Latest News

Plants For Hillary Uprooted?

2007-11-16T21:28:36Z

Plants For Hillary, we hardly knew you.

The mock website created by the Edwards campaign to hammer Hillary Clinton over planted questions has already been pulled down. Loading the site now just brings up a blank page.

Both Edwards and Barack Obama faced some negative feedback over their criticism of Clinton during last night's debate, including boos and hisses from the Las Vegas crowd. Did Edwards officials feel the site was too nasty or acerbic?

They say no. "It was just a fun little debate day thing," a campaign spokesperson told the Huffington Post.

But why would the campaign produce a relatively extravagant website, with specially-created graphics and gimmicks (see some here), if they meant it to be pulled just a few hours later?

The campaign press release announcing the site wasn't sent until yesterday afternoon, and the description of the site certainly didn't imply it was a short-term project. At PlantsForHillary.com, the release said, "potential plants can listen to testimonials from past plants, read the 'Top 10 Questions Plants Should Never Ask Hillary,' learn how to recognize other plants at Senator Clinton's events, submit suggestions for planted questions, and purchase the soon to be released 'Questions are hard...so plant them' t-shirt. "

That said, a much more tame Edwards video hitting Clinton on the planted questions is still online. You can watch it below:

Some Dems Vocal About Aversion To Confronting Bush On Iraq Funding

2007-11-15T22:08:55Z

It is already conventional wisdom that the "bridge fund" for the Iraq war passed Wednesday night in the House will be stopped by Republicans in the Senate. And for that reason, at least a few House Democrats say that their party should not pick another fight with the president over ending the war.

"Rep. Tanner had questions about the political viability of the bill because it may not be something that has the possibility of passing and making it all the way," said Randy Ford, spokesman for Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), who voted against the bill. "He really wants to continue working on it in a bipartisan way, so the House can insert itself not as one party or another but to have an oversight role."

Tanner has promoted a "bipartisan compact" with 14 Republican Members of Congress that seeks to promote a consensus approach to Congress overseeing the Iraq War. His aide reasoned that others would want to follow a similar approach in the months to come when the House has to take up the president's full emergency budget request.

"He's confident he's not the only one in the Democratic caucus who wants to see some cooperation with the minority party," said Randy Ford, a spokesman for Rep. John Tanner (D-TN).

A Democratic leadership aide was dismissive of the idea that the party was not ready to confront the president again.

"People feel that we have to show we are trying to change course in Iraq, that we were largely elected on that desire," the staff member said.

Blackwater's California Wildfire Relief Efforts Backfire With Local Residents

2007-11-15T06:30:54Z

While hundreds of thousands of citizens were fleeing Southern California's wildfires in October, Blackwater USA was charging back in.

While the fires still burned, executives from the private security firm personally delivered food and supplies to displaced residents and eventually set up temporary housing.

But don't accuse Blackwater of taking advantage of the disaster for the purposes of self-promotion. The company insists that it is just a friendly corporate citizen.

"There is nothing political about it," said Anne Tyrell, Director of Public Affairs for Blackwater USA in a Friday phone conversation. "We're helping our fellow people out there who need it."

Around the time of the fires, public and congressional scrutiny on the North Carolina-based company was reaching a fever pitch. Congress initiated a series of hearings and legislative efforts in the aftermath of the killing of 17 civilians in Iraq in September. And Blackwater had to be fearful of how its controversial work overseas might imperil its efforts to build an 824-acre training facility near Potrero, California, ground zero for the Harris Fire, which burned 90,000 acres.

Anti-Blackwater activists who are trying to stop the facility from being built started adding to the company's PR headaches. They warned that the Blackwater West base might light up San Diego County's chaparral again with future live fire training exercises. With a recall election in Potrero scheduled for December that could derail the project, the disaster seemed likely to help the activists' cause.

But quickly enough, Blackwater fought back with an aggressive public relations offensive.

The company's local vice president first tried to tamp down claims that the proposed San Diego County base would pose a fire hazard. Brian Bonfiglio told the Virginian-Pilot that the base could actually help fight future wildfires.

Local news outlets then started reporting on Bonfiglio racing to the rescue in his white Hummer, ferrying supplies to small town dwellers cut off from the outside world by the fires. Blackwater then arranged to bring in even more supplies than could fit into Bonfiglio's truck.

Ultimately, Blackwater set up a tent city for up to 88 people displaced by the fires, and offered them electricity and other necessities.

Tyrell, the company's spokeswoman, went to pains to emphasize that Blackwater's help to fire-affected Californians was occurring on a small, person-to-person scale. She pointed out that company's west coast operation does not extend much beyond Bonfiglio himself.

But the company's own photos showed that it was ready to engage in a significant effort, deploying a well-equipped "rapid response team" as it erected the tent city.

Even with the Blackwater brand front and center in the photo the company distributed, Tyrell sought to portray the company's role in the tent city modestly.

"We may have provided the 'big' items but we are just one spoke in a very big wheel, meaning that there are upwards of 5 different organizations involved with the site," she wrote.

Many area residents, even those who had been strongly critical of the proposed Blackwater West facility, were thankful for the company's contributions. But the public radio station KPBS reported that Blackwater had used its leverage with local politicians and law enforcement to get past road closures. And critics of the Blackwater West site allege that at the same time, other private relief efforts were prevented from going into the areas burned by the Harris Fire.

"There were some people who were attempting to bring supplies up but they were turned away by the Sheriff's Deputy," in Potrero, said Raymond Lutz, Coordinator of Citizens Oversight Projects, which is fighting the Blackwater West facility. "Blackwater came in at the same time, and they gave supplies to people who came up, and the relief station was manned by pro-Blackwater people, and they made their Blackwater hat pins available. It was orchestrated."

Blackwater USA denies that it had any privileged access to the areas affected by the fire.

"Anyone delivering supplies during the time that we were could have passed through the checkpoint traveling from Campo to Potrero," Tyrell insisted. "Based on the obvious trailer full of stuff and explanation, you were permitted to proceed."

But whether or not the company had privileged access, its temporary tent housing isn't getting many takers. The San Diego Union Tribute reported that only two displaced residents were sleeping in the facility, which is being run by relief workers from the Churches of Christ.

"A lot of people I talked to, they're not really interested because of Blackwater," said one local resident.

To an activist fighting the west coast base, it wasn't a surprise that local residents expressed concern.

"They will get special access to authorities, and they are by definition not under anybody's laws yet again," argued Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign. "The way they did it underscores why people are worried about them."

Democrats Down To The Wire Rounding Up Iraq Withdrawal Votes

2007-11-14T22:00:04Z

House Democratic leaders were hard at work on Wednesday to round up the votes in favor of a $50 billion "bridge fund" that would require the president start bringing US troops home.

A Democratic leadership aide said she expected the bill to pass by a margin similar to the initial May vote on the 2007 emergency war budget, which only 10 Democrats, mostly members of the Progressive Caucus, rejected. And an aide to a progressive member confirmed that Democratic leaders were meeting with the party's liberal wing this afternoon to ensure that their votes were secure.

"The leadership is starting to make sure they have the votes to pass the thing, and I think they do," said the progressive Democrat's aide.

But House Republicans were offering up hopeful spin of their own. They pointed to an afternoon floor speech by Rep. Brian Baird, a Washington Democrat who came out in favor of President Bush's troop surge this summer, that they hoped would peel support from the Democratic spending bill. They claimed his lead might bring more moderate and conservative Democrats to their side.

"He gave an impassioned speech on floor this afternoon, and pleaded with his colleagues for time because he said security is being achieved," said Ed Patru, a spokesman for the House Republican Conference. "Other Democrats probably share that view, although he's certainly the highest profile member that came out in public."

But Patru acknowledged that he couldn't say how many Democrats might cross over and vote with Republicans on the bill.

"There are rumors swirling all over the Hill that they're vacillating between euphoria and a complete meltdown," he noted.

Update: A spokesman for Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) just told us that the congressman was unlikely to vote for the proposed "bridge fund." His sticking point? A certain date for withdrawal in the bill. It should be noted that the bill does not contain a certain date, but a goal of December 15, 2008 by which all US troops should be redeployed from Iraq.

Baird and Boren, it should be noted, are both members of a "bipartisan compact" with 12 Democratic colleagues and 14 Republicans who pledged to find "consensus" on the war. The 12 additional Democrats in this group are a likely target for Republican pressure to switch sides.

Buzz around the Hill also points to another issue of a political nature. Moderates of both parties, but particularly among some House Democrats, apparently don't like the message the bill sends. The President asked for $200 billion to fund the troops for the whole year. The bill only provides the Pentagon with $50 billion for about four months of operations. The moderate members don't want to be asked why they "didn't fund the troops" when they go home for Thanksgiving.

Freedom's Watch Watch: Vulnerable Democrats Shrug Off New Iraq Ads

2007-11-14T14:55:58Z

If House Democrats are worried about Freedom's Watch calling them out in newspaper ads in their local districts, they aren't showing it.

"In an age of global threats, I do not believe our nation is best served by devoting so many of our military resources to Iraq," Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) told the Huffington Post, responding to the conservative broadside she faced in the Topeka Capital-Journal Tuesday morning.

Boyda unseated a Republican incumbent by a narrow margin in 2006, and her seat has been identified by GOP strategists as a prime 2008 target. But she responded aggressively to the Freedom's Watch ad, which ran in the districts of seven freshman House Democrats.

"I believe the best way forward from here is to gradually, responsibly redeploy from Iraq," Boyda added. "We need to give the Iraqi people every opportunity to secure a sustainable peace, but our ultimate focus must be to strengthen our military's ability to respond to future threats."

Staff for another member of Congress told the Huffington Post that the Freedom's Watch ads might even be helpful because they were distinguishing him from President Bush.

"Surprisingly, there have been a lot of people calling Congressman Mitchell and telling him to keep it up," said a spokesman for Rep. Harry Mitchell, an Arizona Democrat whose constituents saw the Freedom's Watch ad in the Arizona Republic on Tuesday. "If people want to advertise that he's advocating a position different than President Bush, we welcome that."

Constituents in another Congress member's district appeared to be confused by the ad's message.

"Most people are misreading the ad to thank us for supporting the war effort when they call," a congressional staffer said.

Whether or not the Freedom's Watch ads have their intended effect, they serve a broader strategic purpose. If the group has a master plan, the ads were the first step in its next phase.

"For too long, we have been without a steady voice for mainstream conservative values," Freedom's Watch President and CEO Bradley Blakeman said in a late Tuesday e-mail announcing the ads. "As Freedom's Watch continues to build our organization, we'll need the help and support of thousands of volunteers like you."

Freedom's Watch Watch: New Veterans Day Ads Target Dems On Iraq

2007-11-13T19:10:13Z

The morning after the country observed Veterans Day, newspaper readers in seven cities woke up to full page ads blasting their local Democratic representative over the war in Iraq. "Stop the politics," the ads charge, and "fund the troops."

After two relatively quiet months, Freedom's Watch is back. The ads running today target Speaker Nancy Pelosi and seven freshman House Democrats, and mirror a $15 million television ad campaign launched this past summer.

They are timed, a Freedom's Watch spokesman said, to pressure the House members to vote against upcoming legislation that would set a goal for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"Freedom's Watch believes members in these districts need to be held accountable for their upcoming vote on funding our troops," said spokesman Matt David in an e-mail to the Huffington Post. "Constituents in these districts deserve more than partisan politics when it comes to funding our troops. It is time for Congress to show resolve, to put aside politics and to unite behind victory."

Like earlier Freedom's Watch TV commercials, the print ads feature a dour Marine Sgt. Andrew Robinson, who is a paraplegic after falling victim to a June 2006 improvised explosive device attack in Iraq.

The ads feature an open letter claiming that "Violence is dropping dramatically, casualties are way down, and stability is becoming a reality" to argue that the U.S. should continue fighting.

In fact, as the non-partisan Government Accountability Office reported to Congress in October, recent reports of reductions in violence in Iraq are "not taking into consideration that there might be fewer attacks because you have ethnically cleansed neighborhoods."

Additionally, news reports last week indicated that US fatalities in 2007 had reached an all time high, although US forces experienced the third lowest fatality count of the war during October.

Finally, political stability continues to be elusive. As an example, the State Department's Iraq Weekly Status Report for November 7 reported that the Iraqi government had "accused the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of subverting hydrocarbons legislation after the KRG signed several new oil exploration deals with foreign companies this week." The report warned that this move "threatened national reconciliation."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee slammed the ads for being inaccurate.

"We expect these kind of misleading attacks distorting Democrats' records early and often from national groups who are aligned with George Bush and do the anemic NRCC's bidding," said Communications Director Jennifer Crider. "No amount of spin can change our support for the troops and the fact the American people strongly support responsibly redeploying our troops from Iraq."

The full ad can be seen after the jump. It ran in the districts of Reps. Nancy Boyda (KS), Chris Carney (PA), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Tim Mahoney (FL), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Jerry McNerney (CA), and Zach Space (OH).

A version of this ad ran in the following papers on Tuesday morning: The Arizona Republic, The Sacramento Bee, The Palm Beach Post, Evansville Courier & Press, Topeka Capital-Journal, The Columbus Dispatch, The [Scranton] Times-Tribune.

Giuliani Advisors: We'll Win The Nomination In February

2007-11-12T16:29:58Z

The top campaign staffers for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani want everyone to ignore the significant leads that ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has in Iowa and New Hampshire. They say the Republican presidential hopeful will race to a triple-digit delegate lead after the February 5 "super primary" when 20 states will have their primaries, including a number of large states that use "winner take all" rules to assign delegates.

"Conventional wisdom has never guided this campaign," said Michael DuHaime, the Giuliani Campaign Manager during a Monday morning conference call.

DuHaime argued that it was not Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina that would point the way to the winner, but Florida because those states assign a small number of delegates to the Republican National Convention.

"Whoever wins Florida will have a delegate lead," DuHaime argued. "If you look to February 5, there are 1,038 delegates available, and regardless of how the early states line up, it shakes out very well for us."

DuHaime went on to say that Giuliani was leading in states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware. Winning these states, he said, would give more than 250 delegates to Giuliani.

"It's most likely looking at the Mayor having a triple digit delegate count lead coming out of February 5," he added.

What remains to be seen is whether Giuliani's aides are engaging in wishful thinking, or identifying the eventual undoing of Iowa and New Hampshire's primacy in the nation's early electoral process.

Democrats' New Bill Gives Blackwater, Contractors Six Months Notice In Iraq

2007-11-09T18:26:03Z

A group of House members and one Senator came together on Tuesday to introduce the "Stop Outsourcing Security Act," a bill that will give pink slips to private security guards employed by contractors like Blackwater USA in Iraq and other settings.

"Our bill would essentially put private security contractors out of business in Iraq, Afghanistan and in war zones around the world," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in a press release. "Private contracting companies have forfeited their right to represent the United States because their reckless actions have jeopardized our mission in Iraq, put our troops in harms way, and resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many innocent Iraqi civilians."

Schakowsky and nine Democratic colleagues introduced the bill, H.R. 4102, on Tuesday. Staff for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) confirmed to the Huffington Post on Thursday that the senator is currently seeking co-sponsors before introducing a companion measure in the Senate.

The bill has three main sections. First, it gives the State Department six months to replace all private security contractors it employs in Iraq with federal employees. Second, by mid-2008, the president must report on efforts to turn over all private security activities to federal employees by 2009 in places where Congress has authorized the use of force. Finally, the bill requires government agencies to grant access to all contracts for private security activities worth more than $5 million.

The House measure was referred to three committees for further consideration: Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, and Intelligence. Staff for Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) said the bill would get a fair hearing, but that the congressman had no reaction to the legislation at this time.

Still, the bill could face fierce fights in the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. While an overwhelming number of Republicans voted to support recent legislation that would apply US criminal law to contractors operating overseas, thirty voted against it, including the ranking Republicans on those two committees: Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), respectively.

Staff in the Committee on Foreign Affairs also questioned whether provisions of the bill would already be carried out by the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations bill, which was just passed Thursday afternoon in the House of Representatives. For instance, the defense bill requires the Secretary of Defense to establish minimum standards for contracted security personnel.

But staff for Senator Sanders responded that the appropriations bill would not cover the State Department, and that the new legislation focuses on, "precluding contractors from doing security/military work in war zones."

Rep. Schakowsky also argued earlier in the week that it wasn't enough to regulate contractors.

"We are beyond the point of trying to hold these contractors accountable under the law; it is time to return vital military functions back to the government," she said.

This point seemed to be underscored by recent debates between senators and the Bush administration over legislation passed last month in the House to apply US criminal law to security contractors. Earlier this week, the Huffington Post reported on difficulties in producing a version of the legislation in the Senate that the White House and Justice Department would accept. While Democratic senators had hoped to introduce their version of the bill this week, senate staff Friday confirmed that sticking points in the negotiations continued to delay its timely completion.

While the fate of Schakowsky's legislation in the Congress remained unclear, it seems possible that the contractors themselves themselves might not put up a strong fight against the bill. While it remained unclear if companies like Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy that operate in Iraq for the State Department would lobby agianst Schakowsky's bill, an expert on security contractors suggested that these companies may be ready to move on to other business activities because of the pitfalls of their work in war zones.

"As to its business, Blackwater has shown an interest in other areas than the diplomatic security field," said Peter Singer, an expert on private security companies at the Brookings Institution, in an interview the previous week. "They are looking to shifting from services to manufacturing, like a mine resistant armed personnel vehicle, and they've also shown interest in border security services with the new training center they'd like to build on the west coast. Whether or not they lose this contract, it does not mean they'll disappear."

Obama Refers To "Social Security Crisis"

2007-11-09T17:50:34Z

In an interview yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) explicitly used the word "crisis" in reference to Social Security, seemingly contradicting a progressive refrain that such talk is a red herring advanced by proponents of privatization.

"You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis," Obama told the National Journal. "I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her."

Less than two weeks ago, Obama seemed to take the opposite position. "I absolutely agree that Social Security is not in crisis," he said during the most recent Democratic debate.

Yet Obama has frequently addressed what he describes as a Social Security funding shortfall, which many experts say is overstated. "I can't understand how Obama can be this out of touch," economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote recently. "As a political matter, I don't understand why he would essentially try to undermine the first big victory progressives won against the Bush administration and the rightward tilt of the Beltway consensus."

Obama's campaign insisted that the senator was not identifying a crisis in Social Security, and that he has consistently opposed privatization. But it also delivered a veiled shot at Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for not addressing the issue in detail.

Obama "believes the Social Security solvency shortfall is a real but manageable problem, and he has laid out a specific plan for addressing it," the spokeman told the Huffington Post in a statement. "Instead of avoiding tough subjects and taking different positions in front of different audiences, Barack Obama believes that presidential candidates should be clear with the American people about the challenges we face."

That wasn't good enough for fellow campaign rival Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), whose campaign said in a statement: "It is, frankly, irresponsible to say there is a 'Social Security crisis' when there are those who are looking to pounce on such characterizations as a justification for privatization."

Romney Keeps Up Tough Immigration Message After Joining Univision Debate

2007-11-09T15:32:15Z

Mitt Romney announced last night that he would attend a debate broadcast in Spanish on the Univision network. The December 9 debate follows an earlier event that was canceled in September after only Senator John McCain and Rep. Duncan Hunter agreed to participate. Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani will also join the newly rescheduled debate.

Some pundits have already speculated that the Republican frontrunners would climb down from their fierce anti-illegal immigration positions to steady the waters they'll be heading into in Miami. Take Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democrat Network, who wrote, "There is simply no way to read this action as anything but a national repudiation of their extreme anti-immigrant strategy of recent years, and a desperate attempt to beg the Hispanic community for forgiveness."

But if Mitt Romney's new TV commercial released this morning is any evidence, he's trying his best to send a message of tough love, or no love at all:

"We all know Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have it wrong on illegal immigration.

"Our party should not make that mistake. [...]

"As President, I'll oppose amnesty, cut funding for sanctuary cities and secure our borders.

The 30 second spot is running in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Blackwater-Linked Figure No Longer WIth Penn's Firm

2007-11-08T19:20:15Z

The top adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign says that an executive who brought heightened scrutiny to the public relations giant he runs by helping out Blackwater USA is no longer with his firm.

During an appearance on the public radio show Fair Game, Marc Penn was asked about Burson-Marsteller, of which he is CEO, accepting a contract from Blackwater USA in the aftermath of the September killing of 17 civilians in Baghdad.

"I'm not working on those clients," Penn responded. "The Blackwater was actually I think either a nine-day or two week assignment by somebody who had a personal relationship with them, who actually doesn't continue to work at the firm. And so there are 2,000 clients. I'm really focused on some of the management, but really my focus is on Senator Clinton's campaign."

The Huffington Post confirmed with a Burson-Marsteller spokesman that Penn was referring to Robert Tappan. News reports last month noted that Tappan, a former top official in the State Department's public affairs bureau, had brought the Blackwater contract to a Burson-Marsteller lobbying subsidiary, BKSH, through personal connections.

Tappan had been with Burson-Marsteller since July 2006. But the Burson-Marsteller spokesman said that Tappan had not been fired.

"Rob left the firm on his own volition," he noted. Tappan has signed on as president of the public affairs department at Weber Merritt.

White House Trying To Limit Reach Of Criminal Law On Blackwater, Contractors

2007-11-08T16:00:40Z

A tug of war has broken out between Congress and the Bush administration over legislation that would put private security contractors on a shorter legal leash.

The White House and Justice Department are trying to limit the reach of U.S. criminal law on Blackwater and other private war contractors. With a potential veto threat looming, several senators now want to alter the bill in a way that satisfies both the Bush administration and members of the House of Representatives, who overwhelmingly passed similar legislation last month.

Negotiators are continuing to work out the proposed bill's language in the hopes of introducing it before the week is out.

In the House, staff members with knowledge of discussions surrounding H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, said that while they were "encouraged" about the progress of the negotiations in the Senate, there were certain lines that could not be crossed.

"Whatever final form the bill takes, it needs to cover all contractors and the government needs to have resources in place for the investigation of all allegations of abuse," one aide told the Huffington Post. "That's the litmus test."

The Senate legislation, introduced by Barack Obama (D-IL), has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, where staff for chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have been negotiating elements of the bill to reach consensus with the White House.

Senate aides say a key sticking point has been White House objection to the particular geographic locations in which contractors' activities would fall under U.S. civilian criminal law. An administration statement said it "strongly opposes" the House bill because "the jurisdictional scope of criminal prohibitions would depend on vague notions of 'proximity' to potentially poorly defined regions, making unclear the circumstances when those who assist the United States government would be subject to the bill's criminal sanctions and raising significant Due Process concerns."

But while the Bush administration is fighting the House formula for prosecuting private war contractors, it is not clear that its opposition will make any difference. The House bill passed by a veto-proof majority, with one Republican aide saying it was difficult to vote against a bill regulating contractors after the September incident in which Blackwater employees killed 17 Iraqi civilians.

"We knew it would pass, but there were a whole host of members who wanted to vote against it, and politically, it was not the best thing to do because of Blackwater," the aide said. "We haven't heard a peep from them [about blocking the bill] on the Senate side."

And a Senate staff member told the Huffington Post that the contractors themselves would not seek to block the legislation.

"The contractors are not going to come out and oppose the bill," the aide explained. "They'd rather have some sort of crystal clear liability on the books than the murky world of regulations between the Departments of Defense and State. I think they realize that there's a gap here, and no one ever intended for contractors to get away with murder."

But the aide maintained that senators backing the bill still would prefer to have White House support.

"We're trying to come up with good policy that's workable," the staffer said. "We would like to get to the point where the administration at least won't object to what we have here."

Social Conservative Groups Mostly Silent On Robertson Endorsement

2007-11-07T20:54:55Z

Pat Robertson's endorsement this morning of Rudy Giuliani has been met with virtual radio silence from social conservative groups.

A spokeswoman at the Christian Coalition said that Robertson had made the endorsement "in his personal capacity" and so the group wasn't commenting. A spokesman at Focus On The Family similarly told us, "Anything about Pat Robertson we're not talking about." The group's leader, Rev. James Dobson, had warned last month that Christian groups might pick a third party candidate to represent social conservatives if Giuliani was nominated to head the Republican ticket.

Similarly, OneNewsNow, a news website linked to the Christian Coalition of America, published an article headlined "Pro-Family leaders mum on Robertson's endorsement of Rudy." It noted, "OneNewsNow contacted several pro-family leaders to get their reaction to the Robertson endorsement. Some did not return calls, while others said they did not want to comment."

Still, OneNewsNow's Jim Brown was able to find "a close personal friend of Robertson" who "believes the endorsement is "tragic," and that if Giuliani wins the nomination, it "will destroy the Republican Party." So you have to imagine they'll be speaking out in some way soon.

Robertson Endorses Giuliani -- Without Mentioning Abortion

2007-11-07T14:51:38Z

The morning buzz is centering on televangelist Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. Finally, Giuliani's campaign hopes to communicate, the thrice-married, traditionally socially liberal Catholic is making headway within the Christian conservative base of his party.

But wait just a minute. Look at Robertson's endorsement sent out by Giuliani's campaign:

"It is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans," said Pat Robertson. "Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today."

What's missing here? No discussion of abortion, Giuliani's ability to protect the sanctity of marriage, or even vague references to the "values" issues so important to social conservatives. Although Robertson seems to be endorsing Giuliani as an economic conservative, it's not at all clear he really believes Giuliani can connect with Christian voters on the issues of most importance to them.

Update: The Giuliani campaign released a further statement from Robertson in a press conference this morning. It focuses on national security issues and GIuliani's crime fighting work in the Reagan administration's Justice Department, but it also includes one fleck of red meat for "values voters" to mull over:

He understands the need for a conservative judiciary and with the help of the distinguished Ted Olson, who's here today, and other members of his team has assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women who share the judicial philosophy of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia.

Dems Block $70 Billion In "No-Strings" Iraq Funding -- But For How Long?

2007-11-06T23:30:11Z

Members of the House and Senate came together on Tuesday morning to work out how to fund U.S. armed forces at home and abroad. But at the end of the day, they remained largely in the dark about how Congress will ultimately proceed, particularly in regards to Iraq.

"Nobody can really pinpoint what the hell is going on," a Democratic staff member with knowledge of the defense funding negotiations told the Huffington Post Tuesday afternoon. "There's no clear path when you've got a president blocking the door, and with most Republicans willing to go along with him, there's not a lot of wiggle room."

After the morning conference meeting, House and Senate budget-makers agreed to pass $459 billion in appropriations for the Pentagon's basic operations. Members will also amend the bill on the floor to add $11.6 billion for mine-resistant armored personnel vehicles, or MRAPs. Moreover, the bill will be paired with a continuing resolution to keep the rest of the government funded through December 14, at which point Congress members will be required to take up a subsequent resolution if other pending spending bills are not yet completed. The previous continuing resolution to fund the government runs out on November 16.

But key questions remain: how and under what conditions will Congress fund U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere? Rep. David Obey (D-WI), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, insisted on Monday that he will not take up the president's emergency war budget request until early 2008. However, a gap remains between when the appropriations bill for next year kicks in and when the military's emergency funding for 2007 will run out.

Tuesday's conference meeting took up this question, with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), chairman of the Senate defense spending panel, wrangling with ranking Republican Ted Stevens (R-AK) over how best to deal with a "bridge fund" for the gap between the two budgets.

Byrd and other Democratic negotiators want to use the bridge funds as another tool to force policy changes on Iraq from President Bush. Attaching funds to an ordinary spending bill would allow Bush to continue the "horrible, misguided war in Iraq without any Congressional direction that he change course - no strings attached," Byrd's office said.

Stevens "wanted to use this opportunity to continue the status quo," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), in a Tuesday afternoon phone interview. "The way I look at it this morning is that the debate on Iraq obviously will be separate from this and this bill will not be mired down in that debate, and there was an attempt to link them through the bridge fund amendment from Sen. Stevens and he was defeated by members of his Senate subcommittee."

Another Congress member agreed.

"I'm pleased that the conference report does not include the President's request for $70 billion for Iraq," said Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), also a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, in a statement. "The President should not be allowed to sneak funding for his failed Iraq Policy, which is draining our military might and resources, into a bill intended to build up our Armed Forces."

But at the end of the day, it's unclear how the matter of the bridge funding for the Iraq war will be concluded.

"We're leaving that up to the leadership to decide," said Matthew Mazonkey, a spokesman for Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. "We hope for it to be a separate bill than the base bill, so it's not attached to the Defense Department's regular funding. It will be their call for how long and how much."

Staff for Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not follow up with the Huffington Post on what the Democratic leadership's plan would be for the bridge funding.