President Bush has tried, with varying degrees of success, to avoid playing the role of "pundit in chief" on daily campaign developments. But yesterday he weighed in on some of the foreign policy issues that have cropped up recently on the trail, criticizing the Democratic presidential contenders for their positions on Iraq and trade and, in the case of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), for his willingness to meet with U.S. adversaries.
In a wide-ranging news conference at the White House, his first in two months, Bush appeared especially animated in shooting down the proposition that a president should meet with the leaders of Cuba and Iran without preconditions, an idea that has been an element of Obama's foreign policy agenda and that has led to sparring with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
"Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Ra¿l Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him," Bush said, referring to the new Cuban president. "He gains a lot from it by saying, 'Look at me, I'm now recognized by the president of the United States.' "
Bush said a decision to meet with some foreign leaders could be counterproductive. "It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies. It can send confusion about our foreign policy. It discourages reformers inside their own country. And, in my judgment, it would be a mistake" with Iran and Cuba, he said.
Bush generally steered clear of attacking Obama and Clinton by name -- though he did say that "Senator Obama better stay focused on his campaign." But his critique resembled that by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has been trying to sow doubts in recent days about Obama's fitness to be commander in chief.
The president echoed McCain when asked about Obama's recent statement that, while he intends to withdraw troops from Iraq, he would consider sending them back if al-Qaeda forms a base inside the country.
"It's an interesting comment," Bush replied. "If al-Qaeda is securing a al-Qaeda base? Yeah, well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years."
The president also criticized statements by Obama and Clinton that they would try to reopen elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"The idea of just unilaterally withdrawing from a trade treaty because of . . . trying to score political points is not good policy," Bush said. "It's not good policy on the merits, and it's not good policy to -- as a message to send to . . . people who have in good faith signed a treaty and worked with us on a treaty."
Clinton responded to Bush's comments yesterday at a news conference by repeating her pledge to "fix" NAFTA by toughening labor and environmental standards. She said she found Bush's comments "highly ironic, since President Bush has turned a blind eye to all of the actions by China and others who dump steel into Ohio, hurting Ohio workers and the Ohio economy."
Aides to Obama, who took the brunt of Bush's broadsides, reacted sharply to the president's comments, saying he had been notably ineffective during his term in his goals of bringing democracy to Cuba and halting Iran's nuclear program -- goals that they said Obama shares.
"It's not as though [Obama] is going to sit down for a rum and Coke with Ra¿l Castro and say 'Cheers,' " said Susan Rice, one of Obama's senior foreign policy advisers. "Why the United States fears to negotiate or views direct discussions as a reward rather than as an instrument to change behavior is a mystery to anyone who studies diplomacy. It is a patently failed approach, as the U.S. has demonstrated over the last eight years."
During his news conference, Bush appeared to draw a contrast between talking to the leaders of Cuba and Iran and having discussions with Russia and China, two countries whose repressive policies at home have drawn criticism from human rights activists and U.S. lawmakers.
Asked about the likely new president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, Bush said he hopes his successor has a relationship "with whoever's running foreign policy in Russia."
"It's in the country's interest," Bush added. "That doesn't mean we have to agree all the time."
Similarly, Bush said he is looking forward to going to the Olympics in Beijing this summer despite concerns about human rights in China. "I'm looking forward to seeing the athletic competition," he said. "But that will not preclude me from meeting with the Chinese president, expressing my deep concerns about a variety of issues, just like I do every time I meet with the president."
He was very sharp, however, in his denunciation of the new Cuban president, who took the place of Fidel Castro on Sunday. Bush made it very clear that he believes meeting with him would be a waste of time. "I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time . . . to talk with Ra¿l Castro," he said. "He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which is to ruin an island and imprison people because of their beliefs."
Bush's comments were another indication that he does not intend to relax U.S. trade and travel restrictions on Cuba anytime soon. That position has pleased many of his Cuban American supporters in Florida and elsewhere, but disappointed lawmakers and others who think the U.S. drive over 50 years to isolate Cuba has run its course.
Julia E. Sweig, director for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, described Bush's statement on Cuba yesterday as "classic dug-in Bush embracing a failed policy no matter what."
Fonte: The Washignton Post
29 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Michael Abramowitz
sexta-feira, 29 de fevereiro de 2008
Senate Continues Debate on Iraq Pullout
2 Bills Unlikely to Pass, but Both Parties Square Off With Eye Toward Elections
The Senate yesterday continued a heated but largely theatrical debate on a bill to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days and began considering another that would require the Bush administration to develop a new strategy against terrorism.
Republicans relished the opportunity to joust over war policy, confident in their political standing because of security gains in Iraq since President Bush's troop buildup took hold there last year. But Democrats said the debate offers them a new chance to highlight Republican support for a still unpopular war, setting the stage for them to run a general-election campaign this fall largely against Bush's policies in Iraq.
Under the complicated rules set up for the congressional debate, however, it is all but certain that neither bill introduced by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) would be approved. It is possible that neither would even approach a final vote, despite knotting up the chamber in as many as three days of floor debate.
Rather than distancing themselves from Bush's Iraq policy, Republicans embraced the improvements on the ground since the president sent an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year, and they criticized Democrats for wanting to change course.
"The surge has worked. This is coming from someone who was a cynic," Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said during the floor debate. Brownback had criticized Bush's policies in Iraq last year.
"The Democrats are sort of in denial. It's almost as if they're sorry things have gotten better," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a brief interview.
Democrats used the debate to test their emerging line of political attack on Bush's war policy, contending that the mounting cost of the conflict in Iraq is stealing resources from domestic priorities that could help prop up the sagging economy.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the Iraq war the "$800 billion gorilla in the room" that is diverting funds that could be used to address the subprime mortgage crisis in the housing market.
"The spending issue is becoming a new dynamic here," Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in an interview. "They are misreading public opinion dramatically. The closer we get to November, the more apparent that will be," he added, referring to Republicans.
Schumer, who also chairs Congress's Joint Economic Committee, is holding a hearing today that he said will demonstrate how funding for Iraq displaces federal spending on economic recovery programs.
"The world should understand America has done its share," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said, closing the debate before a second procedural vote on the Feingold measures. "When is enough going to be enough?"
The debate in the past two days centered on Feingold's bill to begin troop withdrawals within 120 days of its passage and, at that point, to prohibit expenditures not meant for running counterterrorism operations, protecting the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or training Iraqi forces. The second bill would require the administration to draw up a new strategy on the battle against al-Qaeda and to present it to Congress within 60 days.
Arranging a pair of votes on preliminary motions that they expected Republicans to block, Democrats did not expect to have a lengthy debate on either measure. Reid had already scheduled a Tuesday-afternoon debate on a package of bills dealing with the housing crisis.
But, in a surprise move on Tuesday, most Republicans supported opening the debate on the first Iraq measure, even though not a single one had backed five previous bids to take up Feingold's withdrawal bills. Yesterday, 42 Republicans voted with 45 Democrats and two independents to begin a debate on Feingold's second measure.
The complicated parliamentary procedure used to bring the Feingold bills to the floor makes it likely that the bills would simply be withdrawn sometime today. Rather than hold a final vote on either measure, the Senate could just shift its attention to the housing legislation.
Em destaque: Senado americano discute a continuidade da Guerra no Iraque tendo em vista as próximas eleições.
Fonte: The Washington Post
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703382.html?wpisrc=newsletter
The Senate yesterday continued a heated but largely theatrical debate on a bill to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days and began considering another that would require the Bush administration to develop a new strategy against terrorism.
Republicans relished the opportunity to joust over war policy, confident in their political standing because of security gains in Iraq since President Bush's troop buildup took hold there last year. But Democrats said the debate offers them a new chance to highlight Republican support for a still unpopular war, setting the stage for them to run a general-election campaign this fall largely against Bush's policies in Iraq.
Under the complicated rules set up for the congressional debate, however, it is all but certain that neither bill introduced by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) would be approved. It is possible that neither would even approach a final vote, despite knotting up the chamber in as many as three days of floor debate.
Rather than distancing themselves from Bush's Iraq policy, Republicans embraced the improvements on the ground since the president sent an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year, and they criticized Democrats for wanting to change course.
"The surge has worked. This is coming from someone who was a cynic," Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said during the floor debate. Brownback had criticized Bush's policies in Iraq last year.
"The Democrats are sort of in denial. It's almost as if they're sorry things have gotten better," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a brief interview.
Democrats used the debate to test their emerging line of political attack on Bush's war policy, contending that the mounting cost of the conflict in Iraq is stealing resources from domestic priorities that could help prop up the sagging economy.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the Iraq war the "$800 billion gorilla in the room" that is diverting funds that could be used to address the subprime mortgage crisis in the housing market.
"The spending issue is becoming a new dynamic here," Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in an interview. "They are misreading public opinion dramatically. The closer we get to November, the more apparent that will be," he added, referring to Republicans.
Schumer, who also chairs Congress's Joint Economic Committee, is holding a hearing today that he said will demonstrate how funding for Iraq displaces federal spending on economic recovery programs.
"The world should understand America has done its share," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said, closing the debate before a second procedural vote on the Feingold measures. "When is enough going to be enough?"
The debate in the past two days centered on Feingold's bill to begin troop withdrawals within 120 days of its passage and, at that point, to prohibit expenditures not meant for running counterterrorism operations, protecting the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or training Iraqi forces. The second bill would require the administration to draw up a new strategy on the battle against al-Qaeda and to present it to Congress within 60 days.
Arranging a pair of votes on preliminary motions that they expected Republicans to block, Democrats did not expect to have a lengthy debate on either measure. Reid had already scheduled a Tuesday-afternoon debate on a package of bills dealing with the housing crisis.
But, in a surprise move on Tuesday, most Republicans supported opening the debate on the first Iraq measure, even though not a single one had backed five previous bids to take up Feingold's withdrawal bills. Yesterday, 42 Republicans voted with 45 Democrats and two independents to begin a debate on Feingold's second measure.
The complicated parliamentary procedure used to bring the Feingold bills to the floor makes it likely that the bills would simply be withdrawn sometime today. Rather than hold a final vote on either measure, the Senate could just shift its attention to the housing legislation.
Em destaque: Senado americano discute a continuidade da Guerra no Iraque tendo em vista as próximas eleições.
Fonte: The Washington Post
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703382.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Clash on Iraq Could Be McCain-Obama Preview
TYLER, Tex., Feb. 27 -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda in Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, signaling that a general-election brawl between the colleagues would center in part on who has the foreign policy experience to lead a country at war.
Despite McCain's war-hero status and years of foreign policy experience, Obama made it clear that he will not back down from such a fight, issuing a quick rebuke of McCain that linked him to President Bush and the war in Iraq.
The spat began when McCain seized on a comment by Obama that he would reserve the right to return to Iraq after withdrawing troops "if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq."
"I have some news," McCain told voters at a rally here Wednesday morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. . . . they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender."
McCain has pledged to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as it takes to create stability, form a unified government and defeat terrorist groups. He favors adding more troops, if necessary, to achieve those goals.
Obama, who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has said that there is no military solution to the conflict and that he would start bringing troops home after becoming president to force Iraqi factions to resolve their differences. Obama said he would withdraw about one to two combat brigades a month, with the goal of having all of them out within 16 months.
For McCain, the decision to pick a fight with Obama helps keep the presumptive GOP nominee from being overshadowed by the battle between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for the Democratic presidential nomination. It also gives him a chance to undermine confidence in Obama's foreign policy experience before the Democrat can turn full attention to the general election.
But even as he focuses on a potentially decisive showdown with Clinton in four contests next Tuesday, Obama has made it clear he won't ignore the attacks from McCain. Generating headlines about an Obama-McCain showdown could also benefit Obama by creating the sense among Democratic primary voters that he is on the verge of becoming their party's nominee and also that he can hold his own against the Republicans.
Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University on Wednesday, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own.
"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, 'Well let me give you some news, Barack, al-Qaeda is in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'Well, first of all, I do know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq; that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets.
"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." The crowd roared its approval. "I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
"So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars."
"As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said in the debate. "And if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
McCain seized on those words, saying they showed a lack of understanding of the terrorist group's activities in the country.
The Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda in Iraq was formed in response to the U.S. presence in Iraq. The U.S. military thinks that the group's activities -- such as large-scale car bombings of Shiite gathering places -- peaked in 2006 and that American forces destroyed much of the organization in a series of raids last year.
The group is "frustrated" but "not defeated," Maj. Gen. Jeffrey W. Hammond, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, said in an interview last month. U.S. officials say that coalition forces have pushed the group largely out of Baghdad and Anbar province, but that it remains active in the upper Tigris River valley.
McCain's attack on Obama's answer is the latest attempt by the Republican to cast Obama as inexperienced on foreign policy. Several months ago, McCain criticized Obama for suggesting that he would bomb al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan without that country's approval.
"The best idea is to not broadcast what you are going to do. That's naive," McCain said earlier this month. "You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is. You don't broadcast and say you are going to bomb the country without their permission or without consulting them. This is the fundamentals of the conduct of national security policy."
Em destaque: Artigo ressalta as diferenças entre Obama e McCain sobre a condução da política externa americana e o Iraque.
Fonte: Washington Post
Autor: Michael D. Shear and Shailagh Murray
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703826_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008022703886
Despite McCain's war-hero status and years of foreign policy experience, Obama made it clear that he will not back down from such a fight, issuing a quick rebuke of McCain that linked him to President Bush and the war in Iraq.
The spat began when McCain seized on a comment by Obama that he would reserve the right to return to Iraq after withdrawing troops "if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq."
"I have some news," McCain told voters at a rally here Wednesday morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. . . . they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender."
McCain has pledged to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as it takes to create stability, form a unified government and defeat terrorist groups. He favors adding more troops, if necessary, to achieve those goals.
Obama, who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has said that there is no military solution to the conflict and that he would start bringing troops home after becoming president to force Iraqi factions to resolve their differences. Obama said he would withdraw about one to two combat brigades a month, with the goal of having all of them out within 16 months.
For McCain, the decision to pick a fight with Obama helps keep the presumptive GOP nominee from being overshadowed by the battle between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for the Democratic presidential nomination. It also gives him a chance to undermine confidence in Obama's foreign policy experience before the Democrat can turn full attention to the general election.
But even as he focuses on a potentially decisive showdown with Clinton in four contests next Tuesday, Obama has made it clear he won't ignore the attacks from McCain. Generating headlines about an Obama-McCain showdown could also benefit Obama by creating the sense among Democratic primary voters that he is on the verge of becoming their party's nominee and also that he can hold his own against the Republicans.
Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University on Wednesday, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own.
"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, 'Well let me give you some news, Barack, al-Qaeda is in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'Well, first of all, I do know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq; that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets.
"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." The crowd roared its approval. "I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
"So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars."
"As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said in the debate. "And if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
McCain seized on those words, saying they showed a lack of understanding of the terrorist group's activities in the country.
The Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda in Iraq was formed in response to the U.S. presence in Iraq. The U.S. military thinks that the group's activities -- such as large-scale car bombings of Shiite gathering places -- peaked in 2006 and that American forces destroyed much of the organization in a series of raids last year.
The group is "frustrated" but "not defeated," Maj. Gen. Jeffrey W. Hammond, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, said in an interview last month. U.S. officials say that coalition forces have pushed the group largely out of Baghdad and Anbar province, but that it remains active in the upper Tigris River valley.
McCain's attack on Obama's answer is the latest attempt by the Republican to cast Obama as inexperienced on foreign policy. Several months ago, McCain criticized Obama for suggesting that he would bomb al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan without that country's approval.
"The best idea is to not broadcast what you are going to do. That's naive," McCain said earlier this month. "You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is. You don't broadcast and say you are going to bomb the country without their permission or without consulting them. This is the fundamentals of the conduct of national security policy."
Em destaque: Artigo ressalta as diferenças entre Obama e McCain sobre a condução da política externa americana e o Iraque.
Fonte: Washington Post
Autor: Michael D. Shear and Shailagh Murray
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703826_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008022703886
Bush hits Obama on foreign policy
President says meeting with adversarial leaders can 'send the wrong signal.'
WASHINGTON -- Setting aside his stated reluctance to enter the presidential campaign, He also challenged Democrats' skepticism about the North American Free Trade Agreement, and reminded Obama that Al Qaeda has been seeking to establish a base in Iraq "for the past four years."
At the same time, he said at a
In the lively 46-minute session, during which Bush bantered with reporters, he delivered a forceful plea for congressional support of his plan to renew anti-terrorist eavesdropping legislation.
He attacked congressional critics of his Iraq policy and expressed curiosity -- as well as uncertainty -- about Dmitri A. Medvedev, the all-but-certain successor to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin.
But it was in his challenge to Obama's readiness to meet with the pariahs of American foreign policy that Bush plunged most directly into the presidential campaign.
The president said that "sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro" would lend the status of the American presidency to the new Cuban leader.
"He gains a lot from it by saying, 'Look at me, I'm now recognized by the president of the United States,' " Bush said.
Bush's reluctance to speak publicly about the campaign serves a political purpose, given his low approval ratings and questions about whether his words can help or hurt Republican candidates.
However, with Obama and Clinton seeking to differentiate themselves from each other and from Bush on foreign policy, he may have helped make their point.
Bush has long objected to talking with adversaries -- notably from Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Asked why such talks, without preconditions, would be wrong, he said they would "give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity."
Obama, who has said that if elected he would be willing to meet U.S. enemies, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told reporters after Bush spoke that the United States should not fear engaging its foes.
Campaigning in
In exchange for changes in its behavior, Obama said, Iran could expect eventual consideration of its bid to join the World Trade Organization and the loosening of U.N. sanctions.
The controversy takes on new timeliness with the ascendance of Raul Castro to the Cuban presidency, replacing his brother, Fidel.
"I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time . . . to talk with Raul Castro," Bush said.
"He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs.
"The decisions of the U.S. president to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive," he said. "It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. And in my judgment, it would be a mistake."
Even as Bush put up a wall between himself and certain foreign leaders -- he singled out Kim Jong Il of North Korea -- he said it was "important to establish personal relations with leaders even though you may not agree with them."
Bush is expected to hold a farewell meeting with Putin, with whom he acknowledged having had "diplomatic head-butts," while in eastern Europe for a NATO summit in April, roughly four weeks before Putin leaves the presidency.
Asked whether he thought Medvedev, as the Russian president's hand-picked successor, would turn into a Putin puppet, Bush said: "I wouldn't say that."
Trade policy has increasingly become a focal point in the Democratic presidential race, particularly in
Clinton has called for renegotiating elements of NAFTA, which her husband's administration pushed through Congress after it was largely negotiated by the
Broadening her criticism of the current administration's trade policy, she said in Ohio on Thursday that Bush had "turned a blind eye to all of the actions by China and others to dump steel into Ohio, hurting Ohio workers and the Ohio economy."
Defending the pact that in 1993 tore down barriers to trade among the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Bush said "the idea of just unilaterally withdrawing from a trade treaty because of trying to score political points is not good policy."
On other topics, Bush:
* Criticized Obama's statement in a Democratic debate Tuesday that "if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq," then the United States would have to act to protect itself. "Well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years," he said.
* Said if eavesdropping legislation did not protect telephone companies from lawsuits -- a central issue in whether to renew a measure aimed at listening in on potential terrorists' conversations -- litigation "would give Al Qaeda and others a road map as to how to avoid the surveillance." He said that the telephone companies' help was needed, but that without government protection they would be exposed to lawsuits by "class-action plaintiffs attorneys" sensing "a financial gravy train."
* Was asked whether he was trying to collect up to $200 million for his presidential library, whether Americans should know who is contributing, whether he would disclose the contributions as they arrive, and whether he would restrict who could donate and how much they could give.
"No, yes, no, yes," he replied.
james.gerstenzang@ latimes.com
Times staff writers Mark Z. Barabak in Texas and Michael Finnegan in Ohio contributed to this report.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Presidente Bush, que até então evitava comentários sobre a corrida dos candidatos às eleições americanas deste ano para não prejudicar os republicanos, faz críticas às intenções de Barack Obama de encontrar líderes de países não aliados aos Estados Unidos se eleito.
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 29 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/campaign08/newsletter/la-na-bush29feb29,0,1632976.story?page=1
quinta-feira, 28 de fevereiro de 2008
War and peace, the Army way
Another 100 years of U.S. troops in Iraq?
"Fine with me,"GOP presidential contender John McCain said in January. McCain, who's famously irascible, was presumably exaggerating. His point, he clarified, wasn't that he actually foresaw another 100 years of war, but that U.S. troops may retain an important role in Iraq that goes on for many years after direct combat operations end.
"Fine with me,"
Don't like that idea? Get used to it. Because in many ways, McCain's comments are squarely in line with the latest Army doctrine.
This week, the Army released a new version of FM 3-0, the Army Field Manual on Operations. The first revision since
Remember the 1990s, when disgruntled Army officers waged a muttering campaign against the Clinton administration's decision to send them to Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, on the grounds that real soldiers ought to spend their time fighting, not acting as peacekeepers/cops/prison guards/civil administrators? Things are different now.
The 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan and Iraq changed a lot of minds about the value of what the military once marginalized as "OOTW" -- "Operations Other Than War." The rise of Al Qaeda helped demonstrate that the many varieties of human misery -- poverty, chaos, repression, civil conflict -- also happen to be perfect breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism. And our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq made it painfully clear that winning the peace matters as much as winning the war.
The U.S. military has always been exceptionally good at war fighting. In Iraq, for instance, defeating the military forces of
By adding stability operations as a new core mission, the revised Army Field Manual tries to ensure that the failures of Iraq will never be repeated. FM 3-0 foresees future Army forces fighting when fighting is called for -- but troops also will work as needed to ensure civilian security and provide "emergency infrastructure reconstruction, humanitarian relief [and] political, legal, social and economic institutions that support the transition to legitimate local governance."
Stability operations will be integrated into Army planning and training at every level and will take place across the "full spectrum of conflict": that is, such activities may be preventive (intended to keep an unstable society from collapsing), or coexist with traditional war fighting, or occur in the aftermath of a conflict.
Imagine! If the
So FM 3-0 is welcome, and overdue.
But here's the rub. Successful stability operations take a lot of time.
Maybe not McCain's 100 years, but if the U.S. is serious about seeing stability operations as part of the Army's core mission, we'll need a larger Army, and we'll be looking at extended deployments in trouble spots around the globe. You can defeat an enemy army in a month, but truly "stabilizing" a society is something that will happen -- if it happens -- over 10 or 20 years, not 10 or 20 weeks.
FM 3-0 also raises as many new questions as it answers.
The Army can't possibly "stabilize" every troubled society, so how will the U.S. select priorities? Will military involvement in traditionally humanitarian activities create new dangers for private relief and humanitarian organizations? Will others around the world see U.S. stability operations as just a new form of imperialism?
And: Should FM 3-0 be seen as a continuation of a disturbing post-9/11 trend toward the militarization of U.S. foreign policy? Or should it be seen as a sort of "civilianization" of the military, insofar as it acknowledges that real security for the United States can't be achieved through force alone?
And: What role will civilians play? The State Department supposedly "coordinates" U.S. stability operations, including those undertaken by the military -- but that's like saying a mouse will coordinate a pack of 800-pound gorillas. Will Congress commit the funds to build up civilian capacity to match our undoubted military capacity?
In the end, of course, the Army can't answer these questions. Congress and the next president need to. And let's hope they take the task seriously, because 100 years without answers would be an awfully long time.
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
***
Em destaque: A colunista do Los Angeles Times, Rosa Brooks, comenta a inserção de mais uma base de atuação do exército americano no seu manual de operações de campo em sua primeira revisão desde 11 de setembro de 2001 (FM 3-0): 'operações de estabilidade', ou seja, atuação do exército na reconstrução de uma nação.
Antes as bases eram apenas duas: a de defesa e ataque.
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Autora: Rosa Brooks
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oe-brooks28feb28,0,1983673.column
Obama, McCain trade jabs on Iraq, terror
They offer a preview of a possible matchup in the general election, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton focuses on trade and foreclosures.
DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama sparred long distance Wednesday over Iraq and terrorism, previewing a likely foreign policy debate should the two men face each other in the fall.
The exchange was sparked by a response Obama gave in Tuesday night's debate with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both Democrats favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, which McCain opposes.
The exchange was sparked by a response Obama gave in Tuesday night's debate with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both Democrats favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, which McCain opposes.
Asked if he would reserve the right as president to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war, Obama replied: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
Reacting Wednesday morning in Tyler, Texas, McCain taunted: "I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. . . . It's called 'Al Qaeda in Iraq.' " Some in the town-hall audience laughed.
"If we left . . . they wouldn't be establishing a base," the Arizona Republican said. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends."
Obama responded at a rally in the sports arena at Ohio State University in Columbus. "I have some news for John McCain," the Illinois Democrat said, leaning into the crowd for emphasis. "There was no such thing as 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."
Noting that McCain tells audiences that he would follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" to catch him, Obama brought the crowd of more than 7,000 to its feet by gibing, "All he has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."
Later, at a rally Wednesday night in Texas, Obama added, "That's the news, John McCain. And I'm happy to have that debate with you in November. In October. In September."
The back-and-forth framed the case that the two men, still fighting to clinch their party nominations, would be likely to make against each other in a general election campaign.
McCain suggests that Obama, 46, is too callow to serve as commander in chief. "If we do what Sen. Obama wants to do -- and that's an immediate withdrawal -- that would mean surrender in Iraq," McCain said at a noontime town hall in San Antonio. "I guess that means that he would surrender and then go back."
Obama asserts that McCain, 71, is too wed to the policies of President Bush and old-line Washington. "He's tied to the politics of the past," Obama told the crowd in Columbus. "We are about policies of the future."
The Democrat later left Ohio to campaign in Duncanville and San Marcos, Texas; the two states hold primaries Tuesday that pose a potential make-or-break challenge for Clinton. In the race superdelegates, Obama gained and Clinton lost one Wednesday when Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, a leader of the civil rights movement, changed sides and endorsed the senator from Illinois.
"I understand he's been under tremendous pressure," Clinton told KTRK-TV in Houston in a satellite interview. "He's been my friend. He will always be my friend."
The New York Democrat campaigned Wednesday in Ohio, where she focused on the state's ailing economy and accused Obama and McCain of failing to address the surge in home foreclosures.
"Sen. Obama does not have a plan," Clinton told reporters on a flight from Cleveland to Columbus. "Sen. McCain doesn't have a plan."
She said she was pleased by Tuesday night's Democratic debate in Cleveland, saying she had succeeded in drawing contrasts with Obama and in demonstrating her credentials to be president.
Clinton ignored suggestions that she had failed to change the essential dynamic of the Democratic race, which has tipped Obama's way since early February, when he began his string of 11 straight victories. "What's important is that we have a lot of people yet to vote," Clinton said.
In Zanesville, Clinton again pledged to fix the problems she sees with the North American Free Trade Agreement. The pact with Mexico and Canada was signed into law by her husband, former President Clinton.
"We're going to have trade that lifts up our families -- pro-worker, pro-environment, pro-American trade," Clinton told several hundred supporters. She also touted her plan to put a moratorium on home foreclosures. "Too many Ohioans are losing their homes," she said. "The numbers are staggering."
mark.barabak@latimes.com
maeve.reston@latimes.com
Barabak reported from Ohio and Texas, and Reston reported from Texas. Times staff writers Michael Finnegan in Ohio and Johanna Neumann in Washington also contributed to this report.
****
Em destaque: Os candidatos Barack Obama e John McCain, os favoritos para serem os finalistas das eleições americanas de 2008 trocam 'farpas' sobre suas posições em relação ao Iraque.
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/mideastemail/la-na-campaign28feb28,0,5906566.story
quarta-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2008
Duas opiniões
Segue abaixo dois artigos do Los Angeles Times.
O primeiro, de Andrew Napolitano, problematiza e critica a discriminação feita pelos Estados Unidos aos estrangeiros, que são alvos não protegidos pela constituição federal americana (4th Amendment) para as práticas de vigilância pelo governo.
(link original: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano18feb18,0,1665050.story)
O segundo artigo é uma resposta a Napolitano feita pelo congressista republicano Darrell Issa, que defende a prática de vigilância de 'terroristas estrangeiros' para o bem estar do povo americano.
(link original: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-issa25feb25,0,1843063.story)
****
He made that infamous statement in a TV interview years after he left office, but the attitude espoused was obviously one he embraced while in the White House. He, like his present-day successor, rejected the truism that the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from conducting electronic surveillance of anyone without a search warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of a crime, restrains the president.
In response to the abuses during the Nixon administration, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, in 1978. The law provides that no electronic surveillance may occur by anyone in the government at any time under any circumstances for any reason other than in accordance with law, and no such surveillance may occur within the U.S. of an American other than in accordance with the 4th Amendment.
The 4th Amendment was written in response to the Colonial experience whereby British soldiers wrote their own search warrants, thus literally authorizing themselves to enter the private property of colonists.
The amendment has been uniformly interpreted by the courts to require a warrant by a judge; and judges can only issue search warrants after government agents, under oath, have convinced the judges that it is more likely than not that the things to be seized are evidence of crimes. This standard of proof is called probable cause of crime. It is one of only two instances in which the founders wrote a rule of criminal procedure into the Constitution itself, surely so that no Congress, president or court could tamper with it.
FISA also created the bizarre, constitutionally questionable procedure in which federal agents could appear in front of a secret court and, instead of presenting probable cause of a crime in order to obtain a search warrant, would only need to present probable cause that the target of the warrant was an agent of a foreign government. The foreign government could be friendly or it could wish us ill, but no illegal or even anti-American behavior need be shown. Subsequent amendments to this statute removed the "agency" requirement and demanded only that the target be a person physically present in the U.S. who was not born here and is not an American citizen, whether working for a foreign government or not.
The FISA statute itself significantly -- and, in my opinion, unconstitutionally -- lowered the 4th Amendment bar from probable cause of "crime"to probable cause of "status." However, in order to protect the 4th Amendment rights of the targets of spying, the statute erected a so-called wall between gathering evidence and using evidence. The government cannot constitutionally prosecute someone unless it has evidence against him that was obtained pursuant to probable cause of a crime, a standard not met by a FISA warrant.
Congress changed all that. The Patriot Act passed after 9/11 and its later version not only destroyed the wall between investigation and prosecution,they mandated that investigators who obtained evidence of criminal activity pursuant to FISA warrants share that evidence with prosecutors. They also instructed federal judges that the evidence thus shared is admissible under the Constitution against a defendant in a criminal case. Congress forgot that it cannot tell federal judges what evidence is admissible because judges, not politicians, decide what a jury hears.
Then the Bush administration and Congress went even further. The administration wanted, and Congress has begrudgingly given it, the authority to conduct electronic surveillance of foreigners and Americans without even a FISA warrant -- without any warrant whatsoever. The so-called Protect America Act of 2007, which expired at the end of last week, gave the government carte blanche to spy on foreign persons outside the U.S., even if Americans in the United States with whom they may be communicating are spied on -- illegally -- in the process. Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee last year that hundreds of unsuspecting Americans' conversations and e-mails are spied on annually as a consequence of the warrantless surveillance of foreigners outside the United States.
So where does all this leave us? Even though, since 1978, the government has gotten more than 99% of its FISA applications approved, the administration wants to do away with FISA altogether if at least one of the people whose conversations or e-mails it wishes to monitor is not in the U.S. and is not an American.
Those who believe the Constitution means what it says should tremble at every effort to weaken any of its protections. The Constitution protects all "persons" and all "people" implicated by government behavior. So the government should be required, as it was until FISA, to obtain a 4th Amendment warrant to conduct surveillance of anyone, American or not, in the U.S. or not.
If we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American correspondents, for whom will we lower them next?
Andrew P. Napolitano, a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "A Nation of Sheep."
**********
Artigo Resposta
**********
Andrew Napolitano's Op-Ed article arguing that foreign terrorists are entitled to protections under the 4th Amendment is riddled with false arguments and absurd comparisons. It is lucky for all of us that federal courts have rejected his wrong-headed, judicial-activist theories.
We live in a dangerous time and our intelligence agencies are our front line of defense. To a great extent, it is through their efforts that we have prevented numerous attacks on the United States since the tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001. Our vigilance and aggressive approach to combating terrorism must continue if we are to avert future attacks.
I sit on both of the committees in the House of Representatives with jurisdiction over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Intelligence and Judiciary. One of the biggest differences between the two committees is that many proceedings before the Intelligence Committee are held in secret, closed sessions. The simple reason for this is that much of the information disclosed at these hearings could endanger American lives if released to the public.
For the very same reason, requests for FISA wiretaps are made in nonpublic FISA court proceedings. The information presented during these proceedings is sensitive in nature, and we cannot allow our enemies to know what we know, or worse, give them information they do not already have. Napolitano's assertion that FISA court proceedings are "bizarre" and unconstitutional ignores our national security interests as well as interpretations of the Constitution by our nation's court system.
Napolitano, arguing that FISA and our government's monitoring of terrorists are unconstitutional, posed a question that I find truly perplexing. He asked, "If we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American correspondents, for whom will we lower them next?"
Let me be clear, foreigners abroad do not enjoy — and have never been granted — the protections of the U.S. Constitution, including 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
FISA requires a different showing of probable cause from traditional criminal wiretaps. However, this isn't a "constitutionally questionable procedure" as Napolitano suggests. It's common sense. Clearly, acquiring evidence to prosecute a crime that has already been committed is markedly different from acquiring foreign intelligence information to prevent a terrorist attack. Congress recognized this when it enacted FISA in 1978 — an effort that did not extend the powers of the presidency but attempted to limit them. The constitutionality of FISA is well-settled by the courts. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review even noted that, in certain respects, FISA actually surpasses constitutional requirements for traditional criminal warrants.
Since its enactment in 1978, FISA has not required court orders to monitor a person who is not in the U.S. and is not an American. Napolitano seemingly misunderstands the real and important purpose of FISA — to provide constitutional protections to U.S. persons, not foreigners.
Napolitano's article echoes many of the arguments made by the Democrat majority in the House, that effectively monitoring foreign terrorists and protecting the rights of Americans are incompatible. Earlier this month, the Senate adopted a bipartisan bill that would stay on the books for six years — House Democrats, however, refused to bring this bill to the floor for a vote, deciding instead to allow authority critical to our ability to monitor terrorists to simply expire. Leaving town without acting on an issue so important is shameful — the House Democrat leadership has placed both our homeland and our troops fighting abroad in increased danger.
The debate over FISA is an important one and Republicans are committed to ensuring that individuals within the United States continue to enjoy their full constitutional rights. Everyone agrees that we need strong protections against monitoring of Americans' communications. That's why our intelligence laws have always required court orders to target people in the U.S. However, we cannot hamstring our intelligence agencies by forcing them to seek a court order every time they need to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists abroad. The tools used by the intelligence community must be as real and rapidly deployed as any looming threat.
Darrell Issa is a Republican congressman from Vista.
O primeiro, de Andrew Napolitano, problematiza e critica a discriminação feita pelos Estados Unidos aos estrangeiros, que são alvos não protegidos pela constituição federal americana (4th Amendment) para as práticas de vigilância pelo governo.
(link original: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano18feb18,0,1665050.story)
O segundo artigo é uma resposta a Napolitano feita pelo congressista republicano Darrell Issa, que defende a prática de vigilância de 'terroristas estrangeiros' para o bem estar do povo americano.
(link original: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-issa25feb25,0,1843063.story)
****
The invasion of America
Creeping intrusions against our privacy rights are an assault on the Constitution. When President Nixon was in his pre-Watergate heyday, he ordered the FBI and the CIA to electronically monitor the private behavior of his domestic political adversaries. Shortly after Nixon resigned, investigators discovered hundreds of reports of break-ins and secret electronic surveillance. None of it was authorized by warrants, and thus all of it was illegal. But it had been conducted pursuant to the president's orders. Nixon's defense was, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."He made that infamous statement in a TV interview years after he left office, but the attitude espoused was obviously one he embraced while in the White House. He, like his present-day successor, rejected the truism that the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from conducting electronic surveillance of anyone without a search warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of a crime, restrains the president.
In response to the abuses during the Nixon administration, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, in 1978. The law provides that no electronic surveillance may occur by anyone in the government at any time under any circumstances for any reason other than in accordance with law, and no such surveillance may occur within the U.S. of an American other than in accordance with the 4th Amendment.
The 4th Amendment was written in response to the Colonial experience whereby British soldiers wrote their own search warrants, thus literally authorizing themselves to enter the private property of colonists.
The amendment has been uniformly interpreted by the courts to require a warrant by a judge; and judges can only issue search warrants after government agents, under oath, have convinced the judges that it is more likely than not that the things to be seized are evidence of crimes. This standard of proof is called probable cause of crime. It is one of only two instances in which the founders wrote a rule of criminal procedure into the Constitution itself, surely so that no Congress, president or court could tamper with it.
FISA also created the bizarre, constitutionally questionable procedure in which federal agents could appear in front of a secret court and, instead of presenting probable cause of a crime in order to obtain a search warrant, would only need to present probable cause that the target of the warrant was an agent of a foreign government. The foreign government could be friendly or it could wish us ill, but no illegal or even anti-American behavior need be shown. Subsequent amendments to this statute removed the "agency" requirement and demanded only that the target be a person physically present in the U.S. who was not born here and is not an American citizen, whether working for a foreign government or not.
The FISA statute itself significantly -- and, in my opinion, unconstitutionally -- lowered the 4th Amendment bar from probable cause of "crime"to probable cause of "status." However, in order to protect the 4th Amendment rights of the targets of spying, the statute erected a so-called wall between gathering evidence and using evidence. The government cannot constitutionally prosecute someone unless it has evidence against him that was obtained pursuant to probable cause of a crime, a standard not met by a FISA warrant.
Congress changed all that. The Patriot Act passed after 9/11 and its later version not only destroyed the wall between investigation and prosecution,they mandated that investigators who obtained evidence of criminal activity pursuant to FISA warrants share that evidence with prosecutors. They also instructed federal judges that the evidence thus shared is admissible under the Constitution against a defendant in a criminal case. Congress forgot that it cannot tell federal judges what evidence is admissible because judges, not politicians, decide what a jury hears.
Then the Bush administration and Congress went even further. The administration wanted, and Congress has begrudgingly given it, the authority to conduct electronic surveillance of foreigners and Americans without even a FISA warrant -- without any warrant whatsoever. The so-called Protect America Act of 2007, which expired at the end of last week, gave the government carte blanche to spy on foreign persons outside the U.S., even if Americans in the United States with whom they may be communicating are spied on -- illegally -- in the process. Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee last year that hundreds of unsuspecting Americans' conversations and e-mails are spied on annually as a consequence of the warrantless surveillance of foreigners outside the United States.
So where does all this leave us? Even though, since 1978, the government has gotten more than 99% of its FISA applications approved, the administration wants to do away with FISA altogether if at least one of the people whose conversations or e-mails it wishes to monitor is not in the U.S. and is not an American.
Those who believe the Constitution means what it says should tremble at every effort to weaken any of its protections. The Constitution protects all "persons" and all "people" implicated by government behavior. So the government should be required, as it was until FISA, to obtain a 4th Amendment warrant to conduct surveillance of anyone, American or not, in the U.S. or not.
If we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American correspondents, for whom will we lower them next?
Andrew P. Napolitano, a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "A Nation of Sheep."
**********
Artigo Resposta
**********
No 4th Amendment for terrorists abroad
Foreign intelligence gathering requires different tools from criminal investigations.
Andrew Napolitano's Op-Ed article arguing that foreign terrorists are entitled to protections under the 4th Amendment is riddled with false arguments and absurd comparisons. It is lucky for all of us that federal courts have rejected his wrong-headed, judicial-activist theories.
We live in a dangerous time and our intelligence agencies are our front line of defense. To a great extent, it is through their efforts that we have prevented numerous attacks on the United States since the tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001. Our vigilance and aggressive approach to combating terrorism must continue if we are to avert future attacks.
I sit on both of the committees in the House of Representatives with jurisdiction over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Intelligence and Judiciary. One of the biggest differences between the two committees is that many proceedings before the Intelligence Committee are held in secret, closed sessions. The simple reason for this is that much of the information disclosed at these hearings could endanger American lives if released to the public.
For the very same reason, requests for FISA wiretaps are made in nonpublic FISA court proceedings. The information presented during these proceedings is sensitive in nature, and we cannot allow our enemies to know what we know, or worse, give them information they do not already have. Napolitano's assertion that FISA court proceedings are "bizarre" and unconstitutional ignores our national security interests as well as interpretations of the Constitution by our nation's court system.
Napolitano, arguing that FISA and our government's monitoring of terrorists are unconstitutional, posed a question that I find truly perplexing. He asked, "If we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American correspondents, for whom will we lower them next?"
Let me be clear, foreigners abroad do not enjoy — and have never been granted — the protections of the U.S. Constitution, including 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
FISA requires a different showing of probable cause from traditional criminal wiretaps. However, this isn't a "constitutionally questionable procedure" as Napolitano suggests. It's common sense. Clearly, acquiring evidence to prosecute a crime that has already been committed is markedly different from acquiring foreign intelligence information to prevent a terrorist attack. Congress recognized this when it enacted FISA in 1978 — an effort that did not extend the powers of the presidency but attempted to limit them. The constitutionality of FISA is well-settled by the courts. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review even noted that, in certain respects, FISA actually surpasses constitutional requirements for traditional criminal warrants.
Since its enactment in 1978, FISA has not required court orders to monitor a person who is not in the U.S. and is not an American. Napolitano seemingly misunderstands the real and important purpose of FISA — to provide constitutional protections to U.S. persons, not foreigners.
Napolitano's article echoes many of the arguments made by the Democrat majority in the House, that effectively monitoring foreign terrorists and protecting the rights of Americans are incompatible. Earlier this month, the Senate adopted a bipartisan bill that would stay on the books for six years — House Democrats, however, refused to bring this bill to the floor for a vote, deciding instead to allow authority critical to our ability to monitor terrorists to simply expire. Leaving town without acting on an issue so important is shameful — the House Democrat leadership has placed both our homeland and our troops fighting abroad in increased danger.
The debate over FISA is an important one and Republicans are committed to ensuring that individuals within the United States continue to enjoy their full constitutional rights. Everyone agrees that we need strong protections against monitoring of Americans' communications. That's why our intelligence laws have always required court orders to target people in the U.S. However, we cannot hamstring our intelligence agencies by forcing them to seek a court order every time they need to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists abroad. The tools used by the intelligence community must be as real and rapidly deployed as any looming threat.
Darrell Issa is a Republican congressman from Vista.
terça-feira, 26 de fevereiro de 2008
'WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN AGAIN'
Clinton Compares Obama to Bush Foreign Policy Experience at Issue
"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton told students at George Washington University. "We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."
Clinton's critique of Obama's foreign policy credentials came as she is escalating her attacks in the run-up to primaries on March 4 in Ohio and Texas -- contests that even her husband has called must-wins.
Obama's campaign dismissed the attempt to link him to Bush.
"It's ironic that Hillary Clinton compared Barack Obama to George Bush when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq," said retired Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, an Obama adviser.
Clinton's speech yesterday, which came on the eve of a Democratic debate in Cleveland that will be the candidates' final face-off before March 4, was part of an effort that the former first lady's advisers say is aimed at "raising the stakes" in the contest. Over the next week, Clinton will seek, in sometimes dark terms, to frame the challenges facing the next president in the hopes that it will reinforce the experience argument that failed to stop Obama from winning 11 straight contests so far.
But the Obama campaign said Clinton's team was also using more nefarious tactics. A picture appeared yesterday morning on the Drudge Report Web site showing Obama in Somali dress during a trip he took to Kenya in 2006 as part of his Senate duties. The site said the image came from the Clinton campaign. Obama aides argued that it was an attempt to draw attention to Obama's race and to a rumor that he is a Muslim. Obama is a Christian.
After Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton team of "shameful, offensive fear-mongering," Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams issued a statement saying that "if Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."
Williams's statement did not deny that Clinton's team had sent the Web site the picture, although communications director Howard Wolfson said later in the day that he had "no knowledge" of the involvement of campaign aides playing a role in distributing it.
He sought to turn the controversy into an argument that media coverage has been too favorable toward Obama, an argument that Clinton is also making.
During a fundraiser in Boston late Sunday, Clinton referred to a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" that depicted a CNN debate in which questioners fawned over Obama.
"I just have this sense that finally my opponent is getting maybe a little bit of scrutiny," Clinton told about 300 supporters to loud cheers. "How many of you saw 'Saturday Night Live'? . . . That wouldn't have happened just a couple of weeks ago. . . . We have two candidates and we've been focused on one more than the other in terms of asking the hard questions."
At that same fundraiser, Clinton previewed her plan for victory, promising to attack Obama on "issues" including health care and saying: "We're going to emphasize more and more the experience gap." She also indicated that she plans to question the way Obama is conducting his campaign in light of his "new politics" rhetoric. Her aides spent much of the day accusing him of hypocrisy, noting that in Iowa, he criticized John Edwards for allowing independent groups to spend money on advertisements on his behalf, but that his campaign has not criticized labor groups that are now doing the same for him.
Clinton advisers privately acknowledge the challenge of attacking Obama without it reflecting negatively on their candidate, although she has sharpened her tone noticeably since a debate on Thursday, an event that was so mild that Clinton was forced to make clear that she was not conceding the race.
At George Washington University yesterday, she criticized her rival's statements that he would meet leaders of nations such as North Korea without preconditions and that he would consider attacking Pakistan if its leaders would not cooperate in fighting terrorism.
"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings with preconditions solves the world's most intractable problems to advocating rash, unilateral military action," Clinton said.
Obama, who still trails Clinton in most polls in Ohio, spent the day there, laying out his plans to help seniors at a roundtable discussion before rallies in Dayton and Cincinnati. While his aides batted back Clinton's attacks, he looked forward to his possible general election opponent, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), but kept an eye on Clinton.
"Some people are telling you not to believe, because they say 'Those Republicans are going to be tough on Obama,' he told a crowd of more than 11,000 at the University of Cincinnati. "I don't mind having debates with John McCain. I admire, I revere John McCain's service to this country. . . . But he has embraced George Bush's economic policies and tax cuts for the rich, and he said we will stay in Iraq even if it takes 100 years. . . . I want to have that debate."
Em destaque: Hilary Clinton compara a inexperiência de Obama em lidar com política externa com a inexperiência de Bush neste assunto.
Fonte: Washington Post
Publicação: 26/02/2008
Autor: Perry Bacon Jr.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502663.html?wpisrc=newsletter
"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton told students at George Washington University. "We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."
Clinton's critique of Obama's foreign policy credentials came as she is escalating her attacks in the run-up to primaries on March 4 in Ohio and Texas -- contests that even her husband has called must-wins.
Obama's campaign dismissed the attempt to link him to Bush.
"It's ironic that Hillary Clinton compared Barack Obama to George Bush when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq," said retired Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, an Obama adviser.
Clinton's speech yesterday, which came on the eve of a Democratic debate in Cleveland that will be the candidates' final face-off before March 4, was part of an effort that the former first lady's advisers say is aimed at "raising the stakes" in the contest. Over the next week, Clinton will seek, in sometimes dark terms, to frame the challenges facing the next president in the hopes that it will reinforce the experience argument that failed to stop Obama from winning 11 straight contests so far.
But the Obama campaign said Clinton's team was also using more nefarious tactics. A picture appeared yesterday morning on the Drudge Report Web site showing Obama in Somali dress during a trip he took to Kenya in 2006 as part of his Senate duties. The site said the image came from the Clinton campaign. Obama aides argued that it was an attempt to draw attention to Obama's race and to a rumor that he is a Muslim. Obama is a Christian.
After Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton team of "shameful, offensive fear-mongering," Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams issued a statement saying that "if Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."
Williams's statement did not deny that Clinton's team had sent the Web site the picture, although communications director Howard Wolfson said later in the day that he had "no knowledge" of the involvement of campaign aides playing a role in distributing it.
He sought to turn the controversy into an argument that media coverage has been too favorable toward Obama, an argument that Clinton is also making.
During a fundraiser in Boston late Sunday, Clinton referred to a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" that depicted a CNN debate in which questioners fawned over Obama.
"I just have this sense that finally my opponent is getting maybe a little bit of scrutiny," Clinton told about 300 supporters to loud cheers. "How many of you saw 'Saturday Night Live'? . . . That wouldn't have happened just a couple of weeks ago. . . . We have two candidates and we've been focused on one more than the other in terms of asking the hard questions."
At that same fundraiser, Clinton previewed her plan for victory, promising to attack Obama on "issues" including health care and saying: "We're going to emphasize more and more the experience gap." She also indicated that she plans to question the way Obama is conducting his campaign in light of his "new politics" rhetoric. Her aides spent much of the day accusing him of hypocrisy, noting that in Iowa, he criticized John Edwards for allowing independent groups to spend money on advertisements on his behalf, but that his campaign has not criticized labor groups that are now doing the same for him.
Clinton advisers privately acknowledge the challenge of attacking Obama without it reflecting negatively on their candidate, although she has sharpened her tone noticeably since a debate on Thursday, an event that was so mild that Clinton was forced to make clear that she was not conceding the race.
At George Washington University yesterday, she criticized her rival's statements that he would meet leaders of nations such as North Korea without preconditions and that he would consider attacking Pakistan if its leaders would not cooperate in fighting terrorism.
"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings with preconditions solves the world's most intractable problems to advocating rash, unilateral military action," Clinton said.
Obama, who still trails Clinton in most polls in Ohio, spent the day there, laying out his plans to help seniors at a roundtable discussion before rallies in Dayton and Cincinnati. While his aides batted back Clinton's attacks, he looked forward to his possible general election opponent, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), but kept an eye on Clinton.
"Some people are telling you not to believe, because they say 'Those Republicans are going to be tough on Obama,' he told a crowd of more than 11,000 at the University of Cincinnati. "I don't mind having debates with John McCain. I admire, I revere John McCain's service to this country. . . . But he has embraced George Bush's economic policies and tax cuts for the rich, and he said we will stay in Iraq even if it takes 100 years. . . . I want to have that debate."
Em destaque: Hilary Clinton compara a inexperiência de Obama em lidar com política externa com a inexperiência de Bush neste assunto.
Fonte: Washington Post
Publicação: 26/02/2008
Autor: Perry Bacon Jr.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502663.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Top Obama and Hilary Flip-Flops
Top Obama Flip-Flops
1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.
2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
Top Clinton Flip-Flops
1. NAFTA In a January 2004 news conference, Clinton said she thought that "on balance [NAFTA] has been good for New York and good for America." She now says she has "long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA" and advocates a "time out" from similar trade agreements.
2. No Child Left Behind Clinton voted in favor of the 2002 education bill that focused on raising student achievement levels, hailing the measure as "a major step forward." She now attacks the law at campaign rallies and meetings with teachers, describing it as a "test, test, test" approach.
3. Ending the war in Iraq In June 2006, Clinton restated her long-standing opposition to establishing timetables for withdrawing U.S. forces in Iraq. In a Jan. 15, 2008, Democratic debate in Las Vegas, she proposed to "start withdrawing" troops within 60 days of her inauguration, to bring out "one or two brigades a month" and to have "nearly all of the troops out" by the end of 2009.
4 . Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants In a campaign statement on Oct. 31, 2007, Clinton expressed support for a plan by New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer (D) to offer limited driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after going back and forth on the matter in a televised debate. In a Nov. 15, 2007, televised debate from Nevada, she replied with a simple "no" when asked if she approved the driver's license idea in the absence of comprehensive immigration changes.
5. Florida and Michigan delegates In September 2007, the Clinton campaign formally pledged not to participate in primary or caucus elections staged before Feb. 5, 2008, in defiance of Democratic National Committee rules. She now says delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, despite their flouting of rules that all the major Democratic candidates endorsed.
Em destaque: Pontos interessantes que demonstram a mudança de opinião dos candidatos democratas a respeito de assuntos internos e de política internacional.
Fonte: Washington Post
Publicação: 25/02/2008
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html?wpisrc=newsletter
1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.
2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
Top Clinton Flip-Flops
1. NAFTA In a January 2004 news conference, Clinton said she thought that "on balance [NAFTA] has been good for New York and good for America." She now says she has "long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA" and advocates a "time out" from similar trade agreements.
2. No Child Left Behind Clinton voted in favor of the 2002 education bill that focused on raising student achievement levels, hailing the measure as "a major step forward." She now attacks the law at campaign rallies and meetings with teachers, describing it as a "test, test, test" approach.
3. Ending the war in Iraq In June 2006, Clinton restated her long-standing opposition to establishing timetables for withdrawing U.S. forces in Iraq. In a Jan. 15, 2008, Democratic debate in Las Vegas, she proposed to "start withdrawing" troops within 60 days of her inauguration, to bring out "one or two brigades a month" and to have "nearly all of the troops out" by the end of 2009.
4 . Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants In a campaign statement on Oct. 31, 2007, Clinton expressed support for a plan by New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer (D) to offer limited driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after going back and forth on the matter in a televised debate. In a Nov. 15, 2007, televised debate from Nevada, she replied with a simple "no" when asked if she approved the driver's license idea in the absence of comprehensive immigration changes.
5. Florida and Michigan delegates In September 2007, the Clinton campaign formally pledged not to participate in primary or caucus elections staged before Feb. 5, 2008, in defiance of Democratic National Committee rules. She now says delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, despite their flouting of rules that all the major Democratic candidates endorsed.
Em destaque: Pontos interessantes que demonstram a mudança de opinião dos candidatos democratas a respeito de assuntos internos e de política internacional.
Fonte: Washington Post
Publicação: 25/02/2008
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Democrats Equally Adept at Shifting Positions
Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton engage the crowd at the Democratic presidential debate in Austin on Thursday. Both candidates have reversed or altered some positions under the increasing pressure to win over voters. (By Rick Bowmer -- Associated Press)
Last week's Democratic debate in Austin had been underway for less than half an hour when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign zipped an e-mail to reporters headlined "Obama flip-flop on Cuba." The message noted that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) had backtracked on earlier calls for normalizing relations with Havana, now making such a step contingent on progress toward democracy.
The Obama camp struck back minutes later with a message pointing out that Clinton (N.Y.) had changed her position on immigration. She was now calling for legislation giving undocumented workers a path to citizenship to be introduced within 100 days of her inauguration -- after earlier refusing to make such a commitment.
Charges of flip-flopping have become routine as the Democratic nominating contest heads to a crucial series of primaries and caucuses on March 4 in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. While Obama and Clinton have largely succeeded in escaping the flip-flopper label that was pinned on Republican candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, they have provided each other with plenty of ammunition for accusations of inconsistency and pandering to the voters.
A review of the two candidates' records shows that both senators have shifted positions on numerous issues as the competition for votes has become more intense. In some cases, the shifts have been subtle, a change of emphasis rather than an obvious reversal. But on other issues, both candidates are saying things that are quite different from their previous positions.
After earlier opposing a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, both the leading Democratic candidates have been forced to become ever more specific on the campaign trail, in response to voters who want the United States to pull back from Iraq as soon as possible. Clinton's reversal on the question of the timetable has been particularly dramatic. She now says that she would get "nearly all" U.S. troops out of the country by the end of 2009; Obama says he would get all "combat troops" out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
In June 2006, Clinton was booed and hissed by a conference of liberal Democratic activists for refusing to agree to a date to get out of Iraq on the grounds that it would send the wrong signal to the United States' enemies.
Such shifts are pretty standard in presidential election politics, according to Marion Just, a professor of political science at Wellesley College who has been following the campaign closely.
Candidates start off by being as ambiguous as possible about their policies in order to keep their options open, Just said. As they come face to face with voters, they are "forced to become more specific," even if it means contradicting previous statements. "In the current electronic era, it is difficult to make even a slight change because the Internet is forever," Just said. "Your previous statements pop up on YouTube."
As senators, both Obama and Clinton also have long records of thousands of votes that provide plenty of fodder for opposition research. As Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) discovered to his chagrin in the 2004 presidential campaign, and as Obama is discovering with his voting record in the Illinois Senate, it is often difficult for legislators to explain the nuances of tactical voting and finely tuned trade-offs.
Because Clinton has been in the U.S. Senate longer than Obama -- seven years, as opposed to his three-- she has many more votes to explain away. During their campaign appearances, both senators have been sharply critical of the landmark education bill known as No Child Left Behind. Clinton voted for the bill in 2001, along with a majority of other Democrats; Obama was not in the U.S. Senate at the time.
"Clinton ratcheted up her opposition to No Child Left Behind as the race became tighter and she needed votes," said Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy and a former Democratic staffer. "She is reacting to what she has been hearing on the campaign trail, particularly from teachers."
For Robert Feldman, a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, flip-flopping on the campaign trail is a very human trait.
"Politicians are like the rest of us," he said. "In everyday life, we say things to make ourselves look better, get people to like us, get a job. We all lie, to a greater or lesser extent. It's the same with politicians."
Em destaque: A matéria trata da constante mudança de posição dos candidatos democratas a respeito de temas diversos em sua campanha tais como o prazo para a retirada das tropas americanas do Iraque.
Fonte: Washington Post
Publicação: 25/02/2008
Autor: Michael Dobbs
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402081.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Last week's Democratic debate in Austin had been underway for less than half an hour when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign zipped an e-mail to reporters headlined "Obama flip-flop on Cuba." The message noted that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) had backtracked on earlier calls for normalizing relations with Havana, now making such a step contingent on progress toward democracy.
The Obama camp struck back minutes later with a message pointing out that Clinton (N.Y.) had changed her position on immigration. She was now calling for legislation giving undocumented workers a path to citizenship to be introduced within 100 days of her inauguration -- after earlier refusing to make such a commitment.
Charges of flip-flopping have become routine as the Democratic nominating contest heads to a crucial series of primaries and caucuses on March 4 in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. While Obama and Clinton have largely succeeded in escaping the flip-flopper label that was pinned on Republican candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, they have provided each other with plenty of ammunition for accusations of inconsistency and pandering to the voters.
A review of the two candidates' records shows that both senators have shifted positions on numerous issues as the competition for votes has become more intense. In some cases, the shifts have been subtle, a change of emphasis rather than an obvious reversal. But on other issues, both candidates are saying things that are quite different from their previous positions.
After earlier opposing a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, both the leading Democratic candidates have been forced to become ever more specific on the campaign trail, in response to voters who want the United States to pull back from Iraq as soon as possible. Clinton's reversal on the question of the timetable has been particularly dramatic. She now says that she would get "nearly all" U.S. troops out of the country by the end of 2009; Obama says he would get all "combat troops" out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
In June 2006, Clinton was booed and hissed by a conference of liberal Democratic activists for refusing to agree to a date to get out of Iraq on the grounds that it would send the wrong signal to the United States' enemies.
Such shifts are pretty standard in presidential election politics, according to Marion Just, a professor of political science at Wellesley College who has been following the campaign closely.
Candidates start off by being as ambiguous as possible about their policies in order to keep their options open, Just said. As they come face to face with voters, they are "forced to become more specific," even if it means contradicting previous statements. "In the current electronic era, it is difficult to make even a slight change because the Internet is forever," Just said. "Your previous statements pop up on YouTube."
As senators, both Obama and Clinton also have long records of thousands of votes that provide plenty of fodder for opposition research. As Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) discovered to his chagrin in the 2004 presidential campaign, and as Obama is discovering with his voting record in the Illinois Senate, it is often difficult for legislators to explain the nuances of tactical voting and finely tuned trade-offs.
Because Clinton has been in the U.S. Senate longer than Obama -- seven years, as opposed to his three-- she has many more votes to explain away. During their campaign appearances, both senators have been sharply critical of the landmark education bill known as No Child Left Behind. Clinton voted for the bill in 2001, along with a majority of other Democrats; Obama was not in the U.S. Senate at the time.
"Clinton ratcheted up her opposition to No Child Left Behind as the race became tighter and she needed votes," said Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy and a former Democratic staffer. "She is reacting to what she has been hearing on the campaign trail, particularly from teachers."
For Robert Feldman, a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, flip-flopping on the campaign trail is a very human trait.
"Politicians are like the rest of us," he said. "In everyday life, we say things to make ourselves look better, get people to like us, get a job. We all lie, to a greater or lesser extent. It's the same with politicians."
Em destaque: A matéria trata da constante mudança de posição dos candidatos democratas a respeito de temas diversos em sua campanha tais como o prazo para a retirada das tropas americanas do Iraque.
Fonte: Washington Post
Publicação: 25/02/2008
Autor: Michael Dobbs
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402081.html?wpisrc=newsletter
sábado, 23 de fevereiro de 2008
Guantanamo prosecutor turns defense witness
Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who resigned as the prison's chief military prosecutor in October, will testify at a hearing for the driver of Osama bin Laden.
From the Associated Press
February 22, 2008
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO -- The former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay said Thursday that he would be a defense witness for the driver of Osama bin Laden.
Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who resigned in October over alleged political interference in the U.S. military tribunals, told the Associated Press that he would appear at a hearing for Salim Ahmed Hamdan."I expect to be called as a witness. . . . I'm more than happy to testify," Davis said in a telephone interview from Washington. He called it "an opportunity to tell the truth."
At the April pretrial hearing inside the U.S. military base in southeast Cuba, Hamdan's defense team plans to argue that the alleged political interference cited by Davis violates the Military Commissions Act, Hamdan's military lawyer, Navy Lt. Brian Mizer, told the Associated Press.
Davis alleges, among other things, that Pentagon General Counsel William J. Haynes II said in August 2005 that any acquittals of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo would make the United States look bad, calling into question the fairness of the proceedings.
"He said, 'We can't have acquittals; we've got to have convictions,' " Davis recalled.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, denied that Haynes made such a comment. Gordon also denied the former prosecutor's allegations of political interference, which he has repeated in newspaper opinion columns and in interviews in recent months.
If the judge rejects the motion to dismiss, Mizer said, the defense will seek to remove two top officials in the military commission system -- legal advisor Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann and Convening Authority Susan Crawford -- from Hamdan's case. This would probably result in further delays to a trial that has been stalled by legal challenges.
It is not clear whether the Pentagon -- which defends the commission system as fair -- will allow Davis to testify. In December, two months after he resigned as the chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo war-crimes tribunals, the Defense Department barred Davis from appearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.
The U.S. holds about 275 men at Guantanamo and plans to prosecute about 80 before military commissions. The Pentagon this month charged six detainees with murder and war crimes for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and said they could be executed if convicted.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Um ex-procurador de Guantánamo, Morris Davis, se dispõe a ser testemunha de defesa no processo de julgamento de um motorista de Osama Bin Laden, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Davis largou seu cargo em Outubro de 2007 alegando intervenções políticas nos tribunais militares americanos. Segundo ele, o general William J. Haynes , que faz parte do Conselho de Segurança do Pentágono, disse em Agosto de 2005 que qualquer absolvição de suspeitos de terrorismo presos em Guantánamo faria os Estados Unidos serem mal vistos, o que colocou em questão a justeza dos tribunais militares.
Observação: Esta matéria não está diretamente relacionada às Eleições Americanas, mas possui informações pertinentes para o blog e para a pesquisa do grupo.
Fonte: The LA Times
Publicação: 22 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/mideastemail/la-na-gitmo22feb22,0,2370010.story
From the Associated Press
February 22, 2008
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO -- The former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay said Thursday that he would be a defense witness for the driver of Osama bin Laden.
Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who resigned in October over alleged political interference in the U.S. military tribunals, told the Associated Press that he would appear at a hearing for Salim Ahmed Hamdan."I expect to be called as a witness. . . . I'm more than happy to testify," Davis said in a telephone interview from Washington. He called it "an opportunity to tell the truth."
At the April pretrial hearing inside the U.S. military base in southeast Cuba, Hamdan's defense team plans to argue that the alleged political interference cited by Davis violates the Military Commissions Act, Hamdan's military lawyer, Navy Lt. Brian Mizer, told the Associated Press.
Davis alleges, among other things, that Pentagon General Counsel William J. Haynes II said in August 2005 that any acquittals of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo would make the United States look bad, calling into question the fairness of the proceedings.
"He said, 'We can't have acquittals; we've got to have convictions,' " Davis recalled.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, denied that Haynes made such a comment. Gordon also denied the former prosecutor's allegations of political interference, which he has repeated in newspaper opinion columns and in interviews in recent months.
If the judge rejects the motion to dismiss, Mizer said, the defense will seek to remove two top officials in the military commission system -- legal advisor Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann and Convening Authority Susan Crawford -- from Hamdan's case. This would probably result in further delays to a trial that has been stalled by legal challenges.
It is not clear whether the Pentagon -- which defends the commission system as fair -- will allow Davis to testify. In December, two months after he resigned as the chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo war-crimes tribunals, the Defense Department barred Davis from appearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.
The U.S. holds about 275 men at Guantanamo and plans to prosecute about 80 before military commissions. The Pentagon this month charged six detainees with murder and war crimes for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and said they could be executed if convicted.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Um ex-procurador de Guantánamo, Morris Davis, se dispõe a ser testemunha de defesa no processo de julgamento de um motorista de Osama Bin Laden, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Davis largou seu cargo em Outubro de 2007 alegando intervenções políticas nos tribunais militares americanos. Segundo ele, o general William J. Haynes , que faz parte do Conselho de Segurança do Pentágono, disse em Agosto de 2005 que qualquer absolvição de suspeitos de terrorismo presos em Guantánamo faria os Estados Unidos serem mal vistos, o que colocou em questão a justeza dos tribunais militares.
Observação: Esta matéria não está diretamente relacionada às Eleições Americanas, mas possui informações pertinentes para o blog e para a pesquisa do grupo.
Fonte: The LA Times
Publicação: 22 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/mideastemail/la-na-gitmo22feb22,0,2370010.story
terça-feira, 19 de fevereiro de 2008
Shame, Sen. McCain
His vote against a ban on 'enhanced' interrogation methods belies his opposition to torture.
February 19, 2008
One of John McCain's most admirable traits has been his eloquent opposition to the use of torture against suspected terrorists. During a Republican presidential debate last year in which other candidates tried to out-tough each other by endorsing "enhanced" interrogation methods, McCain recalled: "When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us as we went -- underwent torture ourselves -- is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It's not about the terrorists; it's about us."
Yes it is, which is why Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) should have voted last week for legislation sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would remove any doubt that CIA interrogators are forbidden to engage in waterboarding and other tactics banned by the Army Field Manual. Instead, McCain squandered some of his moral authority by supporting the Bush administration's position that the CIA should have more leeway than military interrogators. The legislation passed the Senate anyway, as well as the House, but support from McCain, the putative Republican nominee, would have made it harder for President Bush to veto.
McCain was adamant that he wasn't reneging on his belief that waterboarding is illegal under a law he sponsored in 2005 prohibiting "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. With waterboarding off the table, in McCain's view, there's nothing wrong with allowing CIA interrogators to use other methods not available to the military. Although McCain wasn't specific about what those might be, the Army Field Manual bans subjecting prisoners to sleep deprivation, painful "stress positions" or extreme temperatures, or using dogs to intimidate them.
To be fair, McCain's original anti-torture amendment also gave the CIA greater leeway -- and that was the problem. As long as there is a double standard for interrogations, there will be suspicions that the CIA is engaging in practices that most reasonable people would consider torture -- including waterboarding, which was inflicted on three suspected terrorists in 2002 and 2003. Such suspicion is deepened by signs that Bush doesn't agree with McCain that waterboarding is now illegal. Earlier this month, Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said that it was legal and could be employed again "under certain circumstances."
Bush long ago proved that, in dealing with the reality and the threat of terrorism, his administration will take a mile for every inch that Congress gives. In voting to give Bush that inch, McCain has been untrue to his principles.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Editorial do jornal LA Times critica a decisão do candidato republicano John McCain de dar apoio a posição da administração Bush quanto ao uso de métodos 'mais persuasivos' pela CIA - como o waterboarding - para interrogar suspeitos. Seu voto no Senado, contrário a medida que proibiria a CIA dessas ações, segundo o editorial, estaria desmentindo sua posição contrária ao uso da tortura.
Publicação: 19 de fevereiro 2008
Fonte: La Times
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-mcain19feb19,0,4421936.story
February 19, 2008
One of John McCain's most admirable traits has been his eloquent opposition to the use of torture against suspected terrorists. During a Republican presidential debate last year in which other candidates tried to out-tough each other by endorsing "enhanced" interrogation methods, McCain recalled: "When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us as we went -- underwent torture ourselves -- is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It's not about the terrorists; it's about us."
Yes it is, which is why Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) should have voted last week for legislation sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would remove any doubt that CIA interrogators are forbidden to engage in waterboarding and other tactics banned by the Army Field Manual. Instead, McCain squandered some of his moral authority by supporting the Bush administration's position that the CIA should have more leeway than military interrogators. The legislation passed the Senate anyway, as well as the House, but support from McCain, the putative Republican nominee, would have made it harder for President Bush to veto.
McCain was adamant that he wasn't reneging on his belief that waterboarding is illegal under a law he sponsored in 2005 prohibiting "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. With waterboarding off the table, in McCain's view, there's nothing wrong with allowing CIA interrogators to use other methods not available to the military. Although McCain wasn't specific about what those might be, the Army Field Manual bans subjecting prisoners to sleep deprivation, painful "stress positions" or extreme temperatures, or using dogs to intimidate them.
To be fair, McCain's original anti-torture amendment also gave the CIA greater leeway -- and that was the problem. As long as there is a double standard for interrogations, there will be suspicions that the CIA is engaging in practices that most reasonable people would consider torture -- including waterboarding, which was inflicted on three suspected terrorists in 2002 and 2003. Such suspicion is deepened by signs that Bush doesn't agree with McCain that waterboarding is now illegal. Earlier this month, Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said that it was legal and could be employed again "under certain circumstances."
Bush long ago proved that, in dealing with the reality and the threat of terrorism, his administration will take a mile for every inch that Congress gives. In voting to give Bush that inch, McCain has been untrue to his principles.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Editorial do jornal LA Times critica a decisão do candidato republicano John McCain de dar apoio a posição da administração Bush quanto ao uso de métodos 'mais persuasivos' pela CIA - como o waterboarding - para interrogar suspeitos. Seu voto no Senado, contrário a medida que proibiria a CIA dessas ações, segundo o editorial, estaria desmentindo sua posição contrária ao uso da tortura.
Publicação: 19 de fevereiro 2008
Fonte: La Times
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-mcain19feb19,0,4421936.story
segunda-feira, 18 de fevereiro de 2008
Sobre Tortura
Primeiro, uma coluna de Rosa Brooks, do LA Times sobre recentes esforços do atual presidente americano, George Bush, para a legalização do waterboarding - considerado pelos atuais candidatos a presidência uma forma de tortura assim como pelas Nações Unidas. A coluna foi publicada dia 14 de fevereiro deste ano, e aqui vai o link direto:
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks14feb14,1,1585725.column?ctrack=5&cset=true
Bush's last push for torture
In its lame-duck year, the administration has been conducting a PR campaign for waterboarding.
February 14, 2008
They're baack! The Bushies, that is. I was so preoccupied with the presidential primaries that I almost forgot about that guy who keeps hanging around in the White House, despite the nation's fervent desire that he disappear. And I'm sure I wasn't alone in my memory lapse. With the news so full of Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee, Bush and Cheney had started to seem like dead men walking.
But I was making the classic horror movie mistake. You know ... you let down your guard for an instant, and that's when you realize that the dead men walking are actually vampires -- and they're stalking you.
That's what happened this week. While we were all fixated on who will be the next president, loyalists to the outgoing president took advantage of our collective distraction to try to leave a last gruesome legacy for the American people: torture.
Remember waterboarding? In most versions of waterboarding, detainees are blindfolded and then strapped to a board. After that, they have water poured into their mouth and nose, sometimes through a cloth or cellophane (to enhance the sensation of simultaneous smothering and drowning). It was a favorite interrogation method of the Spanish Inquisition. U.S. courts have recognized it as torture, and in past wars, the U.S. government prosecuted it as a war crime.
Not anymore! While the rest of us were obsessing over the 600 possible methods of counting delegates, the Bush administration was busily conducting a PR campaign on behalf of waterboarding. It began last week. First, Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey told Congress that no one could be investigated or prosecuted for "whatever was done" as part of a covert CIA interrogation program because the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had given its blessing to a bunch of secret "whatevers." Then CIA Director Michael V. Hayden openly acknowledged, for the first time, that "whatever" had, in fact, included waterboarding, which was used on at least three Al Qaeda suspects.
Did Hayden blush to confess that U.S. intelligence agencies were incapable of getting critical intelligence through means other than torture? Nope. Along with National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell, Hayden suggested that waterboarding might well be handy again in the future.
The White House was equally blase about waterboarding. White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended its legality and asserted that whether we waterboard more detainees in the future "will depend on circumstances." What's more, Fratto emphasized, it's the president who will make the call, not Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney called the interrogation of the three suspects who were waterboarded "a good thing," and cheering from the sidelines, Antonin Scalia, the administration's favorite Supreme Court justice, mused in a radio interview that it would be "absurd" to assume any clear constitutional restrictions on "so-called torture" when potential terrorist threats are at issue.
The administration's PR push on waterboarding doesn't enjoy much support, either internationally or here at home. Our closest allies, the British, reaffirmed Tuesday that they consider waterboarding a form of torture prohibited by international law. That's an opinion shared by the U.N. human rights commissioner.
Here in the U.S., Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential candidates, have condemned waterboarding as torture. They've been joined by the leading GOP presidential candidates, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Speaking in October 2007, McCain said that waterboarding "is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." In December 2007, Huckabee added his voice to McCain's: "Waterboarding is torture, and torture violates the moral code of Americans and jeopardizes the country's security."
Just for good measure, on Wednesday the Senate joined the House in passing legislation that prohibits the CIA from using waterboarding or any similar "harsh" interrogation techniques.
But President Bush says he'll veto the bill. And here's what I don't get. Bush has less than a year left in office. His approval ratings are already abysmally low. Why is he determined to compound his problems by going down in history as the first president to openly order and justify torture? Is this really the legacy he wants to leave behind?
The task for the next president, Democrat or Republican, is clear. Very soon after taking office, our next president needs to lay this monster to rest by unambiguously repudiating waterboarding and all forms of torture.
That's the easy part of the next president's task, though. The hard part? Prying the thumbscrews out of the Bush administration's cold, dead hands.
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
*** *** ***
E Segundo, dois vídeo do programa 'The Daily Show', com o apresentador Jon Stewart, focando a prática de tortura pelos EUA, como o waterboarding. Os programas foram veiculados dia 11 de fevereiro de 2008, o link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156409&title=torture-talk
e os vídeos:
continuação:
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks14feb14,1,1585725.column?ctrack=5&cset=true
Bush's last push for torture
In its lame-duck year, the administration has been conducting a PR campaign for waterboarding.
February 14, 2008
They're baack! The Bushies, that is. I was so preoccupied with the presidential primaries that I almost forgot about that guy who keeps hanging around in the White House, despite the nation's fervent desire that he disappear. And I'm sure I wasn't alone in my memory lapse. With the news so full of Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee, Bush and Cheney had started to seem like dead men walking.
But I was making the classic horror movie mistake. You know ... you let down your guard for an instant, and that's when you realize that the dead men walking are actually vampires -- and they're stalking you.
That's what happened this week. While we were all fixated on who will be the next president, loyalists to the outgoing president took advantage of our collective distraction to try to leave a last gruesome legacy for the American people: torture.
Remember waterboarding? In most versions of waterboarding, detainees are blindfolded and then strapped to a board. After that, they have water poured into their mouth and nose, sometimes through a cloth or cellophane (to enhance the sensation of simultaneous smothering and drowning). It was a favorite interrogation method of the Spanish Inquisition. U.S. courts have recognized it as torture, and in past wars, the U.S. government prosecuted it as a war crime.
Not anymore! While the rest of us were obsessing over the 600 possible methods of counting delegates, the Bush administration was busily conducting a PR campaign on behalf of waterboarding. It began last week. First, Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey told Congress that no one could be investigated or prosecuted for "whatever was done" as part of a covert CIA interrogation program because the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had given its blessing to a bunch of secret "whatevers." Then CIA Director Michael V. Hayden openly acknowledged, for the first time, that "whatever" had, in fact, included waterboarding, which was used on at least three Al Qaeda suspects.
Did Hayden blush to confess that U.S. intelligence agencies were incapable of getting critical intelligence through means other than torture? Nope. Along with National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell, Hayden suggested that waterboarding might well be handy again in the future.
The White House was equally blase about waterboarding. White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended its legality and asserted that whether we waterboard more detainees in the future "will depend on circumstances." What's more, Fratto emphasized, it's the president who will make the call, not Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney called the interrogation of the three suspects who were waterboarded "a good thing," and cheering from the sidelines, Antonin Scalia, the administration's favorite Supreme Court justice, mused in a radio interview that it would be "absurd" to assume any clear constitutional restrictions on "so-called torture" when potential terrorist threats are at issue.
The administration's PR push on waterboarding doesn't enjoy much support, either internationally or here at home. Our closest allies, the British, reaffirmed Tuesday that they consider waterboarding a form of torture prohibited by international law. That's an opinion shared by the U.N. human rights commissioner.
Here in the U.S., Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential candidates, have condemned waterboarding as torture. They've been joined by the leading GOP presidential candidates, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Speaking in October 2007, McCain said that waterboarding "is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." In December 2007, Huckabee added his voice to McCain's: "Waterboarding is torture, and torture violates the moral code of Americans and jeopardizes the country's security."
Just for good measure, on Wednesday the Senate joined the House in passing legislation that prohibits the CIA from using waterboarding or any similar "harsh" interrogation techniques.
But President Bush says he'll veto the bill. And here's what I don't get. Bush has less than a year left in office. His approval ratings are already abysmally low. Why is he determined to compound his problems by going down in history as the first president to openly order and justify torture? Is this really the legacy he wants to leave behind?
The task for the next president, Democrat or Republican, is clear. Very soon after taking office, our next president needs to lay this monster to rest by unambiguously repudiating waterboarding and all forms of torture.
That's the easy part of the next president's task, though. The hard part? Prying the thumbscrews out of the Bush administration's cold, dead hands.
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
*** *** ***
E Segundo, dois vídeo do programa 'The Daily Show', com o apresentador Jon Stewart, focando a prática de tortura pelos EUA, como o waterboarding. Os programas foram veiculados dia 11 de fevereiro de 2008, o link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156409&title=torture-talk
e os vídeos:
continuação:
segunda-feira, 11 de fevereiro de 2008
The Spat
by Hendrik Hertzberg
February 11, 2008
During the four or five weeks leading up to February 5th—“Tsunami Tuesday,” when voters in states with half the nation’s population participate in a not quite national primary—the emotional texture of the Democratic side of the Presidential campaign changed profoundly. For most of Year One of this insanely elongated process, the Democratic Party had been a peaceable kingdom. Its voters were proud of and pleased with the array of choices before them: proud of its diversity, pleased with its unity. A confident woman in middle age; a graceful young African-American of mixed parentage; a handsome Southerner from a white working-class family; and a Mexico City-raised, three-quarters Hispanic governor-diplomat with (for a touch of mayonnaise) a blandly “American” name—these were the Democrats’ leading contenders, supplemented by a more conventional pair of distinguished senators from the East Coast. After years of talk about “looking like America,” here was the real thing. On questions of policy, the views of the candidates were as reassuringly similar as their backgrounds were exhilaratingly different. Such disagreements as they had, none of them fundamental or bitter, were subsumed in their revulsion at the moral and strategic failures of the Bush Administration. As for Democratic voters, it was hard to find one who wouldn’t tell you something like this: “I’m supporting so-and-so in the primary, but I’ll be fine with any of them—just so we get a Democrat in the White House.”
But as Iowa gave way to New Hampshire and then South Carolina, and the contest careered toward its ultimate form of a zero-sum game between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the mood darkened. Anger and depression, the pop-psych books tell us, are two sides of the same coin: depression is anger suppressed, anger is depression liberated. Is it possible to strobe between the two? It must be, because, as the Clinton-Obama race turned nasty, a rapid alternation was noticeable among the sort of obsessive Democrats who follow every twist and turn. This was true of people all across the deep-blue universe: passionate Obama supporters; tentative Obama supporters; Obama-Clinton fence-sitters (including the fans of John Edwards, now bereft); and tentative Clinton supporters. (Passionate Clinton supporters, notwithstanding their candidate’s shrinking but still sizable lead in national polls, seem to be a little rarer.)
The anger was mostly directed at Senator Clinton, her husband, and her campaign, for a series of what have come to be known, redundantly, as “negative attacks.” The most egregious, because so coldly premeditated, was a radio spot that took as its hook a snippet of audio from an Obama interview in which he said, “The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years.” A smooth-voiced announcer then adds:
Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street? Running up a nine-trillion-dollar debt? Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis? Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?
Uh, no. Those are not the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about. But the spot’s disingenuous questions were plainly intended to deceive the unwary into assuming that Wall Street tax breaks and the like are the very ideas Obama has been advocating. With equal honesty, the spot could have said, “Denying global warming? Torturing prisoners? Appointing right-wing ideologues to the federal courts? Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?” But that might have taxed the credulity of even the unwary.
Actually, Obama was not talking about any particular ideas. He was talking about the conservative movement’s success in marketing its policy ideas and presenting itself as an intellectual powerhouse. He can be faulted for getting the timeline wrong in a way that dismissed the Clinton years—the Republicans’ “party of ideas” claim is at least thirty years old—but his basic point has long been a commonplace among Democrats. It is why liberals have spent the past decade and more trying to build a counterweight to the conservative infrastructure of think tanks and policy journals.
Obama has turned out to have a kind of political magic unseen since the Kennedy brothers of the nineteen-sixties. He has something of Jack’s futuristic, ironic cool, something of Bobby’s earnest, inspiring heat. His endorsement, last week, by President Kennedy’s surviving brother and surviving child closed the circuit. Senator Clinton’s answer to this is “I have more experience.” And it’s true. Her mastery of policy is deep and subtle; her sense of how the White House wields power is probably unequalled. But experience is a problematic argument, especially when voters are hungry for a new beginning.
Anyway, an argument is no match for an aura. So the Clinton campaign evidently concluded that it had no choice but to “go negative,” and Bill Clinton was assigned, or assigned himself, the task. Some of his attempts to sully his wife’s opponent—calling Obama’s consistent opposition to the Iraq war “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen” and dismissing his South Carolina victory as a racial one, like Jesse Jackson’s twenty years ago—have been untruthful or unworthy or both. Whether or not these and similar attacks “worked” (the evidence is mixed), they certainly succeeded in diminishing both the former President and his wife. “The Clintons” used to be a Republican trope, calculated to make one or the other half of the couple look like a puppet or a victim or a co-conspirator; now it is simply descriptive. Bill Clinton’s talents are immense, and so are those of Hillary Clinton. But the events of the past few weeks have suggested that the peculiar dynamics of the Clinton marriage, which distorted the workings of the first Clinton White House in areas ranging from its failed health-care initiative to its inability to quash the Whitewater hoax, would be carried over into a second.
For some Democrats, a final straw has been the Clinton campaign’s sudden interest in changing the rules. In Nevada, where the state’s Democratic Party had provided special caucus sites for casino workers, Clinton allies tried to get them shut down after a union representing many of those workers endorsed Obama. The Democratic National Committee warned the Party’s affiliates in Michigan and Florida that if they moved their primaries ahead of Tsunami Tuesday they would lose their Convention delegates. They did so anyway, and now Clinton—whose name was the only one on the Michigan ballot and who carried Florida, where no one campaigned—is demanding that the two states’ delegates be accredited. Those delegates, added to the bulk of the unelected “superdelegates,” could conceivably put Clinton over the top if Obama arrives at the Convention with a slight edge in delegates chosen by voters—a scenario that would bear an ugly resemblance to Florida, the popular vote, and the Supreme Court, circa 2000.
Last Thursday night’s televised debate between the two remaining Democrats—a civilized and substantive conversation—has eased the tension. But politics ain’t beanbag. One of the arguments made on behalf of the Clintons is that they know how to win. They do what is necessary. They fight hard. They’ve shown they can survive the worst the Republican attack machine can throw at them, next to which the relatively mild roughing-up they’re giving Obama is downright Gandhian. But there are hard-nosed arguments for Obama, too. Nothing would energize the dispirited, disoriented Republicans like running against Hillary Clinton. And a late-entry challenge from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his billions would be far less likely if Obama became the Democratic nominee.
Obama’s Democratic critics worry that his soaring rhetoric of reconciliation is naïve. But, as Mark Schmitt has argued in The American Prospect, Obama’s national-unity pitch should be viewed as a tactic as well as an ideal. It might lengthen his coattails, helping Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate in marginally red districts and states. It would not protect him from attack, of course, but it would enable him to fire back from the high ground. And, as a new President elected with a not quite filibuster-proof Senate, he would be in a better position to peel off the handful of Republican senators he would need to make meaningful legislative progress than someone who started from a defensive crouch. Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: A disputa dentro do partido democrata para a definição de seu candidato à presidência
Fonte: The New Yorker
Publicação: 11 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Hendrik Hertzberg
Link: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/02/11/080211taco_talk_hertzberg
February 11, 2008
During the four or five weeks leading up to February 5th—“Tsunami Tuesday,” when voters in states with half the nation’s population participate in a not quite national primary—the emotional texture of the Democratic side of the Presidential campaign changed profoundly. For most of Year One of this insanely elongated process, the Democratic Party had been a peaceable kingdom. Its voters were proud of and pleased with the array of choices before them: proud of its diversity, pleased with its unity. A confident woman in middle age; a graceful young African-American of mixed parentage; a handsome Southerner from a white working-class family; and a Mexico City-raised, three-quarters Hispanic governor-diplomat with (for a touch of mayonnaise) a blandly “American” name—these were the Democrats’ leading contenders, supplemented by a more conventional pair of distinguished senators from the East Coast. After years of talk about “looking like America,” here was the real thing. On questions of policy, the views of the candidates were as reassuringly similar as their backgrounds were exhilaratingly different. Such disagreements as they had, none of them fundamental or bitter, were subsumed in their revulsion at the moral and strategic failures of the Bush Administration. As for Democratic voters, it was hard to find one who wouldn’t tell you something like this: “I’m supporting so-and-so in the primary, but I’ll be fine with any of them—just so we get a Democrat in the White House.”
But as Iowa gave way to New Hampshire and then South Carolina, and the contest careered toward its ultimate form of a zero-sum game between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the mood darkened. Anger and depression, the pop-psych books tell us, are two sides of the same coin: depression is anger suppressed, anger is depression liberated. Is it possible to strobe between the two? It must be, because, as the Clinton-Obama race turned nasty, a rapid alternation was noticeable among the sort of obsessive Democrats who follow every twist and turn. This was true of people all across the deep-blue universe: passionate Obama supporters; tentative Obama supporters; Obama-Clinton fence-sitters (including the fans of John Edwards, now bereft); and tentative Clinton supporters. (Passionate Clinton supporters, notwithstanding their candidate’s shrinking but still sizable lead in national polls, seem to be a little rarer.)
The anger was mostly directed at Senator Clinton, her husband, and her campaign, for a series of what have come to be known, redundantly, as “negative attacks.” The most egregious, because so coldly premeditated, was a radio spot that took as its hook a snippet of audio from an Obama interview in which he said, “The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years.” A smooth-voiced announcer then adds:
Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street? Running up a nine-trillion-dollar debt? Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis? Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?
Uh, no. Those are not the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about. But the spot’s disingenuous questions were plainly intended to deceive the unwary into assuming that Wall Street tax breaks and the like are the very ideas Obama has been advocating. With equal honesty, the spot could have said, “Denying global warming? Torturing prisoners? Appointing right-wing ideologues to the federal courts? Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?” But that might have taxed the credulity of even the unwary.
Actually, Obama was not talking about any particular ideas. He was talking about the conservative movement’s success in marketing its policy ideas and presenting itself as an intellectual powerhouse. He can be faulted for getting the timeline wrong in a way that dismissed the Clinton years—the Republicans’ “party of ideas” claim is at least thirty years old—but his basic point has long been a commonplace among Democrats. It is why liberals have spent the past decade and more trying to build a counterweight to the conservative infrastructure of think tanks and policy journals.
Obama has turned out to have a kind of political magic unseen since the Kennedy brothers of the nineteen-sixties. He has something of Jack’s futuristic, ironic cool, something of Bobby’s earnest, inspiring heat. His endorsement, last week, by President Kennedy’s surviving brother and surviving child closed the circuit. Senator Clinton’s answer to this is “I have more experience.” And it’s true. Her mastery of policy is deep and subtle; her sense of how the White House wields power is probably unequalled. But experience is a problematic argument, especially when voters are hungry for a new beginning.
Anyway, an argument is no match for an aura. So the Clinton campaign evidently concluded that it had no choice but to “go negative,” and Bill Clinton was assigned, or assigned himself, the task. Some of his attempts to sully his wife’s opponent—calling Obama’s consistent opposition to the Iraq war “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen” and dismissing his South Carolina victory as a racial one, like Jesse Jackson’s twenty years ago—have been untruthful or unworthy or both. Whether or not these and similar attacks “worked” (the evidence is mixed), they certainly succeeded in diminishing both the former President and his wife. “The Clintons” used to be a Republican trope, calculated to make one or the other half of the couple look like a puppet or a victim or a co-conspirator; now it is simply descriptive. Bill Clinton’s talents are immense, and so are those of Hillary Clinton. But the events of the past few weeks have suggested that the peculiar dynamics of the Clinton marriage, which distorted the workings of the first Clinton White House in areas ranging from its failed health-care initiative to its inability to quash the Whitewater hoax, would be carried over into a second.
For some Democrats, a final straw has been the Clinton campaign’s sudden interest in changing the rules. In Nevada, where the state’s Democratic Party had provided special caucus sites for casino workers, Clinton allies tried to get them shut down after a union representing many of those workers endorsed Obama. The Democratic National Committee warned the Party’s affiliates in Michigan and Florida that if they moved their primaries ahead of Tsunami Tuesday they would lose their Convention delegates. They did so anyway, and now Clinton—whose name was the only one on the Michigan ballot and who carried Florida, where no one campaigned—is demanding that the two states’ delegates be accredited. Those delegates, added to the bulk of the unelected “superdelegates,” could conceivably put Clinton over the top if Obama arrives at the Convention with a slight edge in delegates chosen by voters—a scenario that would bear an ugly resemblance to Florida, the popular vote, and the Supreme Court, circa 2000.
Last Thursday night’s televised debate between the two remaining Democrats—a civilized and substantive conversation—has eased the tension. But politics ain’t beanbag. One of the arguments made on behalf of the Clintons is that they know how to win. They do what is necessary. They fight hard. They’ve shown they can survive the worst the Republican attack machine can throw at them, next to which the relatively mild roughing-up they’re giving Obama is downright Gandhian. But there are hard-nosed arguments for Obama, too. Nothing would energize the dispirited, disoriented Republicans like running against Hillary Clinton. And a late-entry challenge from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his billions would be far less likely if Obama became the Democratic nominee.
Obama’s Democratic critics worry that his soaring rhetoric of reconciliation is naïve. But, as Mark Schmitt has argued in The American Prospect, Obama’s national-unity pitch should be viewed as a tactic as well as an ideal. It might lengthen his coattails, helping Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate in marginally red districts and states. It would not protect him from attack, of course, but it would enable him to fire back from the high ground. And, as a new President elected with a not quite filibuster-proof Senate, he would be in a better position to peel off the handful of Republican senators he would need to make meaningful legislative progress than someone who started from a defensive crouch. Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: A disputa dentro do partido democrata para a definição de seu candidato à presidência
Fonte: The New Yorker
Publicação: 11 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Hendrik Hertzberg
Link: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/02/11/080211taco_talk_hertzberg
The Mission
Mitt Romney’s strategies for success.
by Ryan Lizza
On a recent Thursday in Derry, New Hampshire, Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate, was engaged in a conversation about milkshakes. It was early afternoon at a nineteen-fifties-themed diner called MaryAnn’s, and Romney, surrounded by cameramen and reporters, went from table to table introducing himself to voters. Before running for office in Massachusetts—unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and, successfully, for governor in 2002—Romney made a fortune as a management consultant and leveraged-buyout specialist, and, in twenty-five years in the business world, he learned to love information-gathering. “There are answers in numbers—gold in numbers,” he wrote in “Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games,” his 2004 memoir. “Pile the budgets on my desk and let me wallow.” His campaign manager, Beth Myers, told me recently that Romney regularly checks Mittromney.com, and sends off e-mails to aides, asking them to add more detailed information to the site.
At MaryAnn’s, Romney, his suit jacket removed and his sleeves rolled up, made his way swiftly through the restaurant, methodically quizzing the patrons. He sat down with two gray-haired women in a booth and pointed to a creamy drink on the table. “Is this a malt or is this a milkshake?” he asked.
“It’s a frappe,” one of the women replied.
“We call that a milkshake in the Midwest,” Romney, who has lived in Massachusetts for the past thirty-six years, said. “It’s a frappe here, right? This is ice cream and, and—”
“And milk,” the woman replied.
“And milk, yeah. How are you doing? I’m Mitt Romney.”
Romney is smart. He was chosen as the speaker for his graduating class at Brigham Young University. He pursued joint graduate degrees at Harvard, in law and business, graduating cum laude in law and in the top five per cent of his class at the business school. “I like smart people,” he wrote in “Turnaround.” “A lot.” But, like many smart overachievers, especially in politics, he sometimes tries a little too hard. The conversation turned from frappes to health care, and he asked, “Is it O.K. here in New Hampshire?”
“I live in Vermont,” one of the women responded.
“I live in Massachusetts,” the other said.
Undaunted, Romney cheerily pressed for their views on how to improve the health-care system. One of the women made a pitch for more government spending on care for the elderly. The poor, she argued, benefit from government programs, and the rich can afford their own care. “I think the middle people need some help.” Romney perked up and patiently explained the details of a 2004 law that provided more state assistance for home care. His new friends were smitten. “That’s a nice idea,” one of them said. Romney did not mention that the new rules applied only to the poor.
Romney walked into a room decorated with posters of fifties icons. He stood before Frank Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe and chatted with a table of patrons finishing plates of home fries and eggs. Suddenly, a heavyset man wearing a bright-orange cap entered the room. “Mr. Romney,” he called out. “Eric Orff—I’m a hunter.” It was a potentially awkward moment. Earlier this year, Romney claimed that he’d “been a hunter pretty much all my life.” A few days later, he said in a statement, “I’ve hunted small game numerous times.” Four days after that, Romney told W. Gardner Selby, of the Austin American-Statesman, “Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.”
Still, he couldn’t resist. “You’re a hunter?” he said to Orff. “Well, same here. Good to see ya.” Orff had a question about the environment: “It’s eighty degrees today. What are we going to do about global warming?” Romney’s response was quick and concise. “We’re going to get ourselves off of foreign oil,” he said. “And to do that it’s going to take nuclear power, clean coal, more efficient vehicles, and then we’re going to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gases.” It was a good answer, but also a strange one. Not long ago, Romney released a glossy pamphlet detailing his positions on major issues. He sounded like Al Gore when talking to the environmentalist in New Hampshire, though his policy book’s treatment of global warming reads more like something from ExxonMobil. In it, Romney refers to the “debate” over “how much human activity impacts the environment”—code words for the global-warming-denial crowd. He offers no plan to “dramatically” curtail emissions of CO2, just an aside that “we may well be able to rein in our greenhouse-gas emissions.” As the governor of Massachusetts, Romney, in December, 2005, pulled out of a Northeast-state agreement on carbon reduction—a plan that he had supported the month before.
This is a habit of Romney’s. Politicians tend to pander, especially during the primary season. Romney’s chief opponent, Rudy Giuliani, also has a history as a pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights Republican. But while Giuliani simply downplays his record on those issues, Romney sells himself as a true convert. He not only shifts positions; he often claims to be the most passionate advocate of his new stances. It’s one of the reasons that his metamorphosis from liberal Republican to committed right-winger seems so jarring. In 1994, in his race for the Senate, he didn’t simply argue that he was a defender of gay rights; he claimed to be a stronger advocate than his opponent, Edward Kennedy. Today, he’s not just a faithful conservative but the only Republican candidate who represents “the Republican wing of the Republican Party.” He brings a salesman’s bravado and certainty to issues. At a debate in May, when asked how he would respond to a hypothetical situation involving the interrogation of a terrorist at Guantánamo Bay, he said, “Some people have said we ought to close Guantánamo. My view is that we ought to double Guantánamo.” Elected as a pro-choice governor in 2002—YouTube is flooded with his passionate advocacy of abortion rights—he now presents himself as the most resolute anti-abortion candidate in the Republican field. A Mormon, he sometimes adopts the religious language of Evangelicals when he is addressing conservative Christian groups. To economic conservatives, he pitches himself as the candidate most strongly committed to slashing spending and taxes. (He’s the only major G.O.P. candidate to have signed a formal anti-tax pledge, the sort of move that his spokesman dismissed as “government by gimmickry” in Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign.) To national-security conservatives, he is the most hawkish. (He says often that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of Iran, should be indicted under the Genocide Convention, and his campaign has named the former C.I.A. counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black, the vice-chairman of Blackwater, as an adviser.) But, while giving customers exactly what they want may be normal in the corporate world, it can be costly in politics.
Romney’s transition from the boardroom to the campaign trail has been clumsy in other respects, too. According to “Turnaround,” at Bain Capital, the investment firm that Romney headed, the partners suspected that their boss fostered a cutthroat competitive environment in order to motivate them. When he greets voters, this competitiveness often surfaces as posturing; chitchat turns into one-upmanship. After a voter at the New Hampshire diner told Romney, “My daughter goes to Michigan State,” he replied, “Oh, does she, really? My brother’s on the board of Michigan State.” When another patron said that she was from Illinois, Romney told her, “I won the straw poll at the Illinois Republican convention!” Romney’s most seemingly innocuous comments can be head-scratchers. Later that afternoon, standing next to a local supporter who had escorted him to several Derry businesses, Romney told reporters, “Now I understand why I’m going to be gaining a couple of pounds with him, because we’ve eaten everywhere we’ve gone, almost.” Romney, a fitness buff who is shown jogging in a recent campaign ad, had about half a frappe at the diner (he threw the rest away) and a cookie at a bakery—nothing at an Italian restaurant, a feed store, a scrapbook shop, or a hardware store. Whatever gene causes hyper-competitive perfectionists always to go one step beyond their adversaries, or anyone else, Romney has it. Republican candidates inevitably criticize, with some accuracy, Democratic proposals on health care or taxes as being closer to the way things are done in Europe. Earlier in the day, before a crowd of New Hampshire college students, Romney said that the policies of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards were similar to those of a Communist dictatorship. Their ideas, he said pointedly, “didn’t work for the Soviet Union.”
Most explorers searching for the philosophical roots of Mitt Romney begin the journey with his religion. Mormonism is a major factor in the campaign, even if it is rarely mentioned by Romney’s opponents. “I think the Mormon issue is a real problem in the South, and it’s a real problem in other parts of the country, but people are not going to say it,” Dan Bartlett, President Bush’s former counsellor, said in a recent speech. “People are not going to step out and say, ‘I have a problem with Romney because he’s Mormon.’ What they’re going to say is he is a flip-flopper.” Given the importance to the Republican Party of Evangelical Christians—especially Southern Baptists, who have traditionally been hostile to Mormonism—the Romney campaign is understandably concerned about the attention that reporters pay to his religion. Romney’s senior aides were unsettled by a recent Newsweek cover story that dwelled on Romney’s relationship to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as the Mormon Church is officially known. “I thought it was unfortunate that every aspect of the Governor’s life was presented through the prism of religion,” Kevin Madden, Romney’s press secretary, told me. Romney himself, irked by Newsweek’s argument that he was distancing himself from Mormonism, wrote to the magazine, saying, “I am an American running for president, not a Mormon running for president, but I am also very proud of my faith.” He added, “It is puzzling that when Newsweek looks at me what you mostly see is a Mormon.” Romney sometimes faces hostile questions about his religion. At a recent “Ask Mitt Anything” event in Orange, California, a young man asked, “If you were elected President, how many First Ladies could we expect?” The audience gasped, but Romney remained unflustered and advised the questioner to consult the L.D.S. Web site.
In private, a Romney aide frankly conceded that, aside from accusations of “flip-flopping,” his greatest political liability is his religion, which is unfamiliar to most Americans. Jan Shipps, a leading non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism, said that it was useful to consider the difference between Romney and Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, who holds the highest government post of any Mormon in American history. “Reid is a Church member,” Shipps said. “But he is a convert. I’m sure he’s devoted, I’m sure he’s a tithe-paying member and all of that”—devout Mormons contribute ten per cent of their earnings to the Church—“but he was not born into the Church. He didn’t get Mormonism with his mother’s milk, as it were. But Romney is a sixth-generation Mormon”—what scholars call a DNA Mormon. “His ancestors were some of the very first converts.”
Romney’s ancestors had important roles at every turning point in the Mormons’ dramatic nineteenth-century history. Mormonism was founded in western New York, in 1830, by Joseph Smith, after he claimed to have been visited by an angel who directed him to gold plates with inscriptions, which he “translated” into the Book of Mormon. In the eighteen-forties, Romney’s forefathers were present in Nauvoo, Illinois, a settlement established by Smith. After Smith’s murder, in 1844, which forced many persecuted Mormons to move westward, it was Mitt Romney’s great-great-grandfather who first explored the mountain pass leading down to the Salt Lake Valley, according to “Turnaround.” When, in the eighteen-nineties, the federal government cracked down on polygamy, again scattering Mormon families, Romney’s great-grandfather, who had five wives, was among those who fled to Mexico, where Romney’s father, George, was born, in 1907.
By the time Romney was a teen-ager—he was born in 1947—the Church had shifted toward growth by conversion, a change that reinforced the uniqueness of the ancestral Mormons. In addition, George Romney, who grew up in Mormon strongholds in Idaho and Utah, brought up his family in Michigan, where he was the chairman and president of the American Motors Corporation, a small, aggressive competitor of the Big Three, and, later, a three-term governor of the state. Mitt Romney grew up in Bloomfield Hills, a Detroit suburb, where he was the only Mormon in his school. Dane McBride, now a Virginia physician, met Romney in 1966, while both were serving in France as missionaries. Afterward, Romney and McBride attended Brigham Young University together. Like Romney, McBride attended schools where he was one of very few Mormons. “Mitt and I, because of that, were much more experienced in explaining and defending our religion,” McBride told me. “We also grew up feeling that there was a little bit of a difference between us and our friends.”
Many commentators have suggested that Romney will need to make a speech akin to the one that John F. Kennedy gave in 1960 to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, in which he promised to resign if there was ever a collision between his beliefs as a Catholic and the national interest. Jan Shipps is skeptical of the idea that Romney could do something similar. “Mormonism was a cult, just as Christianity was a cult in the beginning,” she told me. “But a cult, when it grows up, becomes a culture, and the people who are a part of it take on an ethnic identity, a peoplehood. Romney is not Mormon the way, say, Ted Kennedy is Catholic. Romney is Mormon the way Ted Kennedy is Irish. That’s the difference. And, when it’s that much a part of who you are, it’s very hard to explain it to other people, because you can’t figure out why they can’t see it. He can’t do a J.F.K., because when J.F.K. did his thing on the Catholics there were people who knew that they were afraid of Catholicism, but at least they knew what it was.”
Romney’s cultural Mormonism is in some ways more important to understanding him than his theological Mormonism. As governor, after all, Romney had a history of supporting positions that were at odds with the practices of the Church. He has opposed cigarette taxes and loosened restrictions on alcohol sales, even though the L.D.S. strongly discourages its members from smoking and drinking. He has also opposed some forms of stem-cell research, even though the Church has no quarrel with such experiments. (Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah, also a Mormon, is a prominent proponent of the research.) Romney grew up in an era when the Mormon Church was growing rapidly, and this forced it to start thinking like a corporation. It became what has been called a “franchise religion,” and its leadership in Salt Lake City instituted a process of “correlation,” which standardized Church teachings and missions around the world. In 1974, the Church even had a team of management consultants help restructure some of its operations. Romney was chosen for a leadership position during his mission in France, and was a leader of local Mormons in Massachusetts. “Gifted men who are Latter-Day Saints start getting assignments as administrators when they go on their mission,” Shipps said. “And those assignments continue—from being in charge of people on this mission to eventually being in charge of a ward, which is like a parish. They have to administer that, and then they have to administer what is essentially a diocese. They learn administration in particular ways.” In that sense, Romney may have learned as much about management from Mormonism as he did about religion.
According to McBride, one of the most important reading assignments Romney had as a missionary was the 1937 best-seller “Think and Grow Rich,” by Napoleon Hill. Hill, the Stephen Covey of his era, essentially invented the personal-success genre, and his advice about the importance of persistence and organized planning would have been particularly useful to an American Mormon trying to convert French Catholics. During a visit to Romney’s mission, Howard W. Hunter, a member of the Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles and later the president of the Church, advised Romney and his colleagues to study Hill’s book. “I want you to understand, the Lord does not care whether you become rich or not, but he does want you to learn how to succeed, and to be successful,” he told them. The can-do spirit of an achievement expert, like Hill, is highly compatible with Mormon religious teaching. There is no original sin and no predestination in Mormonism. It is a religion that preaches optimistic assumptions about human nature, including the premise that humans can become like God in the afterlife, which may help explain its increasing worldwide appeal. In a recent essay in the Christian Century, the religious historian Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp noted that, unlike earlier branches of Christianity, in Mormonism “healthy living and moral values are extolled not simply as exercises in discipline, but as keys to individual progress.” She added, “The language that the L.D.S. Church uses to discuss child-rearing focuses less on preventing sin and avoiding temptation and more on personal cultivation.” According to McBride, he and Romney became diligent students of “Think and Grow Rich.” “We read it, we studied it, we discussed it together—we were into it,” he told me. “It wasn’t Romney’s Bible through life or something like that, but those were concepts and ideas that we got early on, and they did have an impact on us and we did study it, and it became a part of our mentality.”
In late September, Mitt Romney spoke before an audience in a banquet room in Santa Clara, California, within walking distance of high-tech firms like Yahoo, Nortel, and A.M.D. Wearing a blue suit and tie, a gold watch on his wrist, and product in his hair, he never moved from center stage, where an American flag helped frame him for his camera shots. He held a microphone with four fingertips and a thumb and rotated his torso a hundred and eighty degrees every five seconds or so, like a human garden sprinkler. This was his kind of crowd. The event was organized by the local chamber of commerce, and the questions were about entitlements, technology, education, and immigration. The man seated next to me was the president of the Silicon Valley chapter of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. At this forum, no one asked Romney about abortion or religion.
One person wanted to know if there was any difference between Romney’s background and that of his opponents. “Is there anything in my background that’s not different than my opponents?” Romney answered. He went on to relate an anecdote from his days as a management consultant: “I spent my life in the private sector. I spent twenty-five years in business, some high-tech, some low-tech. I remember one of my first consulting assignments—someone came and said they’d taken a piece of glass, about eighteen inches long, and they’d stretched it to a kilometre long. And they’d shone a light through it. That was an optical wave gatherer, they called it. And now we call it fibre optic. And we were hired to find a strategy for Corning to take advantage of this technology.” Romney is as keen to talk about his business background as he is reluctant to talk about his religious background. He has said that his experience as a young management consultant is what helped prepare him for government service.
Romney would be both the first Mormon President and the first President to come from the world of consulting. The profession, whose roots are in the scientific-management fad of the nineteen-twenties, has only recently begun to produce its first generation of political leaders. Benjamin Netanyahu is an alumnus of the Boston Consulting Group, where Romney started out, and William Hague, the former Tory leader, got his first job at McKinsey & Company. In the United States, the growing reputation of consulting as the “it” profession for the American élite got a recent endorsement when Chelsea Clinton decided to join McKinsey rather than pursue a law degree, as her parents did.
Romney joined the Boston Consulting Group in 1975, after graduating from Harvard Business School. The firm had been founded by a former Bible salesman named Bruce Henderson, one of the industry’s conceptual pioneers. In the insular world of consulting, B.C.G. had a reputation as the intellectual shop, seen not just as a hands-on consultancy but also as a think tank, and it popularized the concept of business strategy, or organizing a company around its goals—an idea that swept boardrooms in the seventies. “B.C.G.’s idea was: We don’t need to understand your industry; we need to understand a few important principles that we can apply to all of our clients,” Christopher McKenna, the author of “The World’s Newest Profession,” a history of the consulting industry, told me. B.C.G., using a toolbox of concepts that its people had come up with—“the experience curve,” “the strategic business unit,” and “the growth-share matrix”—helped reinvent the way its clients did business. Its big idea was the experience curve—over time, unit cost decreases as experience increases. Romney spent almost four years at B.C.G. applying these principles.
The year before Romney joined B.C.G., William Bain, one of the company’s stars, had left to start his own firm, Bain & Company, which he promised would be a radical new consulting business. If B.C.G. was like an ivory tower, Bain was a trade school. The tradition best exemplified by McKinsey, one of the oldest firms, had consultants acting like pollinating bees, moving valuable information from one company to another, even within the same industry. Much of what you paid for as a C.E.O. was the expertise that McKinsey had lifted from your rivals. “It was a conduit for the transfer of knowledge,” McKenna told me. “You paid McKinsey an entry fee to do this for you.” Bain’s idea was to create a more exclusive and mutually beneficial arrangement with his clients. He promised not to work for the competition, and, instead of simply devising a new strategy, he would stick around and help implement it. It was the difference between belonging to a gym and having a personal trainer.
Bain also demanded that his consultants work with top-level management, so that decisions could be executed quickly. The approach “was revolutionary,” said Bob White, a Bain alumnus and a longtime Romney friend, who is now the chairman of the Romney campaign. In 1977, Romney joined the Bain team as part of a second wave of consultants who left the Boston Consulting Group. By 1978, Fortune had declared consulting “the current glamour industry for the newest M.B.A.s,” and noted that Harvard graduates were moving into management consulting at a record pace.
Bain’s brand of “relationship consulting” bred a unique culture at the company’s headquarters, in Copley Square. Since Bain didn’t work for business rivals, companies were more willing to share sensitive data. It was there that Romney developed his passion for collecting huge amounts of information. The company soon earned a reputation for extreme secrecy—it was dubbed the K.G.B. of management consulting. It’s been reported that, initially, employees didn’t use business cards, and they spoke in code when discussing clients in public. According to a study conducted by Stanford Graduate School of Business, Bain had a “strict policy forbidding interaction with the press.” It adopted what was called a “one-firm” culture. Employees read “Dress for Success” and were sent on Outward Bound-style leadership retreats. Business reporters wondered why Bain consultants all seemed to wear the same red ties. Romney and his colleagues were called Bainies, and, not surprisingly, there were accounts of insufferable young Bainies swarming into a company and confidently reorganizing it as middle managers were brushed aside. As the consulting business grew, competition for the brightest M.B.A.s intensified, and Bain became an aggressive recruiter. Harvard once kicked the company off campus, temporarily, because the firm offered graduates “exploding bonuses,” payments that declined each day the student dithered about a decision to join Bain.
William Bain believed that he could extract more value from the firms he advised by investing in them. In 1984, he chose Romney, by then one of his top consultants, to launch Bain Capital, a private equity firm that bought up companies, mostly through leveraged buyouts. Applying Bain’s patented techniques, they sometimes expanded the companies they bought and at other times they downsized them, but they almost always made a profit. By the time Romney ran for the Senate, in 1994, it is estimated that he was worth several hundred million dollars.
Romney has said that his training as a management consultant taught him a methodology for problem-solving. He told the conservative author and talk-show host Hugh Hewitt that the conceptual tools he had picked up in the business world gave him the confidence to walk into a C.E.O.’s office and offer advice on an industry with which he was unfamiliar. “You’re going to get data that they have but have never analyzed in the proper way, and then you’re going to tear it apart and debate it amongst yourselves and with them and find new and bold answers,” he told Hewitt. Ever since Romney moved into the political profession—starting with his failed Senate run—a great question has been whether this is a transferrable skill.
Romney’s business background wasn’t enough to beat Kennedy, who turned it into a liability by highlighting stories about companies that were downsized after Bain takeovers. Soon after that loss, Romney began looking for a public platform to showcase his talents. In 1999, he took over the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002, which was then mired in a bribery scandal. The tainted officials had been ousted, but a significant financial problem had emerged: there was a projected budget deficit of three hundred and eighty-seven million dollars. Romney cut costs, raised money, and successfully lobbied the federal government to allocate more funds for the Winter Olympics. By all accounts, he was an extremely competent manager of the enterprise, and his public cheerleading for the games refurbished their reputation. Harvard Business School has taught Romney’s turnaround of the Olympics as a case study. The study, written by the Business School professor H. Kent Bowen, is filled with detailed charts, complicated matrixes, and screen shots from software that Romney and his chief operating officer, Fraser Bullock, used to track their progress as they reorganized the committee. One exhibit from early 2001 offers a glimpse into the limits of the management-consultant world view: a list of twenty-eight “potential risk factors,” which are divided into three tiers based on their probability and impact. No. 28, at the bottom of Tier 3, is “threat or act of terrorism.”
In his first year as governor, 2003, Romney learned a lesson about the differences between management theory and governance. After he was elected, he asked Bain & Company to evaluate the state’s education system, and the Bain-assisted review formed the basis of a radical overhaul that would have increased fees and dismantled the system in place at the University of Massachusetts. In the corporate world, the Bainies, whose power emanated from the C.E.O.’s office, could implement their plans by diktat. On Beacon Hill, Romney had to deal with a Democratic legislature. The Bain education plan never passed. Still, in his last year in office, Romney used a very Bain-like approach—rigorously studying the problem, coming up with a solution based on empiricism, not ideology, and working hard at implementation—to propose a universal-health-care plan for the state and see it passed. Ever since he became a Presidential candidate, Romney has been ambivalent about this success. Sometimes he boasts about it, but at other moments he is uncharacteristically understated. “I like the plan we passed in Massachusetts,” he said in Santa Clara. “It’s not perfect. I liked the one I proposed. The legislature changed it in some ways I wouldn’t have thought about. But I think it is a step forward.”
Romney’s Presidential campaign is perhaps the best indicator of the potential and the limits of Bainism. In G.O.P. political circles, it is frequently cited as being more competently run than any of his opponents’ operations. Although Romney is relying more and more on his personal wealth—he has donated seventeen million dollars of his own money to his campaign—he has also raised forty-five million dollars, almost as much as the leading Republican fund-raiser, Rudy Giuliani, who has raised forty-seven million dollars. And Romney, who started the race as a relatively unknown governor, has made the most progress in polls in the early primary states, though he lags far behind nationally. One Monday this fall, I spent the day at his headquarters in Boston. The campaign takes up two floors of an old law firm in the North End, Boston’s Little Italy. It was the day after the fund-raising quarter closed, and aides were nervously monitoring the news, checking developments about Romney’s opponents. When I walked into the office of Matt Rhoades, Romney’s communications director, he was puzzling over some remarks made by Senator John McCain, in which McCain tried to clarify a statement that America was founded as a Christian nation. Attempting to explain himself, McCain told reporters, “It’s almost Talmudic. We are a nation based on Judeo-Christian values.” Rhoades typed the word “Talmudic” into dictionary.com.
Romney’s strategy was perhaps best summarized by the atmosphere in the office of his campaign manager, Beth Myers. On the wall were maps of the first states to vote in caucuses and primaries—Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. On a bookshelf opposite were thick binders of research on Romney’s top opponents. The spine of one binder said “John McCain, an Unreliable Republican.” Another said “Rudy Giuliani, Left . . . Not Right.” The maps are a reminder that Romney probably has only one path to winning the Republican nomination: he must win the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, states where he has been leading in the polls, and create enough momentum and media attention to carry him through to February 5th, when some twenty states will vote—including New York and California, where Romney is barely known. The labels on the research binders reinforced the idea that Romney’s strategy rests on presenting himself as the true conservative Republican in the race, and on making the sale.
Napoleon Hill himself would be impressed with the planning and persistence that Romney has displayed in trying to convert conservatives to his cause. In every Republican debate, he glows with the bright effervescence of a born salesman. But a political campaign may not be as susceptible to the strategies of management consulting as a business, where advising a corporation to reinvent itself is standard practice. Romney’s strategic audit of the 2008 campaign suggested that his party was hungry for a reliable Republican. For Romney, the danger is that of going too far in attempting to please every constituency. In doing so, he may have underestimated the importance of authenticity, an asset that in politics is sometimes more valuable than ideological purity
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Perfil do ex-candidato republicano a presidencia, Mitt Romney
Fonte: The New Yorker
Publicação: 29 de outubro 2007
Autor: Ryan Lizza
Link: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/29/071029fa_fact_lizza
by Ryan Lizza
On a recent Thursday in Derry, New Hampshire, Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate, was engaged in a conversation about milkshakes. It was early afternoon at a nineteen-fifties-themed diner called MaryAnn’s, and Romney, surrounded by cameramen and reporters, went from table to table introducing himself to voters. Before running for office in Massachusetts—unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and, successfully, for governor in 2002—Romney made a fortune as a management consultant and leveraged-buyout specialist, and, in twenty-five years in the business world, he learned to love information-gathering. “There are answers in numbers—gold in numbers,” he wrote in “Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games,” his 2004 memoir. “Pile the budgets on my desk and let me wallow.” His campaign manager, Beth Myers, told me recently that Romney regularly checks Mittromney.com, and sends off e-mails to aides, asking them to add more detailed information to the site.
At MaryAnn’s, Romney, his suit jacket removed and his sleeves rolled up, made his way swiftly through the restaurant, methodically quizzing the patrons. He sat down with two gray-haired women in a booth and pointed to a creamy drink on the table. “Is this a malt or is this a milkshake?” he asked.
“It’s a frappe,” one of the women replied.
“We call that a milkshake in the Midwest,” Romney, who has lived in Massachusetts for the past thirty-six years, said. “It’s a frappe here, right? This is ice cream and, and—”
“And milk,” the woman replied.
“And milk, yeah. How are you doing? I’m Mitt Romney.”
Romney is smart. He was chosen as the speaker for his graduating class at Brigham Young University. He pursued joint graduate degrees at Harvard, in law and business, graduating cum laude in law and in the top five per cent of his class at the business school. “I like smart people,” he wrote in “Turnaround.” “A lot.” But, like many smart overachievers, especially in politics, he sometimes tries a little too hard. The conversation turned from frappes to health care, and he asked, “Is it O.K. here in New Hampshire?”
“I live in Vermont,” one of the women responded.
“I live in Massachusetts,” the other said.
Undaunted, Romney cheerily pressed for their views on how to improve the health-care system. One of the women made a pitch for more government spending on care for the elderly. The poor, she argued, benefit from government programs, and the rich can afford their own care. “I think the middle people need some help.” Romney perked up and patiently explained the details of a 2004 law that provided more state assistance for home care. His new friends were smitten. “That’s a nice idea,” one of them said. Romney did not mention that the new rules applied only to the poor.
Romney walked into a room decorated with posters of fifties icons. He stood before Frank Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe and chatted with a table of patrons finishing plates of home fries and eggs. Suddenly, a heavyset man wearing a bright-orange cap entered the room. “Mr. Romney,” he called out. “Eric Orff—I’m a hunter.” It was a potentially awkward moment. Earlier this year, Romney claimed that he’d “been a hunter pretty much all my life.” A few days later, he said in a statement, “I’ve hunted small game numerous times.” Four days after that, Romney told W. Gardner Selby, of the Austin American-Statesman, “Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.”
Still, he couldn’t resist. “You’re a hunter?” he said to Orff. “Well, same here. Good to see ya.” Orff had a question about the environment: “It’s eighty degrees today. What are we going to do about global warming?” Romney’s response was quick and concise. “We’re going to get ourselves off of foreign oil,” he said. “And to do that it’s going to take nuclear power, clean coal, more efficient vehicles, and then we’re going to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gases.” It was a good answer, but also a strange one. Not long ago, Romney released a glossy pamphlet detailing his positions on major issues. He sounded like Al Gore when talking to the environmentalist in New Hampshire, though his policy book’s treatment of global warming reads more like something from ExxonMobil. In it, Romney refers to the “debate” over “how much human activity impacts the environment”—code words for the global-warming-denial crowd. He offers no plan to “dramatically” curtail emissions of CO2, just an aside that “we may well be able to rein in our greenhouse-gas emissions.” As the governor of Massachusetts, Romney, in December, 2005, pulled out of a Northeast-state agreement on carbon reduction—a plan that he had supported the month before.
This is a habit of Romney’s. Politicians tend to pander, especially during the primary season. Romney’s chief opponent, Rudy Giuliani, also has a history as a pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights Republican. But while Giuliani simply downplays his record on those issues, Romney sells himself as a true convert. He not only shifts positions; he often claims to be the most passionate advocate of his new stances. It’s one of the reasons that his metamorphosis from liberal Republican to committed right-winger seems so jarring. In 1994, in his race for the Senate, he didn’t simply argue that he was a defender of gay rights; he claimed to be a stronger advocate than his opponent, Edward Kennedy. Today, he’s not just a faithful conservative but the only Republican candidate who represents “the Republican wing of the Republican Party.” He brings a salesman’s bravado and certainty to issues. At a debate in May, when asked how he would respond to a hypothetical situation involving the interrogation of a terrorist at Guantánamo Bay, he said, “Some people have said we ought to close Guantánamo. My view is that we ought to double Guantánamo.” Elected as a pro-choice governor in 2002—YouTube is flooded with his passionate advocacy of abortion rights—he now presents himself as the most resolute anti-abortion candidate in the Republican field. A Mormon, he sometimes adopts the religious language of Evangelicals when he is addressing conservative Christian groups. To economic conservatives, he pitches himself as the candidate most strongly committed to slashing spending and taxes. (He’s the only major G.O.P. candidate to have signed a formal anti-tax pledge, the sort of move that his spokesman dismissed as “government by gimmickry” in Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign.) To national-security conservatives, he is the most hawkish. (He says often that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of Iran, should be indicted under the Genocide Convention, and his campaign has named the former C.I.A. counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black, the vice-chairman of Blackwater, as an adviser.) But, while giving customers exactly what they want may be normal in the corporate world, it can be costly in politics.
Romney’s transition from the boardroom to the campaign trail has been clumsy in other respects, too. According to “Turnaround,” at Bain Capital, the investment firm that Romney headed, the partners suspected that their boss fostered a cutthroat competitive environment in order to motivate them. When he greets voters, this competitiveness often surfaces as posturing; chitchat turns into one-upmanship. After a voter at the New Hampshire diner told Romney, “My daughter goes to Michigan State,” he replied, “Oh, does she, really? My brother’s on the board of Michigan State.” When another patron said that she was from Illinois, Romney told her, “I won the straw poll at the Illinois Republican convention!” Romney’s most seemingly innocuous comments can be head-scratchers. Later that afternoon, standing next to a local supporter who had escorted him to several Derry businesses, Romney told reporters, “Now I understand why I’m going to be gaining a couple of pounds with him, because we’ve eaten everywhere we’ve gone, almost.” Romney, a fitness buff who is shown jogging in a recent campaign ad, had about half a frappe at the diner (he threw the rest away) and a cookie at a bakery—nothing at an Italian restaurant, a feed store, a scrapbook shop, or a hardware store. Whatever gene causes hyper-competitive perfectionists always to go one step beyond their adversaries, or anyone else, Romney has it. Republican candidates inevitably criticize, with some accuracy, Democratic proposals on health care or taxes as being closer to the way things are done in Europe. Earlier in the day, before a crowd of New Hampshire college students, Romney said that the policies of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards were similar to those of a Communist dictatorship. Their ideas, he said pointedly, “didn’t work for the Soviet Union.”
Most explorers searching for the philosophical roots of Mitt Romney begin the journey with his religion. Mormonism is a major factor in the campaign, even if it is rarely mentioned by Romney’s opponents. “I think the Mormon issue is a real problem in the South, and it’s a real problem in other parts of the country, but people are not going to say it,” Dan Bartlett, President Bush’s former counsellor, said in a recent speech. “People are not going to step out and say, ‘I have a problem with Romney because he’s Mormon.’ What they’re going to say is he is a flip-flopper.” Given the importance to the Republican Party of Evangelical Christians—especially Southern Baptists, who have traditionally been hostile to Mormonism—the Romney campaign is understandably concerned about the attention that reporters pay to his religion. Romney’s senior aides were unsettled by a recent Newsweek cover story that dwelled on Romney’s relationship to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as the Mormon Church is officially known. “I thought it was unfortunate that every aspect of the Governor’s life was presented through the prism of religion,” Kevin Madden, Romney’s press secretary, told me. Romney himself, irked by Newsweek’s argument that he was distancing himself from Mormonism, wrote to the magazine, saying, “I am an American running for president, not a Mormon running for president, but I am also very proud of my faith.” He added, “It is puzzling that when Newsweek looks at me what you mostly see is a Mormon.” Romney sometimes faces hostile questions about his religion. At a recent “Ask Mitt Anything” event in Orange, California, a young man asked, “If you were elected President, how many First Ladies could we expect?” The audience gasped, but Romney remained unflustered and advised the questioner to consult the L.D.S. Web site.
In private, a Romney aide frankly conceded that, aside from accusations of “flip-flopping,” his greatest political liability is his religion, which is unfamiliar to most Americans. Jan Shipps, a leading non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism, said that it was useful to consider the difference between Romney and Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, who holds the highest government post of any Mormon in American history. “Reid is a Church member,” Shipps said. “But he is a convert. I’m sure he’s devoted, I’m sure he’s a tithe-paying member and all of that”—devout Mormons contribute ten per cent of their earnings to the Church—“but he was not born into the Church. He didn’t get Mormonism with his mother’s milk, as it were. But Romney is a sixth-generation Mormon”—what scholars call a DNA Mormon. “His ancestors were some of the very first converts.”
Romney’s ancestors had important roles at every turning point in the Mormons’ dramatic nineteenth-century history. Mormonism was founded in western New York, in 1830, by Joseph Smith, after he claimed to have been visited by an angel who directed him to gold plates with inscriptions, which he “translated” into the Book of Mormon. In the eighteen-forties, Romney’s forefathers were present in Nauvoo, Illinois, a settlement established by Smith. After Smith’s murder, in 1844, which forced many persecuted Mormons to move westward, it was Mitt Romney’s great-great-grandfather who first explored the mountain pass leading down to the Salt Lake Valley, according to “Turnaround.” When, in the eighteen-nineties, the federal government cracked down on polygamy, again scattering Mormon families, Romney’s great-grandfather, who had five wives, was among those who fled to Mexico, where Romney’s father, George, was born, in 1907.
By the time Romney was a teen-ager—he was born in 1947—the Church had shifted toward growth by conversion, a change that reinforced the uniqueness of the ancestral Mormons. In addition, George Romney, who grew up in Mormon strongholds in Idaho and Utah, brought up his family in Michigan, where he was the chairman and president of the American Motors Corporation, a small, aggressive competitor of the Big Three, and, later, a three-term governor of the state. Mitt Romney grew up in Bloomfield Hills, a Detroit suburb, where he was the only Mormon in his school. Dane McBride, now a Virginia physician, met Romney in 1966, while both were serving in France as missionaries. Afterward, Romney and McBride attended Brigham Young University together. Like Romney, McBride attended schools where he was one of very few Mormons. “Mitt and I, because of that, were much more experienced in explaining and defending our religion,” McBride told me. “We also grew up feeling that there was a little bit of a difference between us and our friends.”
Many commentators have suggested that Romney will need to make a speech akin to the one that John F. Kennedy gave in 1960 to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, in which he promised to resign if there was ever a collision between his beliefs as a Catholic and the national interest. Jan Shipps is skeptical of the idea that Romney could do something similar. “Mormonism was a cult, just as Christianity was a cult in the beginning,” she told me. “But a cult, when it grows up, becomes a culture, and the people who are a part of it take on an ethnic identity, a peoplehood. Romney is not Mormon the way, say, Ted Kennedy is Catholic. Romney is Mormon the way Ted Kennedy is Irish. That’s the difference. And, when it’s that much a part of who you are, it’s very hard to explain it to other people, because you can’t figure out why they can’t see it. He can’t do a J.F.K., because when J.F.K. did his thing on the Catholics there were people who knew that they were afraid of Catholicism, but at least they knew what it was.”
Romney’s cultural Mormonism is in some ways more important to understanding him than his theological Mormonism. As governor, after all, Romney had a history of supporting positions that were at odds with the practices of the Church. He has opposed cigarette taxes and loosened restrictions on alcohol sales, even though the L.D.S. strongly discourages its members from smoking and drinking. He has also opposed some forms of stem-cell research, even though the Church has no quarrel with such experiments. (Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah, also a Mormon, is a prominent proponent of the research.) Romney grew up in an era when the Mormon Church was growing rapidly, and this forced it to start thinking like a corporation. It became what has been called a “franchise religion,” and its leadership in Salt Lake City instituted a process of “correlation,” which standardized Church teachings and missions around the world. In 1974, the Church even had a team of management consultants help restructure some of its operations. Romney was chosen for a leadership position during his mission in France, and was a leader of local Mormons in Massachusetts. “Gifted men who are Latter-Day Saints start getting assignments as administrators when they go on their mission,” Shipps said. “And those assignments continue—from being in charge of people on this mission to eventually being in charge of a ward, which is like a parish. They have to administer that, and then they have to administer what is essentially a diocese. They learn administration in particular ways.” In that sense, Romney may have learned as much about management from Mormonism as he did about religion.
According to McBride, one of the most important reading assignments Romney had as a missionary was the 1937 best-seller “Think and Grow Rich,” by Napoleon Hill. Hill, the Stephen Covey of his era, essentially invented the personal-success genre, and his advice about the importance of persistence and organized planning would have been particularly useful to an American Mormon trying to convert French Catholics. During a visit to Romney’s mission, Howard W. Hunter, a member of the Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles and later the president of the Church, advised Romney and his colleagues to study Hill’s book. “I want you to understand, the Lord does not care whether you become rich or not, but he does want you to learn how to succeed, and to be successful,” he told them. The can-do spirit of an achievement expert, like Hill, is highly compatible with Mormon religious teaching. There is no original sin and no predestination in Mormonism. It is a religion that preaches optimistic assumptions about human nature, including the premise that humans can become like God in the afterlife, which may help explain its increasing worldwide appeal. In a recent essay in the Christian Century, the religious historian Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp noted that, unlike earlier branches of Christianity, in Mormonism “healthy living and moral values are extolled not simply as exercises in discipline, but as keys to individual progress.” She added, “The language that the L.D.S. Church uses to discuss child-rearing focuses less on preventing sin and avoiding temptation and more on personal cultivation.” According to McBride, he and Romney became diligent students of “Think and Grow Rich.” “We read it, we studied it, we discussed it together—we were into it,” he told me. “It wasn’t Romney’s Bible through life or something like that, but those were concepts and ideas that we got early on, and they did have an impact on us and we did study it, and it became a part of our mentality.”
In late September, Mitt Romney spoke before an audience in a banquet room in Santa Clara, California, within walking distance of high-tech firms like Yahoo, Nortel, and A.M.D. Wearing a blue suit and tie, a gold watch on his wrist, and product in his hair, he never moved from center stage, where an American flag helped frame him for his camera shots. He held a microphone with four fingertips and a thumb and rotated his torso a hundred and eighty degrees every five seconds or so, like a human garden sprinkler. This was his kind of crowd. The event was organized by the local chamber of commerce, and the questions were about entitlements, technology, education, and immigration. The man seated next to me was the president of the Silicon Valley chapter of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. At this forum, no one asked Romney about abortion or religion.
One person wanted to know if there was any difference between Romney’s background and that of his opponents. “Is there anything in my background that’s not different than my opponents?” Romney answered. He went on to relate an anecdote from his days as a management consultant: “I spent my life in the private sector. I spent twenty-five years in business, some high-tech, some low-tech. I remember one of my first consulting assignments—someone came and said they’d taken a piece of glass, about eighteen inches long, and they’d stretched it to a kilometre long. And they’d shone a light through it. That was an optical wave gatherer, they called it. And now we call it fibre optic. And we were hired to find a strategy for Corning to take advantage of this technology.” Romney is as keen to talk about his business background as he is reluctant to talk about his religious background. He has said that his experience as a young management consultant is what helped prepare him for government service.
Romney would be both the first Mormon President and the first President to come from the world of consulting. The profession, whose roots are in the scientific-management fad of the nineteen-twenties, has only recently begun to produce its first generation of political leaders. Benjamin Netanyahu is an alumnus of the Boston Consulting Group, where Romney started out, and William Hague, the former Tory leader, got his first job at McKinsey & Company. In the United States, the growing reputation of consulting as the “it” profession for the American élite got a recent endorsement when Chelsea Clinton decided to join McKinsey rather than pursue a law degree, as her parents did.
Romney joined the Boston Consulting Group in 1975, after graduating from Harvard Business School. The firm had been founded by a former Bible salesman named Bruce Henderson, one of the industry’s conceptual pioneers. In the insular world of consulting, B.C.G. had a reputation as the intellectual shop, seen not just as a hands-on consultancy but also as a think tank, and it popularized the concept of business strategy, or organizing a company around its goals—an idea that swept boardrooms in the seventies. “B.C.G.’s idea was: We don’t need to understand your industry; we need to understand a few important principles that we can apply to all of our clients,” Christopher McKenna, the author of “The World’s Newest Profession,” a history of the consulting industry, told me. B.C.G., using a toolbox of concepts that its people had come up with—“the experience curve,” “the strategic business unit,” and “the growth-share matrix”—helped reinvent the way its clients did business. Its big idea was the experience curve—over time, unit cost decreases as experience increases. Romney spent almost four years at B.C.G. applying these principles.
The year before Romney joined B.C.G., William Bain, one of the company’s stars, had left to start his own firm, Bain & Company, which he promised would be a radical new consulting business. If B.C.G. was like an ivory tower, Bain was a trade school. The tradition best exemplified by McKinsey, one of the oldest firms, had consultants acting like pollinating bees, moving valuable information from one company to another, even within the same industry. Much of what you paid for as a C.E.O. was the expertise that McKinsey had lifted from your rivals. “It was a conduit for the transfer of knowledge,” McKenna told me. “You paid McKinsey an entry fee to do this for you.” Bain’s idea was to create a more exclusive and mutually beneficial arrangement with his clients. He promised not to work for the competition, and, instead of simply devising a new strategy, he would stick around and help implement it. It was the difference between belonging to a gym and having a personal trainer.
Bain also demanded that his consultants work with top-level management, so that decisions could be executed quickly. The approach “was revolutionary,” said Bob White, a Bain alumnus and a longtime Romney friend, who is now the chairman of the Romney campaign. In 1977, Romney joined the Bain team as part of a second wave of consultants who left the Boston Consulting Group. By 1978, Fortune had declared consulting “the current glamour industry for the newest M.B.A.s,” and noted that Harvard graduates were moving into management consulting at a record pace.
Bain’s brand of “relationship consulting” bred a unique culture at the company’s headquarters, in Copley Square. Since Bain didn’t work for business rivals, companies were more willing to share sensitive data. It was there that Romney developed his passion for collecting huge amounts of information. The company soon earned a reputation for extreme secrecy—it was dubbed the K.G.B. of management consulting. It’s been reported that, initially, employees didn’t use business cards, and they spoke in code when discussing clients in public. According to a study conducted by Stanford Graduate School of Business, Bain had a “strict policy forbidding interaction with the press.” It adopted what was called a “one-firm” culture. Employees read “Dress for Success” and were sent on Outward Bound-style leadership retreats. Business reporters wondered why Bain consultants all seemed to wear the same red ties. Romney and his colleagues were called Bainies, and, not surprisingly, there were accounts of insufferable young Bainies swarming into a company and confidently reorganizing it as middle managers were brushed aside. As the consulting business grew, competition for the brightest M.B.A.s intensified, and Bain became an aggressive recruiter. Harvard once kicked the company off campus, temporarily, because the firm offered graduates “exploding bonuses,” payments that declined each day the student dithered about a decision to join Bain.
William Bain believed that he could extract more value from the firms he advised by investing in them. In 1984, he chose Romney, by then one of his top consultants, to launch Bain Capital, a private equity firm that bought up companies, mostly through leveraged buyouts. Applying Bain’s patented techniques, they sometimes expanded the companies they bought and at other times they downsized them, but they almost always made a profit. By the time Romney ran for the Senate, in 1994, it is estimated that he was worth several hundred million dollars.
Romney has said that his training as a management consultant taught him a methodology for problem-solving. He told the conservative author and talk-show host Hugh Hewitt that the conceptual tools he had picked up in the business world gave him the confidence to walk into a C.E.O.’s office and offer advice on an industry with which he was unfamiliar. “You’re going to get data that they have but have never analyzed in the proper way, and then you’re going to tear it apart and debate it amongst yourselves and with them and find new and bold answers,” he told Hewitt. Ever since Romney moved into the political profession—starting with his failed Senate run—a great question has been whether this is a transferrable skill.
Romney’s business background wasn’t enough to beat Kennedy, who turned it into a liability by highlighting stories about companies that were downsized after Bain takeovers. Soon after that loss, Romney began looking for a public platform to showcase his talents. In 1999, he took over the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002, which was then mired in a bribery scandal. The tainted officials had been ousted, but a significant financial problem had emerged: there was a projected budget deficit of three hundred and eighty-seven million dollars. Romney cut costs, raised money, and successfully lobbied the federal government to allocate more funds for the Winter Olympics. By all accounts, he was an extremely competent manager of the enterprise, and his public cheerleading for the games refurbished their reputation. Harvard Business School has taught Romney’s turnaround of the Olympics as a case study. The study, written by the Business School professor H. Kent Bowen, is filled with detailed charts, complicated matrixes, and screen shots from software that Romney and his chief operating officer, Fraser Bullock, used to track their progress as they reorganized the committee. One exhibit from early 2001 offers a glimpse into the limits of the management-consultant world view: a list of twenty-eight “potential risk factors,” which are divided into three tiers based on their probability and impact. No. 28, at the bottom of Tier 3, is “threat or act of terrorism.”
In his first year as governor, 2003, Romney learned a lesson about the differences between management theory and governance. After he was elected, he asked Bain & Company to evaluate the state’s education system, and the Bain-assisted review formed the basis of a radical overhaul that would have increased fees and dismantled the system in place at the University of Massachusetts. In the corporate world, the Bainies, whose power emanated from the C.E.O.’s office, could implement their plans by diktat. On Beacon Hill, Romney had to deal with a Democratic legislature. The Bain education plan never passed. Still, in his last year in office, Romney used a very Bain-like approach—rigorously studying the problem, coming up with a solution based on empiricism, not ideology, and working hard at implementation—to propose a universal-health-care plan for the state and see it passed. Ever since he became a Presidential candidate, Romney has been ambivalent about this success. Sometimes he boasts about it, but at other moments he is uncharacteristically understated. “I like the plan we passed in Massachusetts,” he said in Santa Clara. “It’s not perfect. I liked the one I proposed. The legislature changed it in some ways I wouldn’t have thought about. But I think it is a step forward.”
Romney’s Presidential campaign is perhaps the best indicator of the potential and the limits of Bainism. In G.O.P. political circles, it is frequently cited as being more competently run than any of his opponents’ operations. Although Romney is relying more and more on his personal wealth—he has donated seventeen million dollars of his own money to his campaign—he has also raised forty-five million dollars, almost as much as the leading Republican fund-raiser, Rudy Giuliani, who has raised forty-seven million dollars. And Romney, who started the race as a relatively unknown governor, has made the most progress in polls in the early primary states, though he lags far behind nationally. One Monday this fall, I spent the day at his headquarters in Boston. The campaign takes up two floors of an old law firm in the North End, Boston’s Little Italy. It was the day after the fund-raising quarter closed, and aides were nervously monitoring the news, checking developments about Romney’s opponents. When I walked into the office of Matt Rhoades, Romney’s communications director, he was puzzling over some remarks made by Senator John McCain, in which McCain tried to clarify a statement that America was founded as a Christian nation. Attempting to explain himself, McCain told reporters, “It’s almost Talmudic. We are a nation based on Judeo-Christian values.” Rhoades typed the word “Talmudic” into dictionary.com.
Romney’s strategy was perhaps best summarized by the atmosphere in the office of his campaign manager, Beth Myers. On the wall were maps of the first states to vote in caucuses and primaries—Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. On a bookshelf opposite were thick binders of research on Romney’s top opponents. The spine of one binder said “John McCain, an Unreliable Republican.” Another said “Rudy Giuliani, Left . . . Not Right.” The maps are a reminder that Romney probably has only one path to winning the Republican nomination: he must win the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, states where he has been leading in the polls, and create enough momentum and media attention to carry him through to February 5th, when some twenty states will vote—including New York and California, where Romney is barely known. The labels on the research binders reinforced the idea that Romney’s strategy rests on presenting himself as the true conservative Republican in the race, and on making the sale.
Napoleon Hill himself would be impressed with the planning and persistence that Romney has displayed in trying to convert conservatives to his cause. In every Republican debate, he glows with the bright effervescence of a born salesman. But a political campaign may not be as susceptible to the strategies of management consulting as a business, where advising a corporation to reinvent itself is standard practice. Romney’s strategic audit of the 2008 campaign suggested that his party was hungry for a reliable Republican. For Romney, the danger is that of going too far in attempting to please every constituency. In doing so, he may have underestimated the importance of authenticity, an asset that in politics is sometimes more valuable than ideological purity
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Perfil do ex-candidato republicano a presidencia, Mitt Romney
Fonte: The New Yorker
Publicação: 29 de outubro 2007
Autor: Ryan Lizza
Link: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/29/071029fa_fact_lizza
sexta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2008
Revista Piauí
A Revista Piauí, da Editora Abril vem, continuamente, em suas últimas edições, trazendo artigos vinculados à temática da Guerra do Iraque. Sendo este um tema também recorrente nos discursos dos candidatos norte-americanos à presidência da república, torna-se interessante a leitura desses artigos. O acesso é livre no site da revista para as edições anteriores ao mês corrente.
* O Petróleo é deles - Trinta trilhões de dólares em reservas, a garantia da supremacia americana e a gasolina.
Por Jim Holt.
Edição de Dezembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=422&anteriores=1&anterior=122007
* O Mutilado - Atleta na adolescência, o fuzileiro Travis Greene embarcou para o Iraque seis dias depois de formado. No vôo de ida havia balões coloridos e faixas com votos de boa sorte. Da volta, ele não se lembra
Por Dorrit Harazim
Edição de Dezembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=435&anteriores=1&anterior=122007
* Generais sem estrelas - Em artigo dirigido às Forças Armadas dos Estados Unidos, um tenente-coronel do Exército republicano aponta as responsabilidades pelo fracasso de seu país na guerra do Iraque: despreparo e falta de coragem moral do comando militar
Por Tenente-coronel Paul Yingling
Edição de Fevereiro 08
Link: ainda não disponível para acesso no site
* Porque Bush invadiu o Iraque? - As razões mais citadas são três: controlar o petróleo do Iraque, aumentar a segurança de Israel e terminar o que não foi feito na primeira guerra do Golfo, em 1991, derrubando Saddam Husseim.
Por Thomas Powers
Edição de Novembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=407&anteriores=1&anterior=112007
* O Petróleo é deles - Trinta trilhões de dólares em reservas, a garantia da supremacia americana e a gasolina.
Por Jim Holt.
Edição de Dezembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=422&anteriores=1&anterior=122007
* O Mutilado - Atleta na adolescência, o fuzileiro Travis Greene embarcou para o Iraque seis dias depois de formado. No vôo de ida havia balões coloridos e faixas com votos de boa sorte. Da volta, ele não se lembra
Por Dorrit Harazim
Edição de Dezembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=435&anteriores=1&anterior=122007
* Generais sem estrelas - Em artigo dirigido às Forças Armadas dos Estados Unidos, um tenente-coronel do Exército republicano aponta as responsabilidades pelo fracasso de seu país na guerra do Iraque: despreparo e falta de coragem moral do comando militar
Por Tenente-coronel Paul Yingling
Edição de Fevereiro 08
Link: ainda não disponível para acesso no site
* Porque Bush invadiu o Iraque? - As razões mais citadas são três: controlar o petróleo do Iraque, aumentar a segurança de Israel e terminar o que não foi feito na primeira guerra do Golfo, em 1991, derrubando Saddam Husseim.
Por Thomas Powers
Edição de Novembro 07
Link: http://www.revistapiaui.com.br/artigo.aspx?id=407&anteriores=1&anterior=112007
quinta-feira, 7 de fevereiro de 2008
Romney Supporters Surprised by Exit
By Paul Vitello
Until about 15 minutes into his 18-minute speech, Mitt Romney was delivering what some supporters thought was one of his most emotionally powerful renditions of a campaign address he has made hundreds of times since declaring his candidacy for president almost exactly a year ago.
It was a speech that had an audience of over 1,000 at the annual Conservative Political Action Convention here interrupting him with sustained applause dozens of times — a few times standing on their feet – as he decried “the culture of dependency” fostered by government social programs, the looming “demographic disaster” of unchecked entitlement programs, the looming threat of Asian economic supremacy, the perilous threat of “Islamic jihadism,” and the urgent need to unleash the American entrepreneurial genius by “taking a weed-whacker to government regulations.”
Then he said something that didn’t fit with the uncompromising tenor of the speech up to that point.
“When he mentioned 1976, I knew it was over,” said Wesley Galloway, an accountant from Trumbull, Conn. who has supported the former Massachusetts governor from the beginning.
The conservative radio talk show host, Laura Ingraham, had introduced Mr. Romney by calling him “the conservatives’ conservative,” and referring to what she called the fatal mistake Republicans made in 1976 when they chose the moderate Vice president Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan as their presidential candidate. Mr. Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, the Georgia governor.As if in reply to that analogy, Mr. Romney said, “But there is an important difference between now and 1976. Today we are a nation at war.” He said it was more important to beat the Democratic candidates, who he said would “declare defeat and retreat from Iraq,” than to continue a campaign that would “forestall the launch of a national campaign” against them.
He hated to lose, he said, “but this isn’t about me.”
“When he said that, I have to admit I teared up,” said Mr. Galloway. “It was a noble thing to do and all that, but I think he was by far the best candidate. It’s a loss for the country.”
Disappointed boos from the audience were followed closely by the last frenzy of waving “Change Begins With Us” signs, and the last sustained demonstration of support for the Mitt Romney for President campaign.
Susie Fox, 46, emerged from the auditorium with smudged eyeliner. “I’m still in shock,” she said when asked what she thought. “I thought it was a great speech. He had us all so up. And then, it was over.”
Becky Norton Dunlop, of Arlington, Va., a vice president of the Heritage Foundation and member of the board of directors of the American Conservative Union, was less distraught but gave Mr. Romney high marks for his “classy decision.” She said she had not cottoned to any of the Republican candidates, but would now be “very eager to hear Mr. McCain explain his vision of conservatism.” Arizona Senator John McCain, no favorite of orthodox conservatives – and a no show at last year’s CPAC convention – was scheduled to speak to the meeting here later in the day.
As many of Mr. Romney’s supporters filed out of the auditorium at the Omni Sheraton Hotel here, people wearing McCain buttons and carrying McCain banners flooded into the room, like a victorious army.
One of them, Amy Kaufman, a college freshman from Annapolis, Md. Who has manned phone banks for Mr. McCain since last November, said she was “elated” by the withdrawal of Mr. McCain’s last major obstacle to the nomination, but feeling “a new respect” for his rival, Mr. Romney.
She had sat in the auditorium to hear Mr. Romney’s speech. “I thought he made a great speech,” she said. “But when he said he was dropping out – I just didn’t see it coming. People around me were, like, what did he just say?”
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Sobre o discurso de Mitt Romney, que anunciou sua desistência como candidato republicano a presidência dos Estados Unidos.
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 7 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Paul Vitello
Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/romney-supporters-surprised-by-exit/
Until about 15 minutes into his 18-minute speech, Mitt Romney was delivering what some supporters thought was one of his most emotionally powerful renditions of a campaign address he has made hundreds of times since declaring his candidacy for president almost exactly a year ago.
It was a speech that had an audience of over 1,000 at the annual Conservative Political Action Convention here interrupting him with sustained applause dozens of times — a few times standing on their feet – as he decried “the culture of dependency” fostered by government social programs, the looming “demographic disaster” of unchecked entitlement programs, the looming threat of Asian economic supremacy, the perilous threat of “Islamic jihadism,” and the urgent need to unleash the American entrepreneurial genius by “taking a weed-whacker to government regulations.”
Then he said something that didn’t fit with the uncompromising tenor of the speech up to that point.
“When he mentioned 1976, I knew it was over,” said Wesley Galloway, an accountant from Trumbull, Conn. who has supported the former Massachusetts governor from the beginning.
The conservative radio talk show host, Laura Ingraham, had introduced Mr. Romney by calling him “the conservatives’ conservative,” and referring to what she called the fatal mistake Republicans made in 1976 when they chose the moderate Vice president Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan as their presidential candidate. Mr. Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, the Georgia governor.As if in reply to that analogy, Mr. Romney said, “But there is an important difference between now and 1976. Today we are a nation at war.” He said it was more important to beat the Democratic candidates, who he said would “declare defeat and retreat from Iraq,” than to continue a campaign that would “forestall the launch of a national campaign” against them.
He hated to lose, he said, “but this isn’t about me.”
“When he said that, I have to admit I teared up,” said Mr. Galloway. “It was a noble thing to do and all that, but I think he was by far the best candidate. It’s a loss for the country.”
Disappointed boos from the audience were followed closely by the last frenzy of waving “Change Begins With Us” signs, and the last sustained demonstration of support for the Mitt Romney for President campaign.
Susie Fox, 46, emerged from the auditorium with smudged eyeliner. “I’m still in shock,” she said when asked what she thought. “I thought it was a great speech. He had us all so up. And then, it was over.”
Becky Norton Dunlop, of Arlington, Va., a vice president of the Heritage Foundation and member of the board of directors of the American Conservative Union, was less distraught but gave Mr. Romney high marks for his “classy decision.” She said she had not cottoned to any of the Republican candidates, but would now be “very eager to hear Mr. McCain explain his vision of conservatism.” Arizona Senator John McCain, no favorite of orthodox conservatives – and a no show at last year’s CPAC convention – was scheduled to speak to the meeting here later in the day.
As many of Mr. Romney’s supporters filed out of the auditorium at the Omni Sheraton Hotel here, people wearing McCain buttons and carrying McCain banners flooded into the room, like a victorious army.
One of them, Amy Kaufman, a college freshman from Annapolis, Md. Who has manned phone banks for Mr. McCain since last November, said she was “elated” by the withdrawal of Mr. McCain’s last major obstacle to the nomination, but feeling “a new respect” for his rival, Mr. Romney.
She had sat in the auditorium to hear Mr. Romney’s speech. “I thought he made a great speech,” she said. “But when he said he was dropping out – I just didn’t see it coming. People around me were, like, what did he just say?”
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Sobre o discurso de Mitt Romney, que anunciou sua desistência como candidato republicano a presidência dos Estados Unidos.
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 7 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Paul Vitello
Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/romney-supporters-surprised-by-exit/
With Romney Gone, What Will McCain Do?
By Adam Nagourney
If there was ever much doubt that Senator John McCain of Arizona was going to win the Republican presidential nomination after Super Tuesday, it was pretty much eliminated with the decision by Mitt Romney of Massachusetts to drop out the race this afternoon.
Mr. McCain is now left with one serious opponent – Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Mr. Huckabee has proved this year to be an articulate and affable candidate, and his surprise showing in winning a half-dozen Southern states on Tuesday was one reason that Mr. Romney bowed to what was inarguably the inevitable and quit.
But Mr. Huckabee is a candidate with some shortcomings – in particular, his lack of experience in foreign affairs – and, more significant, not much money to soldier on. What is more, Mr. McCain has a big lead in delegates coming out of Tuesday night, and under party rules, Mr. Huckabee would have tough job catching up even if he had the money to do so.
The question now for Mr. McCain is how far he needs go now in reaching out to conservatives who have been wary of him – if not flat out opposed to him – given his history on issues like easing immigration restrictions and changing campaign finance laws. Mr. Romney was arguably Mr. McCain’s greatest threat on the right and his greatest impetus for moving right; now that he is gone, some of the motivation for moving right is gone.Mr. McCain, who will address the Conservative Political Action Committee later in the afternoon, has a slightly different task now. He cannot win a general election without having the unambiguous support of conservatives around him – especially going up against a Democratic Party that is so, to borrow a phrase from Barack Obama, fired up and ready to go.
But the extent to which he emphasizes conservative positions could complicate his effort to win over the moderate and independent voters who have so long been drawn by Mr. McCain and is one of the reasons why many Democrats view him as the toughest candidate the Republicans have.
As for Mr. Romney, he was a candidate who many Republicans had long thought would in the end emerge as the party’s nominee. The reason for this was obvious to anyone who spent time with him: He was a strong presence on the campaign trail, unusually smart and articulate, and had a command of issues that comes from having spent so much time preparing for this moment.
But Mr. Romney somehow always came across better in person than he did on television, and that cut increasingly against him as the campaign moved on. But Mr. Romney’s change over such key issues as abortion rights, stem cell research and gay rights was jarring to people who had watched him as governor in Massachusetts, and even more to Republican voters who began to see clips that illustrated his differing views, thanks to YouTube and Mr. Romney’s opponents.
Altogether, it conveyed an image of inauthenticity that would have been problematic in any election year – but particularly this year, and particularly going against Mr. McCain. That, more than anything else, proved to be the obstacle Mr. Romney could not overcome.
**** **** ***
Em destaque: Os porquês da desistência do candidato Mitt Romney e os desafios propostos a McCain, para angariar os delegados mais conservadores do partido Republicano.
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 7 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Adam Nagourney
Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/with-romney-gone-what-will-mccain-do/index.html?hp
If there was ever much doubt that Senator John McCain of Arizona was going to win the Republican presidential nomination after Super Tuesday, it was pretty much eliminated with the decision by Mitt Romney of Massachusetts to drop out the race this afternoon.
Mr. McCain is now left with one serious opponent – Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Mr. Huckabee has proved this year to be an articulate and affable candidate, and his surprise showing in winning a half-dozen Southern states on Tuesday was one reason that Mr. Romney bowed to what was inarguably the inevitable and quit.
But Mr. Huckabee is a candidate with some shortcomings – in particular, his lack of experience in foreign affairs – and, more significant, not much money to soldier on. What is more, Mr. McCain has a big lead in delegates coming out of Tuesday night, and under party rules, Mr. Huckabee would have tough job catching up even if he had the money to do so.
The question now for Mr. McCain is how far he needs go now in reaching out to conservatives who have been wary of him – if not flat out opposed to him – given his history on issues like easing immigration restrictions and changing campaign finance laws. Mr. Romney was arguably Mr. McCain’s greatest threat on the right and his greatest impetus for moving right; now that he is gone, some of the motivation for moving right is gone.Mr. McCain, who will address the Conservative Political Action Committee later in the afternoon, has a slightly different task now. He cannot win a general election without having the unambiguous support of conservatives around him – especially going up against a Democratic Party that is so, to borrow a phrase from Barack Obama, fired up and ready to go.
But the extent to which he emphasizes conservative positions could complicate his effort to win over the moderate and independent voters who have so long been drawn by Mr. McCain and is one of the reasons why many Democrats view him as the toughest candidate the Republicans have.
As for Mr. Romney, he was a candidate who many Republicans had long thought would in the end emerge as the party’s nominee. The reason for this was obvious to anyone who spent time with him: He was a strong presence on the campaign trail, unusually smart and articulate, and had a command of issues that comes from having spent so much time preparing for this moment.
But Mr. Romney somehow always came across better in person than he did on television, and that cut increasingly against him as the campaign moved on. But Mr. Romney’s change over such key issues as abortion rights, stem cell research and gay rights was jarring to people who had watched him as governor in Massachusetts, and even more to Republican voters who began to see clips that illustrated his differing views, thanks to YouTube and Mr. Romney’s opponents.
Altogether, it conveyed an image of inauthenticity that would have been problematic in any election year – but particularly this year, and particularly going against Mr. McCain. That, more than anything else, proved to be the obstacle Mr. Romney could not overcome.
**** **** ***
Em destaque: Os porquês da desistência do candidato Mitt Romney e os desafios propostos a McCain, para angariar os delegados mais conservadores do partido Republicano.
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 7 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Adam Nagourney
Link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/with-romney-gone-what-will-mccain-do/index.html?hp
Romney Drops Out of Presidential Race
By JOHN SULLIVAN and MICHAEL LUO
Published: February 7, 2008
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who sought to position himself as the true conservative choice for the Republican presidential nomination, announced Thursday afternoon that he had ended his campaign.
Mr. Romney, who had vowed to press on despite disappointing results in the Super Tuesday primary contests, made the announcement at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
In a speech that touched on the messages of his campaign, Mr. Romney said he had come to his decision to help unify the Republican Party, and he charged that Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, would not pursue the war in Iraq.
“Because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to stand aside for our party and our country,” he said.
Mr. Romney had hoped to use Tuesday’s results to narrow the gap between him and his chief rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona. Instead, he saw Mr. McCain widen the lead at the same time that Mr. Romney’s campaign lost ground to Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, who racked up solid gains.
Speaking before an enthusiastic crowd at the conference, hosted by the American Conservative Union, Mr. Romney said he would have preferred to continue until the Republican convention.
“You are with me all the way to the convention,” he said. “Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976.”
But by fighting to the convention, he said, “I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.”
Mr. Romney faced a series of enormous challenges in the campaign, not the least of which was trying to reconcile the moderate political views he espoused as the governor of Massachusetts, a liberal state, with the more conservative views he championed on the campaign. That tension — and his decision to change positions on a number of emotionally charged issues, including renouncing his past support for abortion rights — led his rivals to continually lambaste him as a flip-flopper.
Then there was the question of his Mormon religion. After the candidacy of Mr. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, took off in Iowa, where it was fueled by evangelical voters, Mr. Romney was moved to give a major speech in Texas defending his faith and denouncing the rise of secularism.
And although Mr. Romney, a former management consultant, ran what many described as a textbook campaign, he never really recovered after failing to execute the original strategy of winning the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, and using those wins to build momentum. Iowa went to Mr. Huckabee, and New Hampshire to Mr. McCain, who tried to paint himself as a straight talker to contrast with Mr. Romney’s flexibility.
As the campaign progressed, Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain exchanged increasingly bitter attacks. Mr. Romney charged that Mr. McCain was “outside the mainstream of conservative political thought.” Mr. McCain pointedly noted that Mr. Romney had changed his position on important issues for many conservative Republicans, including as abortion rights and gun control.
But in Thursday’s speech, Mr. Romney emphasized his agreement with Mr. McCain’s position that the United States needed to continue to pursue the war in Iraq. Arguing that the war is a critical part of the country’s battle against terrorism, Mr. Romney said the Democratic candidates “would retreat, declare defeat, and the consequences of that would be devastating.”
*** *** ***
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 07 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: John Sullivan e Michael Luo
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/politics/07cnd-repubs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2008
Guerra dita vida e campanha de veterano
Passado de prisioneiro e retórica sobre Iraque atraem votos em grupo que supera 70 milhões de pessoas
FÁBIO VICTOR
ENVIADO ESPECIAL A PHOENIX (ARIZONA)
Um panfleto de campanha do republicano John McCain traz na capa uma foto borrada de um soldado, que se funde à da bandeira dos EUA, sob a inscrição: "It"s hard to understand their sacrifice..." (É difícil entender o sacrifício deles). Na página interna, a continuação: "...Unless you lived it" (...A menos que você o tenha vivido).
Então um texto conta o "distinto histórico de serviços" prestados por McCain às Forças Armadas do país, os 22 anos como aviador da Marinha, as medalhas recebidas e, claro, a experiência como prisioneiro de guerra no Vietnã -a credencial definitiva para fixar no hoje pré-candidato a presidente o rótulo de herói da pátria.
A peça enumera as promessas do republicano para os militares e veteranos de guerra e, por fim, pede apoio político e financeiro para a campanha.
Filho e neto de militares e pai de outros dois -um deles estaria servindo no Iraque, algo que o senador não comenta-, McCain formou-se na Academia Naval em 1958 e continuou na ativa até 1981. No Vietnã, teve seu avião abatido, quebrou dois braços e uma perna ao cair num lago. Em mais de cinco anos como prisioneiro, ficou em solitárias e foi torturado.
Passados 35 anos da sua libertação e quase 33 anos do fim da Guerra do Vietnã, a memória militar de McCain está viva e pulsando como nunca na corrida presidencial americana, usada por seus seguidores e críticos para apoiá-lo ou rejeitá-lo.
Um dos principais defensores da Guerra do Iraque e do envio de mais soldados ao país entre os concorrentes à sucessão de George W. Bush, o republicano martela em seus discursos a cantilena de que o plano democrata para retirar as tropas significaria a "rendição".
Veteranos
A seção do Arizona do Departamento de Assuntos dos Veteranos fica num prédio moderno e imponente na região central de Phoenix. Abriga repartições como "Atendimento a paralíticos" e "Divisão dos prisioneiros de guerra".
O departamento é um órgão federal, que atende os 24,3 milhões de veteranos de guerra do país provendo-lhes serviços médicos e psicológicos, financiamentos etc. Considerando que os benefícios se estendem a suas famílias, calcula-se que 70 milhões de pessoas sejam atendidas, ou quase um quarto da população dos EUA.
Junte-se a esse contingente o 1,36 milhão de militares na ativa, e chega-se a um grupo de peso eleitoral imenso. Tradicionalmente, é para os republicanos que vão esses votos, o que deve se manter desta vez, como pôde constatar a Folha em conversas com veteranos ontem no tal prédio em Phoenix. E, como seria previsível, o veterano McCain está bem cotado.
"Voto em McCain porque ele é um veterano, tem experiência parlamentar e é conservador do ponto de vista fiscal e liberal no lado social", afirma Mark Preston, 59, soldado no Vietnã entre 1970 e 1971.
Há casos em que o corporativismo é escancarado. "Ele [McCain] sabe o que é preciso para nos ajudar. Propôs criar um cartão que nos dê acesso a qualquer hospital, não só ao dos veteranos", disse Eri González, 41, que esteve na Guerra do Golfo (1991) e na do Iraque e pensa em escrever um livro com sua história -pede uma força para lançá-lo no Brasil.
Um entrevistado revelou que votaria no republicano Ron Paul, igualmente veterano e que reclama para si a primazia no grupo. "Ele parece honesto, não mente. Gosto de ouvi-lo, e isso basta", conta Alfred Bannatt, 60, um ano de Vietnã.
Cabeça de POW
A alguns quilômetros dali, na periferia de Phoenix, um centro comercial concentra parte da comunidade vietnamita da cidade. Há o mercadinho Vien Dong, a joalheria Kim-Hoan, a sinuca Phuong Hoang e o restaurante Old Saigan.
Seja por trauma, por reserva ou por não falarem inglês, os mais velhos, que chegaram aos EUA em sua maioria depois da guerra, simplesmente se negam a dar entrevista.
Mas a segunda geração, já de americanos, não poupa McCain. "O problema não é político, é pessoal. Ele tem cabeça de POW [sigla em inglês para prisioneiro de guerra], é perturbado, vai ter raiva a vida inteira", critica Michael Lam, 24, que toca o mercadinho Vien Dog com os pais, que migraram do então Vietnã do Sul em 1976, um ano após o fim do conflito.
"Nossa família não é comunista, mas isso não muda nada. Meus pais não estão registrados para votar, mas, se estivessem, jamais votariam no McCain", diz ele. Ao seu lado, a mãe confirma, em vietnamita.
Lam, apesar de preferir Hillary, votaria em Obama. "O mundo é sexista, não está preparado para ela."
*** *** ***
Fonte: Folha de S. Paulo
Publicação: 6 de fevereiro 2008
Autores: Fábio Victor
Link : http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/mundo/ft0602200802.htm
Foreign Affairs
A publicação Foreign Affair possui artigos escritos pelos próprios candidatos republicanos e democratas, onde eles publicam suas idéias quanto aos seus planos para política internacional norte-americana se eleitos.
Não colocamos os artigos na íntegra neste blog por todos serem relativamente longos (aproximadamente oito páginas cada um) e terem acesso livre pela internet. Aqui o link dos artigos assim como os respectivos títulos:
BARACK OBAMA
" Renewing American Leadership"
Publicação: Julho/Agosto 2007
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
HILLARY CLINTON
" Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century"
Publicação: Novembro/Dezembro 2007
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p0/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
MITT ROMNEY
" Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges"
Publicação: Julho/Agosto 2007
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html
MICHAEL D. HUCKABEE
"America's Priorities in the War on Terror: Islamists, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan"
Publicação: Janeiro/Fevereiro 2008
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87112/michael-d-huckabee/america-s-priorities-in-the-war-on-terror.html
JOHN MCCAIN
"An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom: Securing America's Future"
Publicação: Novembro/Dezembro 2007
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
Não colocamos os artigos na íntegra neste blog por todos serem relativamente longos (aproximadamente oito páginas cada um) e terem acesso livre pela internet. Aqui o link dos artigos assim como os respectivos títulos:
BARACK OBAMA
" Renewing American Leadership"
Publicação: Julho/Agosto 2007
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
HILLARY CLINTON
" Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century"
Publicação: Novembro/Dezembro 2007
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p0/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
MITT ROMNEY
" Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges"
Publicação: Julho/Agosto 2007
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html
MICHAEL D. HUCKABEE
"America's Priorities in the War on Terror: Islamists, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan"
Publicação: Janeiro/Fevereiro 2008
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87112/michael-d-huckabee/america-s-priorities-in-the-war-on-terror.html
JOHN MCCAIN
"An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom: Securing America's Future"
Publicação: Novembro/Dezembro 2007
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
McCain Dominates Big States
Huckabee, Romney Stay Alive As They Score Wins in the South and West
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 6, 2008; 3:40 AM
Sen. John McCain surged closer toward the Republican nomination yesterday by capturing the biggest Super Tuesday states, including California, but failed to knock out his rivals, who deprived him of victories across GOP strongholds in the South and West.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: O resultado da Super Terça para os candidatos republicanos
Fonte: The Washington Post
Publicação: 6 de fevereiro 2008
Autores: Michael D. Shear e Peter Baker
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600763.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008020601339
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 6, 2008; 3:40 AM
Sen. John McCain surged closer toward the Republican nomination yesterday by capturing the biggest Super Tuesday states, including California, but failed to knock out his rivals, who deprived him of victories across GOP strongholds in the South and West.
As millions of Republicans went to the polls in 21 states, the senator from Arizona racked up hundreds of delegates on the strength of winner-take-all primaries in the Northeast and elsewhere. But his inability to win in more than half of the states voting yesterday complicated his hopes of rallying the party behind his candidacy.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee scored a surprising sweep of his native South, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney picked up a number of states in the West but fell short in critical battlegrounds that would have established him as McCain's primary challenger. Huckabee and Romney vowed last night to stay in the race as it moves to Virginia, Maryland and the District on Tuesday.
The multiple-front clash represented a virtual national primary as Republicans voted to choose a standard-bearer, with more states voting at once than in any other GOP nomination battle. McCain appeared poised to emerge with roughly half of the 1,191 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination, a huge one-day take after an epic, year-long fight to define the Republican Party in a post-George W. Bush era.
McCain easily captured New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, after being endorsed by former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a defeated rival. McCain also won Missouri, Arizona, Illinois, Oklahoma and Delaware. His victory in California appeared to be by a large margin, though Romney will probably collect a sizable share of the state's delegates because they are apportioned by congressional district.
Speaking to supporters in Phoenix even before California's results were announced, McCain said, "We won some of the biggest states in the country," and added, "Tonight, I think we must get used to the idea that we are the Republican Party front-runner for the nomination of president of the United States." He paused before adding, "And I don't really mind it one bit."
McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who has carved out a career as a blunt-talking maverick on Capitol Hill, moved closer to the presidential prize he has been seeking for more than a decade by earning support across the country. But the voting made clear that serious challenges remain for McCain: to clear the field of rivals who question his commitment to conservative ideology, and to consolidate a fractured party.
Romney and Huckabee together kept at least 11 states out of McCain's column, and each claimed to be the alternative to the front-runner, who struggled throughout the day to appeal to conservatives. "Over the past few days, a lot of people have been saying this is a two-man race," Huckabee told supporters last night in Little Rock. "And you know what? It is. And we're in it."
Beside his home state of Arkansas, Huckabee prevailed in Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia. He also emerged victorious at a West Virginia convention with the help of McCain supporters, who on a second ballot threw their support to the former Arkansas governor to block a victory by Romney.
After surging into the top tier of candidates by winning the Iowa caucuses last month, Huckabee had struggled to win elsewhere. But his campaign was energized yesterday by the same evangelical voters who supported him in the Hawkeye State. Still, his path to the nomination appeared difficult once the campaign leaves the Deep South.
"Huck obviously has had a big night," said Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to McCain, who has largely viewed Romney as his chief competition for the past month. "Mitt had a very bad night. You can't say you're 'Mr. Conservative' and not win the South."
Romney won his home state of Massachusetts, as well as Utah -- home to his Mormon Church -- Minnesota, Montana, Colorado, North Dakota and Alaska. But despite late polls that had suggested a close race in California and a last-minute campaign trip there, Romney did not win in the most populous state.
Speaking before the results in California had come in, Romney told supporters in Boston that "the one thing that is clear is that this campaign is going on." He said that "there are some people who thought it was all going to be done tonight," but he pledged to "go all the way to the convention, and we're going to win this thing."
With a little more than half of the delegates allocated after midnight, McCain had collected 420 delegates, compared with 130 for Romney, 99 for Huckabee and 5 for Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), according to an Associated Press count. Once delegates from California and other states that had not completely reported are included, Republican strategists expected McCain will easily top 500. He entered yesterday's contests with 102 delegates from previous victories.
But even if he can ultimately dispatch Romney and Huckabee in the coming weeks, McCain still has a difficult task persuading core Republican voters to stand with him. Many conservative leaders and talk-show hosts remain angered by McCain's 2000 denunciation of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, his votes against Bush's tax cuts and his attempts to liberalize immigration laws.
Among self-described conservatives voting yesterday, exit polling showed that McCain lost to Romney or Huckabee in many states, a sign that the anger and mistrust vented on talk shows in recent days is shared by many of the party faithful. In California, Romney held a double-digit lead over McCain among conservative voters. Romney even won conservative voters in McCain's home state of Arizona.
"He's got to come out of this feeling good, but I'm sure he can't feel that the cat's in the bag," former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said of McCain.
"Like everything else in his life, John McCain continues to do things the hard way," said former Republican National Committee chairman Rich Bond, a McCain supporter. The victory in California, Bond added, makes it hard for Romney to catch McCain now. Without it, "he's got Mission Impossible in front of him."
Romney did better among late-deciding voters than he did among those who had made up their minds before the past few days, a sign that his relentless attacks leading to Super Tuesday may have succeeded in painting McCain as a liberal on immigration, campaign finance, taxes and energy policy. Exit polls showed that Romney swamped McCain among voters who consider illegal immigration the most important issue.
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said that the campaign has had "robust fundraising" in the past week, and that that after yesterday's blitz of primary and caucus votes, the calendar favors his candidate. Campaign officials planned to meet tomorrow to map a strategy for the primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District.
But the voting did not appear to indicate much support for the principal argument advanced by Romney's campaign in recent weeks -- that a former venture capitalist is better equipped to steer the country away from a possible recession. McCain came out on top among voters most worried about the economy, as well as with those who said Iraq and terrorism are their top concerns.
McCain and Romney have clashed for weeks over foreign policy and the economy as other rivals dropped out and the race narrowed. McCain has argued that his decades of experience in foreign policy qualify him as a wartime president. Romney seized on the nation's worsening economy as proof that his experience in the business world is what the country needs.
A multimillionaire, Romney has spent more than $35 million of his fortune in pursuing the presidency. But his long-planned strategy to win early-voting states fizzled, with Huckabee winning the Iowa caucuses and McCain the New Hampshire primary. Romney refused to concede the nomination to McCain as the acrimonious campaign continued into South Carolina and Florida.
Even before voting began, Romney's campaign vowed to continue on, saying the candidate will attend an annual conference of GOP conservatives this week in Washington -- a venue that aides said he will use to highlight McCain's struggles with the party base.
Huckabee vaulted from obscurity to the top tier with his surprise victory in Iowa a month ago but had struggled to replicate that success. He showed yesterday that he continues to attract a lot of support from evangelicals.
But Huckabee's continued presence also served to split the anti-McCain vote, frustrating Romney, who has tried to turn the campaign into a one-on-one confrontation with the longtime senator from Arizona. GOP strategists think much of Huckabee's support would have gone to Romney had Huckabee not remained in contention.
"Huckabee is preventing Romney from winning enough delegates to be competitive," said Sara M. Taylor, a former Bush White House political director who is neutral in the race. "He's only cemented McCain's front-runner status."
Hoping for some early momentum on Super Tuesday, Romney flew through the night Monday to arrive in Charleston, W.Va., to appear at the state's GOP convention. "I am the only candidate who can stop John McCain," Romney said at a breakfast meeting with West Virginia Republicans.
Romney went on to win 41 percent of votes at the convention, followed by Huckabee with 33 percent and McCain with 15 percent, but fell short of the majority required for victory. On the second ballot, McCain's supporters threw their support to Huckabee, giving him the victory and denying Romney the 18 delegates at stake.
Romney campaign manager Beth Myers denounced the outcome: "Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside-Washington ways look like: He cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change."
McCain and Huckabee dismissed the complaint as sour grapes. "Well, yesterday, he was chiding me. He said not to whine," Huckabee said. "Today, he's changed his position on whining, and today he's for whining. So once again, Mitt has been able to take both sides of all issues, including whining."
That tone was reflected in the last 24 hours, in which McCain and Romney launched harsh television and Internet ads accusing each other of being closet liberals. The two also quarreled over comments by Romney that McCain said disparaged former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.).
*** *** ***
Em destaque: O resultado da Super Terça para os candidatos republicanos
Fonte: The Washington Post
Publicação: 6 de fevereiro 2008
Autores: Michael D. Shear e Peter Baker
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600763.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008020601339
Clinton and Obama Trade Victories
N.Y. Senator Withstands Push By Surging Rival in Key Battlegrounds
By Dan Balz and Anne E. KornblutWashington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, February 6, 2008; Page A01
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won victories over Sen. Barack Obama in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York last night, giving her presidential campaign a crucial boost. But Obama countered by winning of a string of states, including the general election battleground of Missouri, in the seesaw race for the Democratic nomination.
The results ensured that the fierce contest for delegates will continue into critical primaries in Texas and Ohio on March 4, and possibly beyond, in what has become the party's most competitive race in at least a quarter of a century.
Clinton claimed four of the five biggest prizes in Super Tuesday's 22-state Democratic competition. She also captured Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Those victories helped stem what appeared to be gathering momentum around Obama's candidacy since he won in South Carolina on Jan. 26.
But Obama won in more places than his New York rival, racking up victories in his home state of Illinois, as well as Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Utah. His narrow victory in Missouri came after Clinton appeared on the brink of winning there. Only the outcome in New Mexico remained unresolved early this morning.
In many of the states Clinton won, Obama had surged from far behind to narrow the gap in the days before Super Tuesday. Her ability to hold off his charge brought a sense of relief to her campaign advisers, but the likelihood that neither would emerge with a significant advantage in delegates was a sign that their roller-coaster competition would continue.
Clinton appeared before supporters in New York shortly before the polls closed in California, thanking her supporters for voting "not just to make history, but to remake America." Saying that Republicans want "eight more years of the same," she added, "They've got until January 20th, 2009, and not one day more." She also presented herself as a candidate who "won't let anyone Swift-boat this country's future."
Obama, who was in Chicago, came out later and, while congratulating Clinton on her successes, drew a contrast with his rival, saying voters in November deserve a clear choice between the Republican and Democratic nominees.
"It's a choice between going into this election with Republicans and independents already united against us, or going against their nominee with a campaign that has united Americans of all parties, from all backgrounds, from all races, from all religions, around a common purpose," he said. "It's a choice between having a debate with the other party about who has the most experience in Washington, or having one about who is most likely to change Washington, because that's a debate that we can win."
Clinton and Obama were fighting not just for state-by-state victories but also for an advantage in the nearly 1,700 delegates up for grabs yesterday. Aides to both candidates said that, regardless of how the two carved up the states, neither would emerge with enough of an edge to claim a substantial advantage.
Delegate tallies lagged well behind the state-by-state results, given the complex formulas the Democrats use to determine the allocation.
Clinton's victory in Massachusetts was especially sweet for her campaign, coming despite endorsements of Obama by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry and Gov. Deval L. Patrick that gave him hope for substantial momentum heading into yesterday's primaries.
Her advisers called it "the biggest surprise of the night." Obama advisers had warned that Clinton's lead may be too large to overcome, but the loss was nonetheless a disappointment to his campaign.
Though the Clinton team immediately hailed Massachusetts as an upset, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said in an interview just after the race was called that he was "not surprised at all" by her win in the state. Clinton won the Bay State largely on the strength of her support from women, who made up more than half the electorate from coast to coast.
Exit polls from the National Election Pool showed Clinton with a double-digit lead among women in the state, where she attended college as an undergraduate. She also won among self-identified independents, normally a solid constituency for Obama.
"We feel quite good about how those returns have come in," Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Clinton, said in a conference call with reporters shortly after 10 p.m. As he spoke, cheers erupted in the background at the campaign's headquarters in Arlington.
Penn argued that people who made up their minds late were trending toward Clinton, though early exit data suggested there was an even split between the two.
In a race that will come down to delegates, Clinton officials said they will wait to see results from all the states before declaring a delegate count -- but predicted she would ultimately be ahead.
"By the end of today, with pledged delegates and superdelegates, we expect to be ahead of Senator Obama in overall delegates," said Guy Cecil, Clinton's field director.
In the South, Clinton more than held her own. She lost Georgia -- one of only a few states where she lost among women; the same was true in Illinois -- but triumphed in Arkansas, her former home state, and Oklahoma and Tennessee. And the race continued to split along racial lines, as Obama won about eight in 10 African Americans, a trend that put him over the top in Georgia and Alabama.
Still, he won nearly four in 10 white voters in Georgia and fared better among white men there than he had in an earlier racially polarized race in South Carolina, giving his campaign a chance to claim that he had broadened his support in the intervening weeks. Victories in Connecticut and North Dakota bolstered that claim.
The race in Missouri remained close even as other states were called; an early tally in Clinton's favor proved premature as the night wore on. But the state reflected a wider sweep for Obama among African Americans: He won more than three-fourths of the state's black voters, while Clinton beat him among senior citizens by a margin of 2 to 1.
The demographics of the Democratic race suggested a contest that is dividing along racial and gender lines, as Clinton won 7 in 10 white women in New Jersey, as well as three-quarters of Hispanic women.
The candidates divided men in New Jersey evenly. In Tennessee, Clinton won white voters of all ages; Obama won blacks across the board. Similar splits occurred in California, where black voters chose Obama 5 to 1. But the two split the white vote in California, where Clinton made up the difference by winning Hispanics 2 to 1.
Twenty-two states held Democratic contests yesterday, with 1,681 pledged delegates to the party's national convention in Denver at stake. The 22 states account for 52 percent of all pledged delegates awarded during the nomination battle.
There will be 4,049 delegates attending the national convention; a candidate needs 2,025 to secure the nomination. Of that total, 3,253 are pledged delegates, which means their votes are determined by the caucus or primary results in their state. The remainder are superdelegates, who are free to vote for whomever they prefer.
Going into yesterday's balloting, Obama had 63 delegates to Clinton's 48 in the first four party-sanctioned contests of the year -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Clinton held a lead among superdelegates. Various news organizations count the distribution of superdelegates differently, but Clinton is widely agreed to lead Obama by a margin of about 90.
Clinton voted in New York yesterday morning and spent most of the day conducting interviews, her voice on the verge of vanishing after days of cross-country campaigning. "The stakes are huge," she said as she cast her ballot at an elementary school near her Chappaqua home.
Obama voted in his home town of Chicago, at an elementary school in the Hyde Park neighborhood.
Throughout the day, Clinton advisers worked to play down expectations. Even before any polling stations were closed, Penn and senior adviser Howard Wolfson held a conference call with reporters to announce that Clinton had agreed to a series of debates between now and the March 4 primaries and invited Obama to join her. Doubting that they would be able to pull off a decisive victory yesterday -- and with a slate of races in the weeks ahead that they believe will skew in Obama's favor -- the Clinton campaign is now banking on doing well in Texas and Ohio on March 4. Penn said Clinton would participate in an ABC News debate Sunday, a Fox News debate Monday in Washington, a Feb. 27 CNN debate in Ohio and a Feb. 28 MSNBC debate in Houston.
"The campaign believes it's critically important that we continue the debates between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton," Penn said. "We think it's critically important that people get to see the candidates face to face."
Obama advisers declined to commit to a new round of debates. The next important competitive contests will be next Tuesday, when Maryland, Virginia and the District will hold primaries.
Staff writers Perry Bacon Jr., with Clinton, and Shailagh Murray, with Obama, and polling director Jon Cohen polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research director Lucy Shackelford in Washington contributed to this report.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: O resultado da Super Terça para os candidatos democratas
Fonte: The Washington Post
Publicação: 6 de fevereiro 2008
Autores: Dan Balz e Anne E. Kornblut
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502368.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wedted811_http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0http://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&sub=AR&sid=ST2008020600567
By Dan Balz and Anne E. KornblutWashington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, February 6, 2008; Page A01
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won victories over Sen. Barack Obama in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York last night, giving her presidential campaign a crucial boost. But Obama countered by winning of a string of states, including the general election battleground of Missouri, in the seesaw race for the Democratic nomination.
The results ensured that the fierce contest for delegates will continue into critical primaries in Texas and Ohio on March 4, and possibly beyond, in what has become the party's most competitive race in at least a quarter of a century.
Clinton claimed four of the five biggest prizes in Super Tuesday's 22-state Democratic competition. She also captured Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Those victories helped stem what appeared to be gathering momentum around Obama's candidacy since he won in South Carolina on Jan. 26.
But Obama won in more places than his New York rival, racking up victories in his home state of Illinois, as well as Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Utah. His narrow victory in Missouri came after Clinton appeared on the brink of winning there. Only the outcome in New Mexico remained unresolved early this morning.
In many of the states Clinton won, Obama had surged from far behind to narrow the gap in the days before Super Tuesday. Her ability to hold off his charge brought a sense of relief to her campaign advisers, but the likelihood that neither would emerge with a significant advantage in delegates was a sign that their roller-coaster competition would continue.
Clinton appeared before supporters in New York shortly before the polls closed in California, thanking her supporters for voting "not just to make history, but to remake America." Saying that Republicans want "eight more years of the same," she added, "They've got until January 20th, 2009, and not one day more." She also presented herself as a candidate who "won't let anyone Swift-boat this country's future."
Obama, who was in Chicago, came out later and, while congratulating Clinton on her successes, drew a contrast with his rival, saying voters in November deserve a clear choice between the Republican and Democratic nominees.
"It's a choice between going into this election with Republicans and independents already united against us, or going against their nominee with a campaign that has united Americans of all parties, from all backgrounds, from all races, from all religions, around a common purpose," he said. "It's a choice between having a debate with the other party about who has the most experience in Washington, or having one about who is most likely to change Washington, because that's a debate that we can win."
Clinton and Obama were fighting not just for state-by-state victories but also for an advantage in the nearly 1,700 delegates up for grabs yesterday. Aides to both candidates said that, regardless of how the two carved up the states, neither would emerge with enough of an edge to claim a substantial advantage.
Delegate tallies lagged well behind the state-by-state results, given the complex formulas the Democrats use to determine the allocation.
Clinton's victory in Massachusetts was especially sweet for her campaign, coming despite endorsements of Obama by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry and Gov. Deval L. Patrick that gave him hope for substantial momentum heading into yesterday's primaries.
Her advisers called it "the biggest surprise of the night." Obama advisers had warned that Clinton's lead may be too large to overcome, but the loss was nonetheless a disappointment to his campaign.
Though the Clinton team immediately hailed Massachusetts as an upset, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said in an interview just after the race was called that he was "not surprised at all" by her win in the state. Clinton won the Bay State largely on the strength of her support from women, who made up more than half the electorate from coast to coast.
Exit polls from the National Election Pool showed Clinton with a double-digit lead among women in the state, where she attended college as an undergraduate. She also won among self-identified independents, normally a solid constituency for Obama.
"We feel quite good about how those returns have come in," Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Clinton, said in a conference call with reporters shortly after 10 p.m. As he spoke, cheers erupted in the background at the campaign's headquarters in Arlington.
Penn argued that people who made up their minds late were trending toward Clinton, though early exit data suggested there was an even split between the two.
In a race that will come down to delegates, Clinton officials said they will wait to see results from all the states before declaring a delegate count -- but predicted she would ultimately be ahead.
"By the end of today, with pledged delegates and superdelegates, we expect to be ahead of Senator Obama in overall delegates," said Guy Cecil, Clinton's field director.
In the South, Clinton more than held her own. She lost Georgia -- one of only a few states where she lost among women; the same was true in Illinois -- but triumphed in Arkansas, her former home state, and Oklahoma and Tennessee. And the race continued to split along racial lines, as Obama won about eight in 10 African Americans, a trend that put him over the top in Georgia and Alabama.
Still, he won nearly four in 10 white voters in Georgia and fared better among white men there than he had in an earlier racially polarized race in South Carolina, giving his campaign a chance to claim that he had broadened his support in the intervening weeks. Victories in Connecticut and North Dakota bolstered that claim.
The race in Missouri remained close even as other states were called; an early tally in Clinton's favor proved premature as the night wore on. But the state reflected a wider sweep for Obama among African Americans: He won more than three-fourths of the state's black voters, while Clinton beat him among senior citizens by a margin of 2 to 1.
The demographics of the Democratic race suggested a contest that is dividing along racial and gender lines, as Clinton won 7 in 10 white women in New Jersey, as well as three-quarters of Hispanic women.
The candidates divided men in New Jersey evenly. In Tennessee, Clinton won white voters of all ages; Obama won blacks across the board. Similar splits occurred in California, where black voters chose Obama 5 to 1. But the two split the white vote in California, where Clinton made up the difference by winning Hispanics 2 to 1.
Twenty-two states held Democratic contests yesterday, with 1,681 pledged delegates to the party's national convention in Denver at stake. The 22 states account for 52 percent of all pledged delegates awarded during the nomination battle.
There will be 4,049 delegates attending the national convention; a candidate needs 2,025 to secure the nomination. Of that total, 3,253 are pledged delegates, which means their votes are determined by the caucus or primary results in their state. The remainder are superdelegates, who are free to vote for whomever they prefer.
Going into yesterday's balloting, Obama had 63 delegates to Clinton's 48 in the first four party-sanctioned contests of the year -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Clinton held a lead among superdelegates. Various news organizations count the distribution of superdelegates differently, but Clinton is widely agreed to lead Obama by a margin of about 90.
Clinton voted in New York yesterday morning and spent most of the day conducting interviews, her voice on the verge of vanishing after days of cross-country campaigning. "The stakes are huge," she said as she cast her ballot at an elementary school near her Chappaqua home.
Obama voted in his home town of Chicago, at an elementary school in the Hyde Park neighborhood.
Throughout the day, Clinton advisers worked to play down expectations. Even before any polling stations were closed, Penn and senior adviser Howard Wolfson held a conference call with reporters to announce that Clinton had agreed to a series of debates between now and the March 4 primaries and invited Obama to join her. Doubting that they would be able to pull off a decisive victory yesterday -- and with a slate of races in the weeks ahead that they believe will skew in Obama's favor -- the Clinton campaign is now banking on doing well in Texas and Ohio on March 4. Penn said Clinton would participate in an ABC News debate Sunday, a Fox News debate Monday in Washington, a Feb. 27 CNN debate in Ohio and a Feb. 28 MSNBC debate in Houston.
"The campaign believes it's critically important that we continue the debates between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton," Penn said. "We think it's critically important that people get to see the candidates face to face."
Obama advisers declined to commit to a new round of debates. The next important competitive contests will be next Tuesday, when Maryland, Virginia and the District will hold primaries.
Staff writers Perry Bacon Jr., with Clinton, and Shailagh Murray, with Obama, and polling director Jon Cohen polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research director Lucy Shackelford in Washington contributed to this report.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: O resultado da Super Terça para os candidatos democratas
Fonte: The Washington Post
Publicação: 6 de fevereiro 2008
Autores: Dan Balz e Anne E. Kornblut
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502368.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wedted811_http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0http://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&sub=AR&sid=ST2008020600567
Primaries and Caucuses
O jornal The Washington Post possui uma página onde, a partir de um mapa dos Estados Unidos, podemos acompanhar a vitória dos candidatos democratas e republicanos na SuperTerça assim como anda a competição entre eles no quadro geral americano.
Aqui o link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/primaries/?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
A página é constantemente atualizada, não possuindo uma data de publicação precisa.
Aqui o link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/primaries/?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
A página é constantemente atualizada, não possuindo uma data de publicação precisa.
Support Divided, Top Democrats Trade Victories
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 6, 2008
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama carved up the nation in the 22-state nominating contest on Tuesday, leaving the Democratic presidential nomination more elusive than ever. Mrs. Clinton won California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and her home state, New York, while Mr. Obama took Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota and his base in Illinois.
It was a night of drama as millions of Democrats cleaved sharply between two candidates offering them a historic first: The opportunity to nominate a woman or an African-American to lead their party’s effort to reclaim the White House. Yet it was also a night when neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton could decisively lay claim — or even secure an edge — to the nomination, assuring an electoral fight that will unfold for weeks to come.
In remarks to their supporters in Manhattan and Chicago, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama smiled broadly but were relatively low key in their assessments of the night, as if they knew that their state-by-state successes did not add up to the grand prize of Democratic standard-bearer. Both sounded a little tired at times, already exhausted by campaigning and fund-raising, with only more of both ahead.
The wild race from the East Coast to the Pacific began with the first results in Georgia, then Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton traded victories about every 30 minutes. Preliminary vote figures in multiple states were close enough to spike adrenaline in the two camps as each sought an edge.
And throughout the night, uncertainty about the biggest delegate prize, California, vexed both campaigns. Early Wednesday, however, Mrs. Clinton solidified her lead there, providing a huge morale boost to her team from a state that has long been a cornerstone of successful Democratic campaigns.
Missouri proved to be another story. Historically a presidential bellwether, the state was almost evenly split between the two Democrats at 1 a.m. Wednesday, with Mr. Obama leading by half of a percentage point.
Before California and Missouri were counted, an analysis by The Associated Press based on incomplete vote totals showed that Mrs. Clinton had won 166 delegates and Mr. Obama had won 146 at stake Tuesday. All told, Mrs. Clinton had 479 delegates and Mr. Obama had 386. Those figures are likely to change as the vote tallies are completed and delegates are awarded under complicated rules that vary from state to state.
The results and exit polls showed formidable strengths for each candidate, with Mr. Obama gaining appeal with white voters — particularly white men — and Mrs. Clinton solidifying her support among Hispanics. Mrs. Clinton won Democratic primaries in states that her party rarely carries in a general election, like Arkansas — where she served as first lady — as well as Oklahoma and Tennessee.
“Tonight we are hearing the voices of people across America — people of all ages, of all colors, of all faiths, of all walks of life,” a broadly smiling Mrs. Clinton told supporters in Manhattan just before 11 p.m. “Tonight, in record numbers, you voted not just to make history, but to remake America.”
Mr. Obama, who appeared to be building momentum in recent days, held wide leads in states like Minnesota, and ran close behind her in states like New Jersey. That left him poised to pick up a hefty number of delegates, even in some states that Mrs. Clinton won.
“There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know: our time has come,” Mr. Obama said to cheers at a party in Chicago. “Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America.”
Because most states gave nominating delegates to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama based on vote proportions, as opposed to winner take all, the two campaigns were predicting on Tuesday that neither candidate would have a blowout lead, setting up an intensifying race as Louisiana, Washington, Virginia, Ohio and Texas hold nominating contests over the next four weeks.
A total of 1,678 pledged delegates were at stake in the 22 state contests on Tuesday, with 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination
Exit polls showed Mr. Obama winning a majority of men in many of the states — in some places by substantial margins — and doing particularly well among white men, blacks and young people. The polls showed three primary bases of support for Mrs. Clinton: women, Hispanics and older voters.
As polls closed in the East and Midwest, Clinton advisers were initially worried about New Jersey, where Mrs. Clinton had endorsements from Gov. Jon Corzine and Senator Robert Menendez, and recognition for her work after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 in neighboring New York. While she was drawing votes from 60 percent of white and Hispanic Democrats, Mr. Obama had more than 80 percent of black votes. But as returns came in, she solidified a lead.
Mr. Obama convincingly won Georgia, with exit polls indicating that his support transcended racial lines by an even greater margin than in South Carolina, his earlier Southern primary victory.
More than half of Democratic voters in Georgia were black, and they strongly supported Mr. Obama, according to exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press. Mr. Obama also received more than 4 in 10 votes from white Democrats, winning about half of white men and 40 percent of white women.
Mr. Obama also carried Alabama, Colorado, Delaware and Idaho. In Illinois, his home state (though he was born in Honolulu and Mrs. Clinton in Chicago), he won 70 percent of men overall and two-thirds of both women overall and white men. His weakest showing was among older voters, with only half of them supporting him. He was strongly supported across income and education backgrounds.
The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, portrayed Massachusetts as an upset victory in an e-mail statement Tuesday night, noting that Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick had endorsed Mr. Obama, who campaigned there on Monday. (Mrs. Clinton visited there twice and enjoyed a reservoir of support for her and her husband.)
“This is a strong victory and shows that Hillary Clinton has strength in places where Barack Obama was expected to win,” the Clinton statement said.
Exit polls showed that Mrs. Clinton continued to enjoy the same solid support from Hispanic voters that fueled her victory in the Nevada caucuses in mid-January. Exits polls indicated that she was receiving a majority of the Hispanic vote in all states, with Arizona being close. While most groups went for Mr. Obama in Illinois, Mrs. Clinton won about 55 percent of Hispanic women.
Among Democrats voting on Tuesday, a majority said that they were most concerned about the economy, outpacing those worried about the Iraq war or health care. Nine out of 10 Democratic voters said the economy was in bad shape.
A majority of Democrats in most states said they believed that Mrs. Clinton was best suited to be commander in chief, while Mr. Obama had a similar edge among Democrats regarding who was more likely to unite the country.
Mr. Obama was receiving at least half of the votes from white men in Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, and Illinois, and he received 4 in 10 in Missouri, New York and New Jersey. But Mrs. Clinton appeared to have an edge in the delegate-rich state of Missouri late Tuesday.
He also won a majority of voters under 30 in most of the states. Similarly, Mrs. Clinton received most of the votes from people over 65.
For months now, the Obama and Clinton campaigns have viewed Tuesday as a decisive moment in the presidential race. When Mrs. Clinton lost the first nominating contest, in Iowa, she and her advisers noted that the 45 delegates at stake there were a mere fraction of the delegates at stake in the state contests on Tuesday.
Mr. Obama and his aides made similar remarks after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada, and both he and Mrs. Clinton increasingly spoke of the nomination fight as a two-way battle for delegates, pure and simple.
Mrs. Clinton underscored this viewpoint by campaigning in California and Arizona, two states that voted Tuesday, in the week before the South Carolina primary — signaling, in effect, that her strategy was much more focused on winning contests on Tuesday than on South Carolina, which Mr. Obama ended up winning in a rout.
Over the last week, however, public and private opinion polls have showed tightening races in states where Mrs. Clinton had held substantial leads, including Massachusetts and New Jersey (where a combined total of 200 delegates were at stake) and California, which had 370 delegates.
Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.
*** *** ***
Sobre a Super Terça para os candidatos democratas
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 06 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Patrick Healy
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/us/politics/06delect.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Published: February 6, 2008
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama carved up the nation in the 22-state nominating contest on Tuesday, leaving the Democratic presidential nomination more elusive than ever. Mrs. Clinton won California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and her home state, New York, while Mr. Obama took Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota and his base in Illinois.
It was a night of drama as millions of Democrats cleaved sharply between two candidates offering them a historic first: The opportunity to nominate a woman or an African-American to lead their party’s effort to reclaim the White House. Yet it was also a night when neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton could decisively lay claim — or even secure an edge — to the nomination, assuring an electoral fight that will unfold for weeks to come.
In remarks to their supporters in Manhattan and Chicago, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama smiled broadly but were relatively low key in their assessments of the night, as if they knew that their state-by-state successes did not add up to the grand prize of Democratic standard-bearer. Both sounded a little tired at times, already exhausted by campaigning and fund-raising, with only more of both ahead.
The wild race from the East Coast to the Pacific began with the first results in Georgia, then Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton traded victories about every 30 minutes. Preliminary vote figures in multiple states were close enough to spike adrenaline in the two camps as each sought an edge.
And throughout the night, uncertainty about the biggest delegate prize, California, vexed both campaigns. Early Wednesday, however, Mrs. Clinton solidified her lead there, providing a huge morale boost to her team from a state that has long been a cornerstone of successful Democratic campaigns.
Missouri proved to be another story. Historically a presidential bellwether, the state was almost evenly split between the two Democrats at 1 a.m. Wednesday, with Mr. Obama leading by half of a percentage point.
Before California and Missouri were counted, an analysis by The Associated Press based on incomplete vote totals showed that Mrs. Clinton had won 166 delegates and Mr. Obama had won 146 at stake Tuesday. All told, Mrs. Clinton had 479 delegates and Mr. Obama had 386. Those figures are likely to change as the vote tallies are completed and delegates are awarded under complicated rules that vary from state to state.
The results and exit polls showed formidable strengths for each candidate, with Mr. Obama gaining appeal with white voters — particularly white men — and Mrs. Clinton solidifying her support among Hispanics. Mrs. Clinton won Democratic primaries in states that her party rarely carries in a general election, like Arkansas — where she served as first lady — as well as Oklahoma and Tennessee.
“Tonight we are hearing the voices of people across America — people of all ages, of all colors, of all faiths, of all walks of life,” a broadly smiling Mrs. Clinton told supporters in Manhattan just before 11 p.m. “Tonight, in record numbers, you voted not just to make history, but to remake America.”
Mr. Obama, who appeared to be building momentum in recent days, held wide leads in states like Minnesota, and ran close behind her in states like New Jersey. That left him poised to pick up a hefty number of delegates, even in some states that Mrs. Clinton won.
“There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know: our time has come,” Mr. Obama said to cheers at a party in Chicago. “Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America.”
Because most states gave nominating delegates to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama based on vote proportions, as opposed to winner take all, the two campaigns were predicting on Tuesday that neither candidate would have a blowout lead, setting up an intensifying race as Louisiana, Washington, Virginia, Ohio and Texas hold nominating contests over the next four weeks.
A total of 1,678 pledged delegates were at stake in the 22 state contests on Tuesday, with 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination
Exit polls showed Mr. Obama winning a majority of men in many of the states — in some places by substantial margins — and doing particularly well among white men, blacks and young people. The polls showed three primary bases of support for Mrs. Clinton: women, Hispanics and older voters.
As polls closed in the East and Midwest, Clinton advisers were initially worried about New Jersey, where Mrs. Clinton had endorsements from Gov. Jon Corzine and Senator Robert Menendez, and recognition for her work after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 in neighboring New York. While she was drawing votes from 60 percent of white and Hispanic Democrats, Mr. Obama had more than 80 percent of black votes. But as returns came in, she solidified a lead.
Mr. Obama convincingly won Georgia, with exit polls indicating that his support transcended racial lines by an even greater margin than in South Carolina, his earlier Southern primary victory.
More than half of Democratic voters in Georgia were black, and they strongly supported Mr. Obama, according to exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press. Mr. Obama also received more than 4 in 10 votes from white Democrats, winning about half of white men and 40 percent of white women.
Mr. Obama also carried Alabama, Colorado, Delaware and Idaho. In Illinois, his home state (though he was born in Honolulu and Mrs. Clinton in Chicago), he won 70 percent of men overall and two-thirds of both women overall and white men. His weakest showing was among older voters, with only half of them supporting him. He was strongly supported across income and education backgrounds.
The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, portrayed Massachusetts as an upset victory in an e-mail statement Tuesday night, noting that Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick had endorsed Mr. Obama, who campaigned there on Monday. (Mrs. Clinton visited there twice and enjoyed a reservoir of support for her and her husband.)
“This is a strong victory and shows that Hillary Clinton has strength in places where Barack Obama was expected to win,” the Clinton statement said.
Exit polls showed that Mrs. Clinton continued to enjoy the same solid support from Hispanic voters that fueled her victory in the Nevada caucuses in mid-January. Exits polls indicated that she was receiving a majority of the Hispanic vote in all states, with Arizona being close. While most groups went for Mr. Obama in Illinois, Mrs. Clinton won about 55 percent of Hispanic women.
Among Democrats voting on Tuesday, a majority said that they were most concerned about the economy, outpacing those worried about the Iraq war or health care. Nine out of 10 Democratic voters said the economy was in bad shape.
A majority of Democrats in most states said they believed that Mrs. Clinton was best suited to be commander in chief, while Mr. Obama had a similar edge among Democrats regarding who was more likely to unite the country.
Mr. Obama was receiving at least half of the votes from white men in Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, and Illinois, and he received 4 in 10 in Missouri, New York and New Jersey. But Mrs. Clinton appeared to have an edge in the delegate-rich state of Missouri late Tuesday.
He also won a majority of voters under 30 in most of the states. Similarly, Mrs. Clinton received most of the votes from people over 65.
For months now, the Obama and Clinton campaigns have viewed Tuesday as a decisive moment in the presidential race. When Mrs. Clinton lost the first nominating contest, in Iowa, she and her advisers noted that the 45 delegates at stake there were a mere fraction of the delegates at stake in the state contests on Tuesday.
Mr. Obama and his aides made similar remarks after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada, and both he and Mrs. Clinton increasingly spoke of the nomination fight as a two-way battle for delegates, pure and simple.
Mrs. Clinton underscored this viewpoint by campaigning in California and Arizona, two states that voted Tuesday, in the week before the South Carolina primary — signaling, in effect, that her strategy was much more focused on winning contests on Tuesday than on South Carolina, which Mr. Obama ended up winning in a rout.
Over the last week, however, public and private opinion polls have showed tightening races in states where Mrs. Clinton had held substantial leads, including Massachusetts and New Jersey (where a combined total of 200 delegates were at stake) and California, which had 370 delegates.
Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.
*** *** ***
Sobre a Super Terça para os candidatos democratas
Fonte: The New York Times
Publicação: 06 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Patrick Healy
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/us/politics/06delect.html?pagewanted=1&hp
terça-feira, 5 de fevereiro de 2008
Pesquisas têm métodos variados
Institutos que pesquisam intenções de voto nos EUA têm métodos variados para calcular resultados. Quando investigam as tendências de voto para prévias de cada partido, os institutos organizam as entrevistas com base na inclinação do público: para a disputa interna republicana, são ouvidos só filiados a este partido ou adultos que se identificam como prováveis eleitores da agremiação. O mesmo sistema é usado para a disputa interna democrata.
A maioria das entrevistas é feita por telefone, com amostras aleatórias.
Já nas pesquisas nacionais sobre cenários específicos para a eleição de novembro, entre um candidato republicano e um candidato democrata, os institutos podem ou não usar a inclinação do entrevistado como critério.
Os institutos Survey USA e Gallup, por exemplo, não ajustam seu resultado final de acordo com o número de entrevistados de cada partido. Segundo Jay H. Leve, diretor do Survey USA, se a amostra é realmente aleatória, a quantidade de entrevistados de cada partido será muito próxima à realidade. Ele usa outros critérios, menos mutáveis, para balancear os resultados, como gênero e raça.
Já Scott Rasmussen, do Instituto Rasmussen, considera importante balancear o número de entrevistados de cada partido com os dados que tem sobre o tamanho das agremiações. O próprio instituto investiga mensalmente o número médio de membros de cada partido para equilibrar as quantidades na amostra de respondentes.
*** *** ***
Fonte: Folha de S. Paulo
Publicação: 5 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Redação Folha
Link:http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/mundo/ft0502200810.htm
segunda-feira, 4 de fevereiro de 2008
McCain's doves
He's a hawk on the war, yet independent-minded voters who are sick of Iraq are voting for him anyway.
By Matt Welch
John McCain will likely go down in history as the first GOP presidential nominee who vaulted to the front of the pack despite failing to win a plurality among self-identified Republicans in any of the early state primaries.According to Florida exit polls, the Arizona senator tied Mitt Romney among voters who described themselves as Republican but pulled away to victory with a nearly 2-1 advantage among independents. That formula -- battle to a draw for Republicans, stomp all comers among independents -- powered McCain's wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and has made him the front-runner heading into Super Tuesday.
It's no mystery why independents gravitate toward McCain. He's a country-first, party-second kind of guy who speaks bluntly and delights in poking fellow Republicans in the eye on issues such as campaign finance reform and global warming.
But there's a bizarre disconnect in the warm embrace between McCain and the electorate's mavericks. They hate the Iraq war, while he's willing to fight it for another century. The most pro-war presidential candidate in a decade is winning the 2008 GOP nomination thanks to the antiwar vote.
A full 66% of independents think that the U.S. should completely withdraw from Iraq no later than 12 months from now, according to a Jan. 18-22 L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll. McCain, meanwhile, said last month that the U.S. might stay in Baghdad for another 100 years. He continually expresses bafflement at the idea that that might not be such a good thing. "It's not the point! It's not the point!" he snarled at reporters recently. "How long are we going to be in Korea?"
And yet he dominated the antiwar vote in New Hampshire, with 44% to Romney's 19%, according to CNN exit polls. Ron Paul, the only actual antiwar Republican running, drew just 16% of voters who said they were against the war. The three finished in the same order among antiwar voters in Michigan, even though Romney won the state overall.
The same pattern holds true in the case of voters who despise George W. Bush. In Florida, for example, McCain clobbered Romney 48% to 18% among those who described themselves as "angry" at the president, according to MSNBC exit polls.
So the voters most hostile to the war are backing a potential commander in chief who makes Bush look gun-shy. More than three years before the Bush administration elucidated the radical doctrine of preemptive war, McCain unveiled a plan during his first run at the presidency called "rogue-state rollback," in which "we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states" -- including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia -- "to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values." And if the "odious regimes" crack down on freedom fighters, the U.S. should respond with force. In that campaign, McCain was the neocons' choice against the more internationally "humble" George Bush.
McCain has advocated threatening North Korea with "extinction," and memorably sung about how we should "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He agitated for military intervention in Darfur, regrets that we didn't send troops to Rwanda and is fond of rattling sabers in the general direction of Moscow and Beijing. During the U.S. bombing of Kosovo in 1999 -- when McCain showily suspended his presidential campaign because he'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war -- the senator drew media raves for managing to support the intervention while simultaneously slamming the president for not threatening more overwhelming force.
This easily discoverable uber-hawkishness runs in the family. His four-star Navy admiral father helped prosecute the war in Vietnam and delivered famous lectures about the role of U.S. sea power in making the world safe for democracy. His four-star Navy admiral grandfather worshiped at the altar of interventionist extraordinaire Teddy Roosevelt. If the U.S. has an imperialist class, as historian (and informal McCain advisor) Niall Ferguson has advocated, then John McCain sits at its head.
Still, too many people, wowed by the candidate's considerable charm, have convinced themselves that launching wars is for icky people like that Bush fellow, not Our John. "He knows war," the Des Moines Register wrote, in one of roughly 17,000 newspaper endorsements of McCain over the last two months, "something we believe would make him reluctant to start one." For Californians tempted by such delusions, it's wise to recall the famous words of the last septuagenarian to successfully seek the presidency: Trust, but verify.
Matt Welch is editor of Reason magazine and author of "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick."
*** *** ***
Em destaque: a posição do candidato republicano John McCain quanto ao uso da força militar norte-americana, e o paradoxo de estar recebendo grande quantidade de votos de eleitores contrários à Guerra do Iraque.
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 1 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Matt Welch
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-welch1feb01,1,1193768.story?ctrack=6&cset=true
Choose your Candidate
O site do jornal norte-americano The Washington Post possui uma ferramenta interessante para ajudar os eleitores a escolher seu candidato.
Através de um quiz, o internauta deve responder a algumas questões sobre sua posição em relação a política que o governo deve tomar para, por exemplo, a Segurança Nacional americana, a Guerra do Iraque, o Aborto, o Controle de Armas entre civis, o Casamento Gay e etc. As opções dadas como resposta para o quiz, por sua vez, são as posições dos candidatos norte-americanos àquelas questões (no caso, existe um quiz para os candidatos democratas e outro para os candidatos republicanos).
Assim, após responder para qual posição o leitor é mais pendente, ele também tem a possibilidade de assinalar o quanto aquela questão pesa para a escolha de seu candidato.
A partir disso o site calcula qual é o candidato com quem suas idéias pessoais mais combinam, também mostrando o número de pontos que cada um deles angariou em seu quiz, especificando os assuntos em que houve a concordância de sua posição pessoal com a do candidato.
Aqui o link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/
Através de um quiz, o internauta deve responder a algumas questões sobre sua posição em relação a política que o governo deve tomar para, por exemplo, a Segurança Nacional americana, a Guerra do Iraque, o Aborto, o Controle de Armas entre civis, o Casamento Gay e etc. As opções dadas como resposta para o quiz, por sua vez, são as posições dos candidatos norte-americanos àquelas questões (no caso, existe um quiz para os candidatos democratas e outro para os candidatos republicanos).
Assim, após responder para qual posição o leitor é mais pendente, ele também tem a possibilidade de assinalar o quanto aquela questão pesa para a escolha de seu candidato.
A partir disso o site calcula qual é o candidato com quem suas idéias pessoais mais combinam, também mostrando o número de pontos que cada um deles angariou em seu quiz, especificando os assuntos em que houve a concordância de sua posição pessoal com a do candidato.
Aqui o link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/
Seeking a balance between might and diplomacy
In a region of crises, Israelis and Arabs anxiously await the new U.S. leader who can mitigate some Bush policies.
By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 4, 2008
CAIRO -- The U.S. primaries are an enticing, confusing political drama for a Middle East looking for an American president who can offer security and repair years of Bush administration policies widely seen as disastrous.
The next U.S. president will inherit the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a rising Iran and competition from the growing economies of India and China for oil in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations.
Still, the feeling here is that no matter who wins the White House, there is bound to be an improvement in relations.
In a part of the world where democracy and minority rights are largely token, the Middle East elite is captivated by the Democratic race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The two candidacies are seen as epitomizing democracy, suggesting that the presidency is open to anyone willing to endure town hall meetings, Internet chats, slick ads and televised debates.
The ideal U.S. president for the region is seen as someone who can balance military power and diplomacy. Israelis had preferred former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, but with his exit from the Republican campaign, they're inclined toward John McCain or Clinton. Palestinians are leaning toward Obama.
Egypt and other Arab nations are watching to see whether the candidates are pro-Israeli. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz rates candidates on a feature called The Israel Factor at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml.
In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to drive, so the prospect of electing one as president is mesmerizing. And in Iraq, where bombings are relentless, most people are consumed with day-to-day survival, not exit polls.
jeffrey.fleishman@ latimes.com
Contributors: Richard Boudreaux in Jerusalem, Tina Susman in Baghdad and Noha El-Hennawy in Cairo.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: A expectativa das nações do Oriente Médio para os candidatos norte-americanos e suas propostas de políticas para a região.
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 4 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Jeffrey Fleishman
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-global-mideastfeb04,1,2632132.story?ctrack=5&cset=true
By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 4, 2008
CAIRO -- The U.S. primaries are an enticing, confusing political drama for a Middle East looking for an American president who can offer security and repair years of Bush administration policies widely seen as disastrous.
The next U.S. president will inherit the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a rising Iran and competition from the growing economies of India and China for oil in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations.
Still, the feeling here is that no matter who wins the White House, there is bound to be an improvement in relations.
In a part of the world where democracy and minority rights are largely token, the Middle East elite is captivated by the Democratic race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The two candidacies are seen as epitomizing democracy, suggesting that the presidency is open to anyone willing to endure town hall meetings, Internet chats, slick ads and televised debates.
The ideal U.S. president for the region is seen as someone who can balance military power and diplomacy. Israelis had preferred former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, but with his exit from the Republican campaign, they're inclined toward John McCain or Clinton. Palestinians are leaning toward Obama.
Egypt and other Arab nations are watching to see whether the candidates are pro-Israeli. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz rates candidates on a feature called The Israel Factor at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml.
In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to drive, so the prospect of electing one as president is mesmerizing. And in Iraq, where bombings are relentless, most people are consumed with day-to-day survival, not exit polls.
jeffrey.fleishman@ latimes.com
Contributors: Richard Boudreaux in Jerusalem, Tina Susman in Baghdad and Noha El-Hennawy in Cairo.
*** *** ***
Em destaque: A expectativa das nações do Oriente Médio para os candidatos norte-americanos e suas propostas de políticas para a região.
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 4 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Jeffrey Fleishman
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-global-mideastfeb04,1,2632132.story?ctrack=5&cset=true
Where they stand on the issues
O site do jornal americano Los Angeles Times disponibiliza para os internautas ( no link http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-votersguide-prez,1,337358.htmlstory?ctrack=2&cset=true ) uma ferramenta que tem como função comparar as posições dos candidatos à presidência norte-americana quanto a algumas questões hoje pertinentes para os eleitores, entre elas, as de Segurança Nacional, Educação, Economia, etc.
Reproduzimos aqui o posicionamento dos candidatos apontado pelo site em relação a:
* Segurança Nacional :
Hillary Clinton - Supports modernizing and reforming U.S. intelligence services ... Supports strengthening and rebuilding alliances in Europe; proposes partnerships in Asia and other areas of the world ... Supports reinforcing military efforts in Afghanistan ... Maintains that a strong military is essential for national security ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
Barack Obama - Supports improving intelligence information-sharing and analysis at all levels of government ... Supports expanding U.S. diplomatic presence in the world, strengthening NATO and seeking new partnerships in Asia ... Supports expanding the military, adding 65,000 to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines ... Supports revising the Patriot Act ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
John McCain - Supports increasing and modernizing U.S. military ... Supports expanding and improving human intelligence capabilities ... Supports developing and deploying theater and national missile defenses ... Supports engaging in "battleground of ideas" to thwart terrorism recruitment ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
Mitt Romney - Supports increasing military by 100,000 troops ... Supports dedicating at least 4% of gross domestic product to defense ... Supports strengthening global alliances and working with Middle Eastern allies to support moderate Muslims ... Supports keeping Guantanamo open (he has suggested doubling its size)
* Iraque
Hillary Clinton - Voted to authorize Iraq invasion in 2002 ... Supports three-step plan to end war: begin phased troop withdrawal within 60 days in office; redeploy some troops to ensure regional stability; convene group of key allies, global powers and states bordering Iraq to stabilize the region
Barack Obama - Opposed invading Iraq ... Has voted in Senate to authorize war funding ... Supports full withdrawal of combat brigades within 16 months; supports leaving some troops to protect diplomats and keep !Al Qaeda from gaining "foothold" ... Opposes permanent military bases in Iraq ... Supports aggressive regional diplomatic efforts to stabilize the ... Supports financial support for Iraqi reconstruction and humanitarian aid
John McCain - Was an early proponent of the "surge" ... Believes there are not enough U.S. forces in Iraq to halt violence, secure strongholds, rebuild the economy, dismantle Al Qaeda and stabilize the country ... Opposes setting a withdrawal timetable for troops ... Believes the war is justified but has been mismanaged
Mitt Romney - Supports Bush troop buildup ... Supports keeping troops in Iraq "until we have brought success" ... Supports Gen. David H. Petraeus' assessment
* Imigração
Hillary Clinton - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence ... Supports employment verification system, along with tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Supports family reunification as basic immigration principle ... Supports agricultural jobs program, but opposes guest worker program that may exploit workers
Barack Obama - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in good standing who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence and additional personnel to secure borders ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants; supports employment verification system ... Supports greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together ... Supports improving speed and accuracy of immigrant background checks
John McCain - Co-sponsored 2006 legislation that called for temporary-worker program and pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the U.S. ... Now proposes conditional pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants after they pay fines and learn English ... Believes a secure border is "essential to national security" ... Voted for border fence; supports securing ports and other points of entry
Mitt Romney - Opposes pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants ... Supports building border fence and securing other entry points ... Supports an employment verification system that uses biometric identification cards ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Would punish "sanctuary cities"
* Aborto
Hillary Clinton - Supports abortion rights ... Supports appointing justices who will uphold Roe vs. Wade and right to privacy
Barack Obama - Supports abortion rights; would make "preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president"
John McCain -Believes Roe vs. Wade is a "flawed decision" that should be overturned ... Supports nominating judges who do not "legislate from the bench" ... Supports leaving abortion legislation to the states
Mitt Romney - Believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned ... Supports leaving abortion laws to the states ... Previously supported abortion rights
*** *** ***
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 1 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Graphics reporting by Nona Yates. Sources: Candidates' websites; Associated Press; Congressional Quarterly; Times research
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-votersguide-prez,1,337358.htmlstory?ctrack=2&cset=true
Reproduzimos aqui o posicionamento dos candidatos apontado pelo site em relação a:
* Segurança Nacional :
Hillary Clinton - Supports modernizing and reforming U.S. intelligence services ... Supports strengthening and rebuilding alliances in Europe; proposes partnerships in Asia and other areas of the world ... Supports reinforcing military efforts in Afghanistan ... Maintains that a strong military is essential for national security ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
Barack Obama - Supports improving intelligence information-sharing and analysis at all levels of government ... Supports expanding U.S. diplomatic presence in the world, strengthening NATO and seeking new partnerships in Asia ... Supports expanding the military, adding 65,000 to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines ... Supports revising the Patriot Act ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
John McCain - Supports increasing and modernizing U.S. military ... Supports expanding and improving human intelligence capabilities ... Supports developing and deploying theater and national missile defenses ... Supports engaging in "battleground of ideas" to thwart terrorism recruitment ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison
Mitt Romney - Supports increasing military by 100,000 troops ... Supports dedicating at least 4% of gross domestic product to defense ... Supports strengthening global alliances and working with Middle Eastern allies to support moderate Muslims ... Supports keeping Guantanamo open (he has suggested doubling its size)
* Iraque
Hillary Clinton - Voted to authorize Iraq invasion in 2002 ... Supports three-step plan to end war: begin phased troop withdrawal within 60 days in office; redeploy some troops to ensure regional stability; convene group of key allies, global powers and states bordering Iraq to stabilize the region
Barack Obama - Opposed invading Iraq ... Has voted in Senate to authorize war funding ... Supports full withdrawal of combat brigades within 16 months; supports leaving some troops to protect diplomats and keep !Al Qaeda from gaining "foothold" ... Opposes permanent military bases in Iraq ... Supports aggressive regional diplomatic efforts to stabilize the ... Supports financial support for Iraqi reconstruction and humanitarian aid
John McCain - Was an early proponent of the "surge" ... Believes there are not enough U.S. forces in Iraq to halt violence, secure strongholds, rebuild the economy, dismantle Al Qaeda and stabilize the country ... Opposes setting a withdrawal timetable for troops ... Believes the war is justified but has been mismanaged
Mitt Romney - Supports Bush troop buildup ... Supports keeping troops in Iraq "until we have brought success" ... Supports Gen. David H. Petraeus' assessment
* Imigração
Hillary Clinton - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence ... Supports employment verification system, along with tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Supports family reunification as basic immigration principle ... Supports agricultural jobs program, but opposes guest worker program that may exploit workers
Barack Obama - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in good standing who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence and additional personnel to secure borders ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants; supports employment verification system ... Supports greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together ... Supports improving speed and accuracy of immigrant background checks
John McCain - Co-sponsored 2006 legislation that called for temporary-worker program and pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the U.S. ... Now proposes conditional pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants after they pay fines and learn English ... Believes a secure border is "essential to national security" ... Voted for border fence; supports securing ports and other points of entry
Mitt Romney - Opposes pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants ... Supports building border fence and securing other entry points ... Supports an employment verification system that uses biometric identification cards ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Would punish "sanctuary cities"
* Aborto
Hillary Clinton - Supports abortion rights ... Supports appointing justices who will uphold Roe vs. Wade and right to privacy
Barack Obama - Supports abortion rights; would make "preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president"
John McCain -Believes Roe vs. Wade is a "flawed decision" that should be overturned ... Supports nominating judges who do not "legislate from the bench" ... Supports leaving abortion legislation to the states
Mitt Romney - Believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned ... Supports leaving abortion laws to the states ... Previously supported abortion rights
*** *** ***
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 1 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Graphics reporting by Nona Yates. Sources: Candidates' websites; Associated Press; Congressional Quarterly; Times research
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-votersguide-prez,1,337358.htmlstory?ctrack=2&cset=true
Clinton and the Iraq War Amendment
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 2, 2008
WASHINGTON — During Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Los Angeles, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked to explain why she had voted against an amendment to the 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq.
Mrs. Clinton said that she opposed the amendment, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, not because she favored going to war but because it would “subordinate” American national security decision-making to the United Nations Security Council. The vote on the Levin amendment came just hours before the Senate approved the resolution that President Bush later used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Mrs. Clinton voted for that resolution.
Mrs. Clinton has been consistent in her explanations for her opposition to the Levin amendment, from a floor statement she delivered before her vote for the war resolution to her words at the debate Thursday night. In that floor statement, she said the United Nations was often incapable of backing up its words with action, that a single Security Council member could veto any resolution and that the body usually waited to act until it was too late.
In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in January, Mrs. Clinton said: “The Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don’t believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.”
But Mr. Levin and defenders of his amendment assert that her description of the measure is simplistic and misleading.
The amendment was designed to rein in the president, who many believed was embarked on an inexorable march to war. The measure required two steps. First, the United Nations would have to pass a resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs. Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed and to secure passage of what Mr. Levin called a “going-it-alone unilateral resolution.”
Former Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who was in the Senate at the time and supported the Levin amendment, wrote last year that the measure was “unambiguous and compatible with international law.”
“Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened,” Mr. Chafee wrote in The New York Times. He said the demand for thorough inspections in Iraq would succeed only if pushed by a broad coalition, including Arab states.
“Unfortunately,” he concluded, “these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.”
*** *** ***
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 2 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: John M. Broder
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02check.html?ref=politics
Published: February 2, 2008
WASHINGTON — During Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Los Angeles, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked to explain why she had voted against an amendment to the 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq.
Mrs. Clinton said that she opposed the amendment, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, not because she favored going to war but because it would “subordinate” American national security decision-making to the United Nations Security Council. The vote on the Levin amendment came just hours before the Senate approved the resolution that President Bush later used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Mrs. Clinton voted for that resolution.
Mrs. Clinton has been consistent in her explanations for her opposition to the Levin amendment, from a floor statement she delivered before her vote for the war resolution to her words at the debate Thursday night. In that floor statement, she said the United Nations was often incapable of backing up its words with action, that a single Security Council member could veto any resolution and that the body usually waited to act until it was too late.
In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in January, Mrs. Clinton said: “The Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don’t believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.”
But Mr. Levin and defenders of his amendment assert that her description of the measure is simplistic and misleading.
The amendment was designed to rein in the president, who many believed was embarked on an inexorable march to war. The measure required two steps. First, the United Nations would have to pass a resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs. Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed and to secure passage of what Mr. Levin called a “going-it-alone unilateral resolution.”
Former Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who was in the Senate at the time and supported the Levin amendment, wrote last year that the measure was “unambiguous and compatible with international law.”
“Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened,” Mr. Chafee wrote in The New York Times. He said the demand for thorough inspections in Iraq would succeed only if pushed by a broad coalition, including Arab states.
“Unfortunately,” he concluded, “these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.”
*** *** ***
Em destaque: A candidata democrata Hillary Clinton expõe suas razões para ter votado contra a emenda proposta pelo senador Carl Levin, que colocava como condição do uso da força no Iraque pelos Estados Unidos a concordância do Conselho de Segurança da ONU.
Para ler a Levin Amendment: http://clarkiw.wordpress.com/2002/10/09/levin-amendment-text-october-9-2002/Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 2 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: John M. Broder
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02check.html?ref=politics
Obama Wins Endorsement of MoveOn.org
By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 2, 2008
LOS ANGELES — As the Democratic presidential rivals dashed into a final weekend of campaigning before the nominating contests here and in 21 other states next Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama collected the endorsement on Friday of a leading antiwar group, MoveOn.org. He said his opposition to the war would make him a stronger general election candidate.
California holds the largest trove of delegates, but Mr. Obama turned the state over to an army of high-profile surrogates, led by Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy, who will join together for a rally here on Sunday. Mr. Obama also won the backing of the state’s largest newspaper and labor union, which had been supporting John Edwards.
“I think this is going to be very competitive, but we’ve got 22 states,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference, adding, “And this is, frankly, a delegate race at this point.”
In a speech in San Diego, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said the biggest difference between her and Mr. Obama was in their “commitment to universal health care in America.” Mrs. Clinton would require all Americans to buy or obtain insurance, while Mr. Obama would emphasize lowering health care costs, broaden coverage and mandate it for children — but not adults.
Highlighting a flash point from their debate one night earlier, advisers to Mrs. Clinton denounced a new piece of voter mail from the Obama campaign that criticized her health care plan as too costly. The mail piece includes a couple, apparently fretting over the plan, in an image that Clinton advisers denounced as reminiscent of the “Harry and Louise” advertisement used effectively by opponents of Mrs. Clinton’s health care overhaul effort in 1993 and 1994.
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s chief strategist, defended the mailer, saying, “They’ve spent a lot of money in this campaign to distort our health care plan.”
In a conference call arranged by the Clinton campaign, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, likened the mailing to “Nazis marching through Skokie, Ill.” He added, “I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage.”
A Clinton spokesman, Howard Wolfson, disavowed the Nazi reference and said the campaign did not think it was appropriate.
Mr. Obama received an endorsement from the editorial page of The Los Angeles Times, while Mrs. Clinton was endorsed Friday by the editorial board of The Denver Post.
Mr. Obama also received the backing of the California chapter of the Service Employees International Union, the nation’s most potent union. Because of the union’s large Latino membership, the endorsement could prove important. He has the support of another union that is powerful among immigrants, Unite Here, which represents hotel, restaurant and apparel workers.
The endorsement by MoveOn .org is the first time the group has weighed in during a Democratic primary. In a poll of its members, 1.7 million of whom live in the 22 states holding contests next week, Mr. Obama outpaced Mrs. Clinton 70 percent to 30 percent.
“The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country,” said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org
While Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, campaigned for Mr. Obama in New Mexico, former President Bill Clinton was working on behalf of his wife. At a rally in Arkansas, Mr. Clinton criticized Mr. Kennedy for partnering with President Bush on the No Child Left Behind legislation, saying the education bill came about because “the president made a deal with Senator Kennedy.” Mr. Clinton then quickly added, “Neither one of them meant to mess it up.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Los Angeles, and Patrick Healy from San Diego. Steven Greenhouse contributed
reporting from New York
*** *** ***
Em destaque: O apoio da organização MoveOn.org ao candidato democrata Barack Obama, por sua oposição à Guerra do Iraque.
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 2 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Jeff Zeleny e Patrick Healy
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ref=politics
Published: February 2, 2008
LOS ANGELES — As the Democratic presidential rivals dashed into a final weekend of campaigning before the nominating contests here and in 21 other states next Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama collected the endorsement on Friday of a leading antiwar group, MoveOn.org. He said his opposition to the war would make him a stronger general election candidate.
California holds the largest trove of delegates, but Mr. Obama turned the state over to an army of high-profile surrogates, led by Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy, who will join together for a rally here on Sunday. Mr. Obama also won the backing of the state’s largest newspaper and labor union, which had been supporting John Edwards.
“I think this is going to be very competitive, but we’ve got 22 states,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference, adding, “And this is, frankly, a delegate race at this point.”
In a speech in San Diego, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said the biggest difference between her and Mr. Obama was in their “commitment to universal health care in America.” Mrs. Clinton would require all Americans to buy or obtain insurance, while Mr. Obama would emphasize lowering health care costs, broaden coverage and mandate it for children — but not adults.
Highlighting a flash point from their debate one night earlier, advisers to Mrs. Clinton denounced a new piece of voter mail from the Obama campaign that criticized her health care plan as too costly. The mail piece includes a couple, apparently fretting over the plan, in an image that Clinton advisers denounced as reminiscent of the “Harry and Louise” advertisement used effectively by opponents of Mrs. Clinton’s health care overhaul effort in 1993 and 1994.
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s chief strategist, defended the mailer, saying, “They’ve spent a lot of money in this campaign to distort our health care plan.”
In a conference call arranged by the Clinton campaign, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, likened the mailing to “Nazis marching through Skokie, Ill.” He added, “I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage.”
A Clinton spokesman, Howard Wolfson, disavowed the Nazi reference and said the campaign did not think it was appropriate.
Mr. Obama received an endorsement from the editorial page of The Los Angeles Times, while Mrs. Clinton was endorsed Friday by the editorial board of The Denver Post.
Mr. Obama also received the backing of the California chapter of the Service Employees International Union, the nation’s most potent union. Because of the union’s large Latino membership, the endorsement could prove important. He has the support of another union that is powerful among immigrants, Unite Here, which represents hotel, restaurant and apparel workers.
The endorsement by MoveOn .org is the first time the group has weighed in during a Democratic primary. In a poll of its members, 1.7 million of whom live in the 22 states holding contests next week, Mr. Obama outpaced Mrs. Clinton 70 percent to 30 percent.
“The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country,” said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org
While Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, campaigned for Mr. Obama in New Mexico, former President Bill Clinton was working on behalf of his wife. At a rally in Arkansas, Mr. Clinton criticized Mr. Kennedy for partnering with President Bush on the No Child Left Behind legislation, saying the education bill came about because “the president made a deal with Senator Kennedy.” Mr. Clinton then quickly added, “Neither one of them meant to mess it up.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Los Angeles, and Patrick Healy from San Diego. Steven Greenhouse contributed
reporting from New York
*** *** ***
Em destaque: O apoio da organização MoveOn.org ao candidato democrata Barack Obama, por sua oposição à Guerra do Iraque.
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 2 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Jeff Zeleny e Patrick Healy
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ref=politics
domingo, 3 de fevereiro de 2008
Democrats Flood States With Ads as Tuesday Nears
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: February 3, 2008
Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have unleashed advertisements in nearly all the 22 states that have Democratic presidential nominating contests on Tuesday, a combined $19 million expenditure that is the most ambitious and geographically expansive television effort in a presidential primary.
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney have a far more restrained advertising effort that started just this weekend and is focusing on a handful of states and national cable television.
Faced with the challenge of getting their messages out to nearly half the country for a single day of voting, the candidates are taking to the airwaves in a concentrated burst of advertising that includes individual advertisements tailored to specific concerns of different parts of the country. The sweep of advertising has put their strategies out in the open and has highlighted the diverging financial fortunes of the two parties.
The complexity of the delegate allocation rules has prompted the campaigns to make decisions about advertising that are unlike what would be made in a general election. And the sheer number of contests has ruled out the retail politicking the candidates practiced in Iowa and New Hampshire. That has forced the candidates to choose between paying for advertising or relying on the kindness of free news coverage, as Mr. McCain has done.
The advertisements are striking in that they are devoid of any overt attacks on opponents. (Though Mr. Romney has reprised an advertisement in which he attacks Mrs. Clinton.) After weeks in which the race in both parties has featured flashes of intense personal animosity, the candidates all seem to have decided that they need to introduce and define themselves for a broad swath of the country in positive terms, especially since the compressed calendar gives them no time for a second chance.
Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has run advertisements in 21 of the 22 states that will hold Democratic primaries or caucuses. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has run advertisements in 16 of those states. His campaign has aimed advertisements on different issues at particular cities in an effort to tailor his message to the concerns of voters.
Voters in Hartford and Fargo, for example, are watching advertisements for Mr. Obama decrying Wall Street abuses and talking about tax cuts. The advertisements seek to address the economic anxiety that polls suggest is rife in those parts of the country. (“Stock markets in turmoil, jobs in jeopardy, fear of recession,” the announcer says.)
In Minneapolis and Albuquerque, audiences are seeing advertisements that include battle scenes from the Iraq war, reflecting Mr. Obama’s effort to emphasize his early opposition to the war in a part of the country where antiwar sentiment appears high. “We can end a war,” reads the message on the screen, over a backdrop of Mr. Obama talking and rousing rock music playing. “We can save a planet.”
Most of Mrs. Clinton’s advertisements are keyed to economic anxiety, a subject she has increasingly addressed. Voters across the country are seeing what has become her signature advertisement on the economy: a man dropped from a plane and hurtling toward the ground — an image intended to capture an economy in free fall — until his parachute engages, presumably suggesting what a second Clinton presidency might do for the economy.
But she, too, has aimed specific advertisements at specific states or groups. In California, for example, she has run advertisements about the environment and energy. “We have to get serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil,” she says in that spot. And on Saturday, an advertisement featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is supporting her, will begin running in Massachusetts and New York — seeking to counter Obama advertisements that feature Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of former President John F. Kennedy, who have endorsed Mr. Obama and campaigned for him.
The advertising strategies reflect strategic calculations by the candidates as they navigate the different Republican and Democratic delegate rules.
In many states for Republicans, the candidate who wins the popular vote captures all the delegates. But for Democrats, delegates are awarded proportionally by Congressional district, so it makes sense for a candidate to advertise in selective areas in hopes of winning a share of the delegates — which is what Mr. Obama is doing.
“We are in a world in which delegates matter,” said Ken Goldstein, a political science professor and the director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which just completed a study of campaign expenditures to date. “Obama’s got money, and there’s a different definition of competitiveness. General election competitiveness is, Can you win? Primary competitiveness is, Can you come close and win delegates?”
Mr. Obama has spent $10.9 million on advertisements in the states voting on Tuesday; his first expenditure was Jan. 12, according to officials from both campaigns. Mrs. Clinton has spent about $8 million, starting on Jan. 17 in California. Between them, they have spent at least $1.3 million a day for the last week on television advertising in the states voting on Tuesday, said Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising.
Most of this money has been expended in just two weeks. By comparison, all the presidential candidates spent a total of $43 million in Iowa and $32 million in New Hampshire, according to a report from the Wisconsin Advertising Project. In those states, advertising ran for months before the votes.
Illinois, Mr. Obama’s home state, is the one place where neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama is advertising. Of the five other states where Mrs. Clinton is not advertising, four — Alaska, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota — have caucuses, the kind of competition that aides to both candidates believe gives an edge to Mr. Obama. In the fifth state, Georgia, Mr. Obama is looking to do well, in part because of the state’s large black population.
Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain began their television effort on Friday; there were no specific figures available on their spending, though it appeared to be about $2 million for Mr. Romney and about $1 million for Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney, again reaching into his own pockets, bought television advertisements across California and on national cable television, a venue rarely used in a primary campaign.
That is a significant drop-off in spending by Mr. Romney over earlier in the primary season, a decision his advisers said reflected the paucity of Mr. McCain’s efforts and the different demands of competing across the country.
Mr. Romney reprised an old advertisement asserting that his background as governor of Massachusetts and chief executive of the 2002 Winter Olympics gave him the experience to be president. Mr. McCain’s advertisement suggested that he was more intent on addressing concerns about him among conservatives than the challenge of Mr. Romney. Speaking to the camera, he invokes Ronald Reagan and describes himself as “a proud social conservative who will never waver.”
The advertisements by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton offered insights into their strategic decisions and challenges. Mrs. Clinton has shown a decided edge among women over Mr. Obama this year; Mr. Obama’s advertisements are filled with images of women, including several that feature elected officials who have endorsed him, including Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona.
Mr. Obama uses these endorsers to offer an implicit criticism of Mrs. Clinton, something he is not doing himself. For example, Ms. Napolitano says, “Barack Obama doesn’t just tell people what they want to hear.”
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are running Spanish-language advertisements, mostly in California, testimony to the importance of Hispanic voters in so many states. In one, Mr. Obama is introduced in Spanish and speaks in English in a clear effort to deal with the reluctance of some Hispanic voters to rally behind a black candidate.
“Hope is what led me here today,” he says, his words translated into Spanish subtitles. “With a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that can only happen in the United States of America.”
Both campaigns use their candidates as the main star. Mrs. Clinton is shown talking to the camera or to small groups of voters, which has been a strength for her. Mr. Obama is repeatedly shown talking to big, energized — and young — crowds that often roar their approval.
Aides to both campaigns said that the decisions had been complicated given the varying rules. Mr. Obama has put more of his resources into states with caucuses, which tend to draw the party’s most committed voters. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama started advertising early in California not just because of its size, but because the state allows people to begin casting votes early.
“There’s a little bit of a chess game with the ads,” said Mr. Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. “When all is said and done, there will be a lot of re-examining of all these decisions. This one will get plowed over pretty hard.”
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Nas progandas políticas do democrata Barack Obama, em Minneapolis e Albuquerque, o uso de imagens da Guerra do Iraque para enfatizar a posição contrária do candidato a esta empreitada americana.
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 3 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Adam Nagourney
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03ads.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all
Published: February 3, 2008
Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have unleashed advertisements in nearly all the 22 states that have Democratic presidential nominating contests on Tuesday, a combined $19 million expenditure that is the most ambitious and geographically expansive television effort in a presidential primary.
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney have a far more restrained advertising effort that started just this weekend and is focusing on a handful of states and national cable television.
Faced with the challenge of getting their messages out to nearly half the country for a single day of voting, the candidates are taking to the airwaves in a concentrated burst of advertising that includes individual advertisements tailored to specific concerns of different parts of the country. The sweep of advertising has put their strategies out in the open and has highlighted the diverging financial fortunes of the two parties.
The complexity of the delegate allocation rules has prompted the campaigns to make decisions about advertising that are unlike what would be made in a general election. And the sheer number of contests has ruled out the retail politicking the candidates practiced in Iowa and New Hampshire. That has forced the candidates to choose between paying for advertising or relying on the kindness of free news coverage, as Mr. McCain has done.
The advertisements are striking in that they are devoid of any overt attacks on opponents. (Though Mr. Romney has reprised an advertisement in which he attacks Mrs. Clinton.) After weeks in which the race in both parties has featured flashes of intense personal animosity, the candidates all seem to have decided that they need to introduce and define themselves for a broad swath of the country in positive terms, especially since the compressed calendar gives them no time for a second chance.
Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has run advertisements in 21 of the 22 states that will hold Democratic primaries or caucuses. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has run advertisements in 16 of those states. His campaign has aimed advertisements on different issues at particular cities in an effort to tailor his message to the concerns of voters.
Voters in Hartford and Fargo, for example, are watching advertisements for Mr. Obama decrying Wall Street abuses and talking about tax cuts. The advertisements seek to address the economic anxiety that polls suggest is rife in those parts of the country. (“Stock markets in turmoil, jobs in jeopardy, fear of recession,” the announcer says.)
In Minneapolis and Albuquerque, audiences are seeing advertisements that include battle scenes from the Iraq war, reflecting Mr. Obama’s effort to emphasize his early opposition to the war in a part of the country where antiwar sentiment appears high. “We can end a war,” reads the message on the screen, over a backdrop of Mr. Obama talking and rousing rock music playing. “We can save a planet.”
Most of Mrs. Clinton’s advertisements are keyed to economic anxiety, a subject she has increasingly addressed. Voters across the country are seeing what has become her signature advertisement on the economy: a man dropped from a plane and hurtling toward the ground — an image intended to capture an economy in free fall — until his parachute engages, presumably suggesting what a second Clinton presidency might do for the economy.
But she, too, has aimed specific advertisements at specific states or groups. In California, for example, she has run advertisements about the environment and energy. “We have to get serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil,” she says in that spot. And on Saturday, an advertisement featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is supporting her, will begin running in Massachusetts and New York — seeking to counter Obama advertisements that feature Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of former President John F. Kennedy, who have endorsed Mr. Obama and campaigned for him.
The advertising strategies reflect strategic calculations by the candidates as they navigate the different Republican and Democratic delegate rules.
In many states for Republicans, the candidate who wins the popular vote captures all the delegates. But for Democrats, delegates are awarded proportionally by Congressional district, so it makes sense for a candidate to advertise in selective areas in hopes of winning a share of the delegates — which is what Mr. Obama is doing.
“We are in a world in which delegates matter,” said Ken Goldstein, a political science professor and the director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which just completed a study of campaign expenditures to date. “Obama’s got money, and there’s a different definition of competitiveness. General election competitiveness is, Can you win? Primary competitiveness is, Can you come close and win delegates?”
Mr. Obama has spent $10.9 million on advertisements in the states voting on Tuesday; his first expenditure was Jan. 12, according to officials from both campaigns. Mrs. Clinton has spent about $8 million, starting on Jan. 17 in California. Between them, they have spent at least $1.3 million a day for the last week on television advertising in the states voting on Tuesday, said Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising.
Most of this money has been expended in just two weeks. By comparison, all the presidential candidates spent a total of $43 million in Iowa and $32 million in New Hampshire, according to a report from the Wisconsin Advertising Project. In those states, advertising ran for months before the votes.
Illinois, Mr. Obama’s home state, is the one place where neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama is advertising. Of the five other states where Mrs. Clinton is not advertising, four — Alaska, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota — have caucuses, the kind of competition that aides to both candidates believe gives an edge to Mr. Obama. In the fifth state, Georgia, Mr. Obama is looking to do well, in part because of the state’s large black population.
Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain began their television effort on Friday; there were no specific figures available on their spending, though it appeared to be about $2 million for Mr. Romney and about $1 million for Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney, again reaching into his own pockets, bought television advertisements across California and on national cable television, a venue rarely used in a primary campaign.
That is a significant drop-off in spending by Mr. Romney over earlier in the primary season, a decision his advisers said reflected the paucity of Mr. McCain’s efforts and the different demands of competing across the country.
Mr. Romney reprised an old advertisement asserting that his background as governor of Massachusetts and chief executive of the 2002 Winter Olympics gave him the experience to be president. Mr. McCain’s advertisement suggested that he was more intent on addressing concerns about him among conservatives than the challenge of Mr. Romney. Speaking to the camera, he invokes Ronald Reagan and describes himself as “a proud social conservative who will never waver.”
The advertisements by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton offered insights into their strategic decisions and challenges. Mrs. Clinton has shown a decided edge among women over Mr. Obama this year; Mr. Obama’s advertisements are filled with images of women, including several that feature elected officials who have endorsed him, including Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona.
Mr. Obama uses these endorsers to offer an implicit criticism of Mrs. Clinton, something he is not doing himself. For example, Ms. Napolitano says, “Barack Obama doesn’t just tell people what they want to hear.”
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are running Spanish-language advertisements, mostly in California, testimony to the importance of Hispanic voters in so many states. In one, Mr. Obama is introduced in Spanish and speaks in English in a clear effort to deal with the reluctance of some Hispanic voters to rally behind a black candidate.
“Hope is what led me here today,” he says, his words translated into Spanish subtitles. “With a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that can only happen in the United States of America.”
Both campaigns use their candidates as the main star. Mrs. Clinton is shown talking to the camera or to small groups of voters, which has been a strength for her. Mr. Obama is repeatedly shown talking to big, energized — and young — crowds that often roar their approval.
Aides to both campaigns said that the decisions had been complicated given the varying rules. Mr. Obama has put more of his resources into states with caucuses, which tend to draw the party’s most committed voters. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama started advertising early in California not just because of its size, but because the state allows people to begin casting votes early.
“There’s a little bit of a chess game with the ads,” said Mr. Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. “When all is said and done, there will be a lot of re-examining of all these decisions. This one will get plowed over pretty hard.”
*** *** ***
Em destaque: Nas progandas políticas do democrata Barack Obama, em Minneapolis e Albuquerque, o uso de imagens da Guerra do Iraque para enfatizar a posição contrária do candidato a esta empreitada americana.
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 3 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Adam Nagourney
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03ads.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all
Candidates Go to Final Round in Battle for Super Tuesday
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
Published: February 3, 2008
With two days to go before Super Tuesday’s multistate nominating contests, candidates for both parties campaigned furiously on Sunday, trying to seize voters’ support in the hours before the country’s attention shifted to the Super Bowl.
A variety of weekend polls showed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was locked in a tight race with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for the Democratic nomination. A CBS News poll released Sunday evening showed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama each had the support of 41 percent of the 491 Democratic primary voters it surveyed.
In contrast, Senator John McCain appeared to be heading into Tuesday’s Republican contests with a clear lead over his chief rival, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. The CBS News poll showed Mr. McCain gaining the support of 46 percent of the 325 Republican primary voters it surveyed, compared with 23 percent for Mr. Romney.
The polls also showed that significant numbers of voters have simply not yet decided who they are going to vote for, or if they have decided, are not fully committed to their decisions. About four in 10 Democratic voters and more than half of the Republican said they still could change their minds before Tuesday’s contests, the CBS News poll said. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney both came out swinging on Sunday. At a campaign stop in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Obama criticized both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain and tried to link his opponents to the policies of the Bush administration, particularly the war in Iraq, which Mrs. Clinton initially supported.
“I can offer and clean break from the failed policies of George W. Bush,” Mr. Obama said. “I won’t have to explain my votes in the past.”
At a campaign rally outside Chicago, Mr. Romney, who has repeatedly claimed that Mr. McCain is out of step with conservative Republicans, also tried to link the Arizona Republican with Mrs. Clinton.
“There’s a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party,” Mr. Romney said. “Which way are we going to go? Are we going to take a sharp left turn in our party, get as close as we can to Hillary Clinton, without being Hillary Clinton?”
Still, Mr. McCain appears to be picking up significant support from Republicans after relied on independents to carry him to victory in some early primaries. An ABC News/Washington Post survey showed that his support among self-identified Republicans was up nearly fourfold since December.
Part of this increased support appeared to come from Republicans rallying around the candidate now deemed most electable. And part of it, said Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and second-tier Republican candidate, was a sense among some Republicans that Mr. Romney is a conservative of convenience, not of conviction.
“When we were out there supporting Ronald Reagan, he was running away from him,” Mr. Huckabee said on CNN. “That’s what rankles many of us. He’s a recent convert and now he shouts ‘hallelujah’ louder than the rest of us.”
The many winner-take-all Republican contests give Mr. McCain a chance to come within a few hundred delegates of victory on Tuesday, by some estimates.
Looking to Tuesday, Mr. Romney has concentrated his efforts in states that award delegates by caucuses and conventions, where his organization efforts can help offset the pull of Mr. McCain’s higher name recognition. He was also fighting hard to win in California, the day’s biggest prize.
Still, Mr. McCain’s emergence has political analysts speculating more pointedly about possible matchups. The ABC/Washington Post poll showed Mr. Obama narrowly defeating Mr. McCain in a head-to-head contest but Mr. McCain defeating Mrs. Clinton by an identical three-point margin.
At a campaign appearance on Sunday at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn., Mr. McCain took a rare shot at Mrs. Clinton, including her in a denunciation of pork barrel spending.
“In her short time in the United States Senate, the senator from New York, Senator Clinton, has gotten $500 million worth of pork barrel projects,” Mr. McCain said. “My friends, that kind of thing is going to stop when I’m president of the United States of America.”
The race for the Democratic nomination is likely to go beyond Tuesday, partly because it is so competitive and partly because the Democrats’ proportional system allows a candidate to win delegates even while losing a state.
Together, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are advertising in nearly all the 22 states with Democratic contests on Tuesday, spending millions of dollars. On Sunday night, Mr. Obama has even purchased 30 seconds of commercial time on the Super Bowl in more than 20 states where he is competing.
Mr. Obama has been gaining more ground in the polls than Mrs. Clinton, who has stemmed the erosion that began after the Iowa caucuses but not added much to her base. A poll by the Pew Research Center shows that since mid-January, Mr. Obama increased his support significantly among independents, white voters in general and white men in particular, voters aged 50 to 64, moderates, and voters with some college or more. The poll also found increased support from him among the middle class, voters whose yearly household income is between $40,000 and $75,000.
On Sunday afternoon, Mr. Obama also received the endorsement of Maria Shriver, who joined Caroline Kennedy and their uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachasetts, in endorsing the Illinois senator. Ms. Shriver’s husband, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, endorsed Mr. McCain last week.
Mrs. Clinton continued Sunday to play down the frictions that she and her husband, Bill, have had with the Obama camp, saying of herself and her rival: “We have lived the progress that has been made in America, each of us has broken barriers. Whoever wins the nomination will change American history.”
But Mrs. Clinton also suggested that she would prove tougher in a general election than Mr. Obama would be, once negative charges began to fly.
“I have been through these Republican attacks over and over and over again and I believe that I’ve demonstrated that, much to the dismay of the Republicans, I not only can survive, but thrive,” Mrs. Clinton said on the ABC News program “This Week.”
Mr. Obama, on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” predicted that he would draw votes “that Senator Clinton cannot get.”
“That broadens the political map,” Mr. Obama said. “I think it bodes well for the election.”
He quickly sidestepped a question about a possible Democratic “dream ticket,” as the interviewer called it, uniting Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. “Democrats are eager to unify against the Republicans,” he said. He then pivoted to talk about his differences with Mr. McCain.
Mr. McCain, and Mr. Romney too, he said, had “essentially embraced” what Mr. Obama said was President Bush’s failed economic approach, and “both have suggested that we continue the war in Iraq.”
Mrs. Clinton, too, has begun drawing contrasts with Mr. McCain. On the Iraq war, she said, the differences “could not be stronger.” Mrs. Clinton has said she would start withdrawing American troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office, while Mr. McCain has said American troops could be there up to 100 years.
“I personally believe there is no American military solution,” Mrs. Clinton said, “and it is imperative that we focus our attention on the political and diplomatic side of this equation.”
The contests on both sides have been so fierce that political analysts on Sunday were even analyzing intelligence on where the candidates planned to watch the Super Bowl.
Mr. McCain planned to watch from Massachusetts. Was that a pitch for votes from New England, whose Patriots are undefeated this year? Or a finger in the eye of Mr. Romney, the former governor?
And what did it mean that Bill Clinton would be watching from New Mexico, with Gov. Bill Richardson? Was this tantamount to an endorsement by the governor, or a bid for Hispanic support?
“I suspect,” Mr. Obama said, when asked about this on ABC, “that they’re just going to be watching the game.”
Reporting was contributed by Jeff Zeleny from Wilmington, Del., MichaelLuo from Chicago, Michael Cooper from Fairfield, Conn., and John Sullivan and Janet Elder from New York.
*** *** ***
Matéria que menciona levemente as posições dos candidatos quanto à Guerra do Iraque (parte em destaque)
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 3 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Brian Knowlton
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03cnd-campaign.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Published: February 3, 2008
With two days to go before Super Tuesday’s multistate nominating contests, candidates for both parties campaigned furiously on Sunday, trying to seize voters’ support in the hours before the country’s attention shifted to the Super Bowl.
A variety of weekend polls showed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was locked in a tight race with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for the Democratic nomination. A CBS News poll released Sunday evening showed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama each had the support of 41 percent of the 491 Democratic primary voters it surveyed.
In contrast, Senator John McCain appeared to be heading into Tuesday’s Republican contests with a clear lead over his chief rival, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. The CBS News poll showed Mr. McCain gaining the support of 46 percent of the 325 Republican primary voters it surveyed, compared with 23 percent for Mr. Romney.
The polls also showed that significant numbers of voters have simply not yet decided who they are going to vote for, or if they have decided, are not fully committed to their decisions. About four in 10 Democratic voters and more than half of the Republican said they still could change their minds before Tuesday’s contests, the CBS News poll said. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney both came out swinging on Sunday. At a campaign stop in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Obama criticized both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain and tried to link his opponents to the policies of the Bush administration, particularly the war in Iraq, which Mrs. Clinton initially supported.
“I can offer and clean break from the failed policies of George W. Bush,” Mr. Obama said. “I won’t have to explain my votes in the past.”
At a campaign rally outside Chicago, Mr. Romney, who has repeatedly claimed that Mr. McCain is out of step with conservative Republicans, also tried to link the Arizona Republican with Mrs. Clinton.
“There’s a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party,” Mr. Romney said. “Which way are we going to go? Are we going to take a sharp left turn in our party, get as close as we can to Hillary Clinton, without being Hillary Clinton?”
Still, Mr. McCain appears to be picking up significant support from Republicans after relied on independents to carry him to victory in some early primaries. An ABC News/Washington Post survey showed that his support among self-identified Republicans was up nearly fourfold since December.
Part of this increased support appeared to come from Republicans rallying around the candidate now deemed most electable. And part of it, said Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and second-tier Republican candidate, was a sense among some Republicans that Mr. Romney is a conservative of convenience, not of conviction.
“When we were out there supporting Ronald Reagan, he was running away from him,” Mr. Huckabee said on CNN. “That’s what rankles many of us. He’s a recent convert and now he shouts ‘hallelujah’ louder than the rest of us.”
The many winner-take-all Republican contests give Mr. McCain a chance to come within a few hundred delegates of victory on Tuesday, by some estimates.
Looking to Tuesday, Mr. Romney has concentrated his efforts in states that award delegates by caucuses and conventions, where his organization efforts can help offset the pull of Mr. McCain’s higher name recognition. He was also fighting hard to win in California, the day’s biggest prize.
Still, Mr. McCain’s emergence has political analysts speculating more pointedly about possible matchups. The ABC/Washington Post poll showed Mr. Obama narrowly defeating Mr. McCain in a head-to-head contest but Mr. McCain defeating Mrs. Clinton by an identical three-point margin.
At a campaign appearance on Sunday at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn., Mr. McCain took a rare shot at Mrs. Clinton, including her in a denunciation of pork barrel spending.
“In her short time in the United States Senate, the senator from New York, Senator Clinton, has gotten $500 million worth of pork barrel projects,” Mr. McCain said. “My friends, that kind of thing is going to stop when I’m president of the United States of America.”
The race for the Democratic nomination is likely to go beyond Tuesday, partly because it is so competitive and partly because the Democrats’ proportional system allows a candidate to win delegates even while losing a state.
Together, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are advertising in nearly all the 22 states with Democratic contests on Tuesday, spending millions of dollars. On Sunday night, Mr. Obama has even purchased 30 seconds of commercial time on the Super Bowl in more than 20 states where he is competing.
Mr. Obama has been gaining more ground in the polls than Mrs. Clinton, who has stemmed the erosion that began after the Iowa caucuses but not added much to her base. A poll by the Pew Research Center shows that since mid-January, Mr. Obama increased his support significantly among independents, white voters in general and white men in particular, voters aged 50 to 64, moderates, and voters with some college or more. The poll also found increased support from him among the middle class, voters whose yearly household income is between $40,000 and $75,000.
On Sunday afternoon, Mr. Obama also received the endorsement of Maria Shriver, who joined Caroline Kennedy and their uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachasetts, in endorsing the Illinois senator. Ms. Shriver’s husband, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, endorsed Mr. McCain last week.
Mrs. Clinton continued Sunday to play down the frictions that she and her husband, Bill, have had with the Obama camp, saying of herself and her rival: “We have lived the progress that has been made in America, each of us has broken barriers. Whoever wins the nomination will change American history.”
But Mrs. Clinton also suggested that she would prove tougher in a general election than Mr. Obama would be, once negative charges began to fly.
“I have been through these Republican attacks over and over and over again and I believe that I’ve demonstrated that, much to the dismay of the Republicans, I not only can survive, but thrive,” Mrs. Clinton said on the ABC News program “This Week.”
Mr. Obama, on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” predicted that he would draw votes “that Senator Clinton cannot get.”
“That broadens the political map,” Mr. Obama said. “I think it bodes well for the election.”
He quickly sidestepped a question about a possible Democratic “dream ticket,” as the interviewer called it, uniting Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. “Democrats are eager to unify against the Republicans,” he said. He then pivoted to talk about his differences with Mr. McCain.
Mr. McCain, and Mr. Romney too, he said, had “essentially embraced” what Mr. Obama said was President Bush’s failed economic approach, and “both have suggested that we continue the war in Iraq.”
Mrs. Clinton, too, has begun drawing contrasts with Mr. McCain. On the Iraq war, she said, the differences “could not be stronger.” Mrs. Clinton has said she would start withdrawing American troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office, while Mr. McCain has said American troops could be there up to 100 years.
“I personally believe there is no American military solution,” Mrs. Clinton said, “and it is imperative that we focus our attention on the political and diplomatic side of this equation.”
The contests on both sides have been so fierce that political analysts on Sunday were even analyzing intelligence on where the candidates planned to watch the Super Bowl.
Mr. McCain planned to watch from Massachusetts. Was that a pitch for votes from New England, whose Patriots are undefeated this year? Or a finger in the eye of Mr. Romney, the former governor?
And what did it mean that Bill Clinton would be watching from New Mexico, with Gov. Bill Richardson? Was this tantamount to an endorsement by the governor, or a bid for Hispanic support?
“I suspect,” Mr. Obama said, when asked about this on ABC, “that they’re just going to be watching the game.”
Reporting was contributed by Jeff Zeleny from Wilmington, Del., MichaelLuo from Chicago, Michael Cooper from Fairfield, Conn., and John Sullivan and Janet Elder from New York.
*** *** ***
Matéria que menciona levemente as posições dos candidatos quanto à Guerra do Iraque (parte em destaque)
Fonte: The New York Times ( caderno National - Politics)
Publicação: 3 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Brian Knowlton
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03cnd-campaign.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
