -- and we believe we should also fund programs that support women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term and raise healthy children. Our approach
gives Americans on both sides of the abortion debate the opportunity
to join together -- as we have done -- in the common goals of preventing
unintended pregnancies, reducing abortions and supporting women and
children's health and well-being. We hope that the White House and our colleagues in Congress agree and will work with us to put prevention first. -30-
THE
HILL Dems
block Frist’s effort to hold a vote on Bush Feingold (D-Wis.), angry about the president’s domestic spying program, took to the floor yesterday afternoon to introduce his five-page censure measure. He accused the president of breaking the law by authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on foreign-to-domestic calls without a warrant from a federal court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. “The president’s wrongdoing demands a response,” Feingold said. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) blasted the effort to condemn the president while the nation is at war and asked the Senate to agree to vote on the issue last night — a vote that would surely find Feingold on the losing end. “We will be ready to vote on that censure resolution tonight,” Frist said. Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) objected to Frist’s unanimous-consent request and was quickly joined by Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Frist’s request for a vote today was also rebuffed. Earlier in the day, Reid and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), a Bush ally on foreign policy, declined to offer support to Feingold’s proposal. “I commend Senator Feingold for bringing this to the attention of the American people,” Reid said. Lieberman said that out of respect for Feingold he would “take a look” at a resolution that he referred to as “a very unusual measure.” Lieberman said lawmakers should be working to bring the program “under the law.” In a release, Frist accused Feingold of helping the nation’s enemies. “Senator Feingold’s time would be better spent putting forth constructive ideas rather than using cheap political tricks that compromise America’s national security by sending a dangerous signal of disunity around the globe.” Feingold said letting the White House circumvent the law is more dangerous. “That’s a victory for the terrorists — if we won’t even stand up for our own system of government,” Feingold said. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) tried to engage Feingold in a debate about the issue as the Wisconsin senator left the floor, but Feingold did not respond.
-30-
Democratic Leaders Question Whether Dean's Right on the Money By Dan Balz
and Chris Cillizza Democratic congressional leaders aren't happy with the way Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is spending money. At a private meeting last month, they let him know. Senate Minority
Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
(Calif.) challenged the former Vermont governor during a session in
Pelosi's office, according to Democratic sources. The leaders complained
about Dean's priorities -- funding organizers for state parties in
strongly Republican Democratic congressional leaders are particularly worried because the Republican National Committee holds a huge financial advantage over the DNC. One congressional Democrat complained that Dean has -- at an alarming rate -- burned through the money the DNC raised, and that Republicans may be able to swamp Democrats in close races with an infusion of RNC money. In its most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission, the DNC reported raising $50.1 million so far in the 2005-2006 cycle and had $5.8 million cash on hand at the end of last year. The RNC had raised $103 million and had $34 million cash on hand. Dean has won friends among state party leaders for his efforts to underwrite the hiring of organizers in states where Republicans have been winning in presidential races. Dean campaigned for the DNC chairmanship by pledging to make Democrats competitive in all 50 states, not just in the 16 to 18 presidential battlegrounds. One congressional Democrat responded: "Nobody's suggesting they do 16 states, but not all states are equal." Pelosi was particularly insistent in pressing Dean to keep focused on 2006, but Dean is reluctant to give congressional colleagues anything approaching a blank check, preferring to stay on the course he began a year ago. Money Talks for Kerry
The most recent example is an e-mail Kerry sent from his political action committee, Keeping America's Promise. It asked donors to contribute to three Iraq war veterans running for Congress as Democrats: Tammy Duckworth in Illinois' 6th District, Patrick Murphy in Pennsylvania's 8th District and Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania's 7th District. "You and I both know how Rove-style Republicans treat veterans who speak the truth," Kerry wrote. "I know something firsthand about the Swift Boat-style Republican attack ads of the last election -- but you don't have to take my word for it. Just ask John McCain. Ask Max Cleland. Ask Jack Murtha." As of Friday, Kerry's appeal had raised about $300,000 for the three candidates, Kerry advisers said. The 2004 nominee followed up his first e-mail with a second appeal late last week -- this one seeking to raise campaign cash for Tim Walz, who is running for Minnesota's 1st District seat, and Jay Fawcett, the only Democrat seeking the seat of retiring Rep. Joel Hefley (R) in Colorado's 5th District. It brought in $52,000 in its first four hours. Kerry has raised more than $1 million for Democratic candidates over the Internet in the past six months, according to calculations made by his aides. During his 2004 bid for president, Kerry raised more than $80 million via the Internet, and in the process compiled an e-mail list of 3 million names. Should Kerry decide to run again, his Internet fundraising capability will be key. If he takes a pass, he becomes a major power broker by deciding which candidate can use (or buy) the list. Massachusetts Surprise
Christy Mihos -- a successful businessman and former Republican -- made his candidacy formal last week, a move that could divert votes from Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, the Republican who is also seeking to replace Romney. Healey has spent much of her time of late distancing herself from her former ticket mate on controversial social issues. Romney, with an eye on the conservative electorate in the GOP primaries and caucuses, has said he would have signed a South Dakota bill that would ban abortions except when a woman's life is directly threatened. At a candidates forum after Romney's comments, Healey described herself as "extremely pro-choice." Rejoining Hillary Clinton
Marshall, who holds a degree from Case Western Reserve University, was the first lady's top assistant for five years. She recently served as a consultant to ABC's "Commander in Chief." -30-
From Media Matters for America 2/17/2006 LA Times selectively reprinted -- and Wash. Times' Lambro selectively cited -- flawed AP article on Abramoff
Summary: The Los Angeles Times reprinted an abridged version
of a flawed Associated Press story about links between disgraced former
lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. The
Washington Times' Donald Lambro also selectively cited the article
in a column. From the AP article, as it appeared in the February 15 Los Angeles Times: Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for about two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone. Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory and an Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show. Reid also intervened on government matters at least five times in ways helpful to Abramoff's tribal clients, once opposing legislation on the Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations about the time of each action. Like the original February 9 AP article, the version published by the Times never mentioned that Reid co-sponsored the bill that would have raised the minimum wage in the Northern Mariana Islands -- an effort that Abramoff opposed. The AP also failed to note what subsequent action Reid took on the legislation; in fact, Reid supported the bill's passage in a May 6, 2002, speech on the Senate floor, as Media Matters has documented. The February 9 AP article -- but not the February 15 version in the Times -- identified the Abramoff aide Reid and his staff repeatedly met with to discuss the minimum wage bill as Ronald Platt. In response to the February 9 article, blogger Joshua Micah Marshall contacted Platt about whether Reid had taken any action against the minimum wage bill following their meeting, to which Platt responded, "I'm sure he didn't": According to Platt, the purpose of his contacts was to see what information he could get about the timing and status of the legislation. Reid's position on the minimum wage issue was well known and there would have been no point trying to get his help blocking it. That's what Platt says. "I didn't ask Reid to intervene," said Platt. "I wouldn't have asked him to intervene. I don't think anyone else would have asked. And I'm sure he didn't." As Marshall noted, the AP did not interview Platt for the February 9 article. In response, Platt emailed an account of his interactions with Reid (apparently reprinted here) to the AP. (As Media Matters has noted, this resulted in a misleading follow-up article by the AP on February 11.) In his statement, Platt wrote that the Abramoff billing records were "fraudulent" and that, in any case, the February 9 AP article "distorts the context of my 'contacts,' with Senator Reid's staff." Platt explained: I was fully aware of his [Reid's] strong support for and sponsorship of Senator [Edward M.] Kennedy's [D-MA] bill to ensure that the Marianas Islands would not be exempted from the minimum wage laws applicable to all other American citizens. Therefore, at no time did I ever discuss the substance of this issue with Senator Reid or his office. Nor did I ever ask that the bill be delayed. I only asked about the timing of when the bill would come to the Senate floor. This inquiry was routine. Like the February 9 AP article, the abbreviated version in the Times reported that Reid took actions "helpful" to Abramoff's tribal clients "at least five times." But unlike the original article, the version in the Times gave readers no indication of what these actions were. In fact, four of the five actions involved opposition to off-reservation Indian casinos. This position is consistent with Reid's longtime opposition to off-reservation gambling. As early as 1988, Reid supported the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which generally prohibited Indian gaming on non-tribal lands. He proposed separate legislation in 1993 "prohibit[ing] states from opening gaming operations on off-reservation land" [AP, 5/28/93]. Both versions of the article quoted Reid spokesman Jim Manley, who pointed out that "[a]ll the actions that Sen. Reid took were consistent with his long-held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada constituents." But the February 9 version contained substantial evidence supporting Manley's statement about off-reservation gambling -- evidence that was omitted from the February 15 article in the Times. The February 9 AP article noted that two of Reid's "letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues" were written in opposition to an off-reservation casino proposed by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians in Louisiana. The letters, also signed by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), were sent to the Department of the Interior on March 5, 2002, and April 30, 2003. According to the AP, "The Jena's proposed casino would have rivaled one already in operation in Louisiana run by the Coushattas, and Abramoff was lobbying to block the Jena." The February 9 AP article explained that Reid and Ensign have defended their opposition to the Jena casino by pointing out their long-standing efforts to protect Nevada's gambling interests. The article further noted that Reid "has long argued" that such off-reservation casinos are generally illegal: Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas' gambling establishments. "As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation tribal gaming throughout the United States," Ensign and Reid wrote. Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and has long argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations. None of this information was included in the Los Angeles Times' version of the AP article. The February 9 AP article also described two other actions taken by Reid in opposition to tribal casinos but failed to adequately explain that these, too, were consistent with Reid's long-standing positions. The original AP article explained that "Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by Abramoff." But as Media Matters has noted, the AP did not explain that in his November 19, 2002, floor statement, Reid said he opposed the legislation because it would allow the Bay Mills Indians to build an off-reservation casino "under the guise of settling a land claim." Nor did the AP note that like the Jenna proposal, the Saginaw Chippewa proposal was for an off-reservation casino. In its discussion of Reid's opposition to the Saginaw Chippewa casino, the Times version of the article explained only that Reid "once oppos[ed] legislation on the Senate floor" in a manner "helpful" to Abramoff's clients. Similarly, the February 9 AP article reported that in December 2002, Reid "signed a letter with California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reject a proposal by the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians to convert land for a health clinic into a casino in southern California." The AP added that "[t]he casino would have competed with the Palm Springs gambling establishment run by the Agua Caliente, one of Abramoff's tribes." But the AP did not explain that this proposal, too, was for an off-reservation casino. The Times version of the AP article offered no description of any of Reid's letters, stating only that Reid "four times sen[t] letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues" in a manner "helpful" to Abramoff's clients. The Washington Times' Lambro, in his February 16 column, also selectively cited the already misleading February 9 AP article. In doing so, Lambro baselessly claimed that Reid "is up to his eyeballs in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal." Lambro wrote that "the senator's staff had many contacts with the [Abramoff's] lobbying firm on behalf of their boss," but did not note that, in the AP's words, "[m]ost were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands." And like the AP, Lambro did not inform readers that Reid opposed the position taken by Abramoff's clients on that legislation. In addition, Lambro wrote, "We now know Mr. Reid wrote at least four letters to assist Indian tribes that hired the since-convicted lobbyist." Lambro ignored the subject of these letters, failing to mention that three of them were entirely consistent with Reid's long-standing opposition to off-reservation tribal gaming. From Lambro's February 16 Washington Times column: It turns out Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who has been running around the country preaching the "culture of corruption" message, is up to his eyeballs in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. For several weeks, Mr. Reid has been leading a fierce offensive on this issue, while insisting no Democrat received any money in return for legislative favors in the widening scandal under Justice Department investigation. But new details reported last week by the Associated Press reveal Mr. Reid's fervent, repeated denials of any connection with Abramoff or his lobbying firm were not entirely true. We now know Mr.
Reid wrote at least four letters to assist Indian tribes that hired
the since-convicted lobbyist, that the senator's staff had many contacts
with the lobbying firm on behalf of their boss, and that Mr. Reid
accepted nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's associates and
his Indian clients -- often right after he wrote the requested letters. -30-
Column item from The Washington Times Inside
Politics
-30-
Reid, Schumer run Hackett out of politics Feb 14 2006 10:28 AM By TimChapman Town Hall On Line Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have just made a political blunder. The duo made a political calculation (which, by the way, is correct) that Iraq veteran Paul Hackett could not defeat incumbant Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, so they actively began undermining his campaign by privately urging donors to give to another candidate while publicly asking Hackett to run for a House seat instead of Senate. Hackett as a result has decided not to run for either. He calls the Reid/Schumer gambit a "betrayal." As a sign of protest, he is leaving politics. And now, not only is Hackett ticked off, other vets are too. The New York Times: Mr. Hackett was the first Iraq war veteran to seek national office, and the decision to steer him away from the Senate race has surprised those who see him as a symbol for Democrats who oppose the war but want to appear strong on national security. "Alienating Hackett is not just a bad idea for the party, but it also sends a chill through the rest of the 56 or so veterans that we've worked to run for Congress," said Mike Lyon, executive director for the Band of Brothers, a group dedicated to electing Democratic veterans to national office. "Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run."
******* Denver Post 2/11/2000 editorial Democrats don't have to change their message, he said, they just need to don a good pair of boots and wade into the wheat fields of rural America to sell it. And he's asked Colorado's junior senator to help spread the rural word. "Democrats lost around the country \[in 2004\] because we simply had forgotten about rural America," Reid said during a recent visit. "We had a message that would have sold all over America, but Democrats had become complacent and thought they could win all of the elections by campaigning in the big cities." Thus, Reid's red-state tour, which recently made stops in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Idaho and Nevada. With more to come. Reid shook his head in wonderment in 2004 when Vice President Dick Cheney made his third campaign visit to tiny Elko in Reid's home state of Nevada. But when election returns started filtering in from Nevada's rural counties, he finally understood the smarts of the GOP strategy. John Kerry fared well in Nevada's two most populous counties, where 90 percent of the voters live, but he was trounced two-to-one in rural areas, where turnout was 84 percent or higher. And Bush won Nevada. Ditto Ohio, Reid says. Salazar figured this out before Reid, campaigning hard in rural Colorado throughout his 2004 Senate race. Comfortable in a cowboy hat and boots, Salazar is able to bring his message into the fields and churches of any one-stoplight town inthe West. Salazar calls it the "forgotten America," and fights for rural causes in Washington.
Democrats won't catch the GOP napping. Rachael Sunbarger, Colorado GOP spokeswoman, says rural Americans vote their consciences, and a rebounding economy will make it tough to convince them they've been abandoned by Republicans. "They might have this grand scheme to mimic our strategy and reach out to our base, but the bottom line is our message resonates with those voters," she said. Reid, however, is undeterred. "While farmers and ranchers are dying on the vine, the Republicans are supporting the bankers who are foreclosing on their mortgages, and we are fighting for farm programs." We're glad to see both parties attentive to rural issues. Farm and ranching communities should be the beneficiary of invaluable political attention during the midterm campaigns and again in 2008 ***** MEDIA MATTERS Friday 2/10/2005 Associated
Press omitted key information In an article about supposed ties between Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Associated Press omitted several details that undermine the premise of the article. And the AP apparently didn't bother to contact a former Abramoff colleague for comment, despite writing extensively about his contact with Reid's office. The AP article suggested that Reid and Abramoff coordinated about legislation that would have applied the minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, an Abramoff client that opposed the legislation. But the AP left out one rather significant detail: while Abramoff opposed the legislation, Reid supported it. In fact, Reid was a co-sponsor of the legislation and argued for its passage in a speech delivered on the floor of the United States Senate, as Media Matters detailed. Including that information would have painted a far different picture of the contact between Abramoff's associates and Reid's office -- one in which Abramoff may have wanted to influence Reid, but was unable to do so. The AP article also reported that Reid "went to the Senate floor" to oppose a bill that would have harmed an Indian tribe represented by Abramoff, saying the legislation was "fundamentally flawed." But the AP failed to mention several important facts. Coincidentally, each of these omitted facts undermines the suggestion that Reid took his position at Abramoff's behest. In quoting Reid describing the legislation as "fundamentally flawed," the AP bizarrely clipped Reid's comments to omit his reason for thinking it was flawed. Here's what Reid actually said: The legislation is fundamentally flawed because it allows Bay Mills to establish gaming facilities under the guise of settling a land claim. The land claim is simply -- and everybody knows this -- an excuse to take land into trust for off-reservation gaming. The AP devoted more than 1,700 words to this article, but didn't include among them Reid's full sentence opposing the bill. At absolute best, this is stunning sloppiness. Reid's opposition to the bill was entirely consistent with his longstanding opposition to off-reservation Indian gaming. As early as 1988, as Media Matters noted, Reid supported the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which generally prohibited Indian gaming on non-tribal lands. One reason for Reid's position on this should be more than obvious: Reid represents Nevada, the gambling capitol of the United States. Of course he would oppose off-reservation Indian gaming, which constitutes competition for the casinos that employ so many of his constituents. Most amazingly,
the AP article made much of contacts between former Abramoff deputy
Ronald Platt and Reid's office -- but the AP didn't bother to contact
Platt for comment. **** Reid's remarks
called 'slander'
The recipients of the Nevada Democrat's invective yesterday were the authors of the bill that would create a $140 billion trust fund to compensate the victims of asbestos exposure. The money would come from the employers and their insurance companies. The bill -- co-authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont -- has been years in the making as victims die and companies go broke paying claims. Mr. Reid yesterday dismissed the bill as the product of lobbyists "buying their way into the Senate." Mr. Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, took to the floor and called the accusation "slanderous" and an "outrageous violation" of Rule 19, which prohibits any senator from directly or indirectly impugning another senator. Mr. Specter noted that victims, labor officials, trial lawyers, manufacturers and insurers have all met in his office to discuss the legislation. "Anybody else who wanted to come in was welcome," he said. "I didn't see the senator from Nevada there once. "He has talked about the bill in a rambling, disconnected way, which proves only one thing," Mr. Specter said. "That is, he doesn't know anything really about the bill."
"Well, again, you thought wrong," Mr. Specter replied. "You're in the habit of thinking wrong. I'm in midsentence, but I'm not surprised to be interrupted." Mr. Leahy also
chastised Mr. Reid for saying veterans had been fooled into supporting
the bill. *****
|
|
|
