Meet the new Note, same as the old Note
SUMMARY: In ABC's
The Note, senior
political reporter Rick Klein wrote that "Democrats will still need to
move toward the Republican position, unless they want to shut down [Iraq] war funding." In doing so, Klein suggested that unless congressional Democrats compromise and send President Bush a bill
he finds acceptable, they will be responsible for cutting off
funding to the troops, rather than
Bush being responsible.
In the May 2 edition of ABC News' political newsletter, The Note, writing about the standoff between Congress and President Bush over funding the Iraq war, ABC News senior political reporter Rick Klein said that "Democrats will still need to move toward the Republican position, unless they want to shut down war funding" -- suggesting that unless Democrats compromise and send Bush a bill he finds acceptable, they -- not Bush -- will be responsible for "shut[ting] down war funding." Klein then quoted Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), who reportedly told the Associated Press that he thinks "the Democrats are in a box." Klein's suggestion that the burden lies on Democrats to compromise and that they will be responsible if funding is "shut down" recalls a widespread pattern, identified by Media Matters for America, of the media suggesting that Congress would be cutting off funding to the troops if it were to send Bush a bill that funds the troops but also includes provisions he objects to (which it did), rather than Bush doing the cutting off if he vetoes such a bill (which he also did).
Klein wrote:
When the posturing ends, though, Republicans are in a position to drive the debate. The simple reason: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid know they're nowhere close to being able to override a veto on the war. They may draw closer if, as Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) wants, the president has to come back for more money every few months. But the Democrats will still need to move toward the Republican position, unless they want to shut down war funding. "I think the Democrats are in a box," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-VA, told the Associated Press' Charles Babington.
Klein suggested that if Congress were to pass another spending bill that includes provisions Bush finds unacceptable, Congress would be responsible for "shut[ting] down war funding."
In the same edition of The Note, titled "Veto Day: The Fallout," Klein also claimed that the standoff between Bush and Congress over war funding symbolized a "polarized country" with each party's political base driving Congress and the White House further apart:
It took nearly four months, but the White House and congressional Democrats finally got the showdown they wanted -- and have ended up just where they started. House Democrats will try and fail to override President Bush's veto of the war funding bill this morning, and congressional leaders will meet with the president at the White House at 2:25 pm ET to discuss the next step.
Behind the standoff is the political reality of a polarized country -- and the parties' bases are pushing the executive and legislative branches in opposite directions. That's why both the president and Democratic leaders were so eager to grab photo-ops yesterday, conveying very different messages. Don't expect an agreement out of today's meeting; both sides know there's no constituency for compromise.
But contrary to Klein's suggestion, it is not just the Democratic base that is pushing for a timeline to withdraw from Iraq. In fact, recent polling indicates that a majority of the country, not just the Democrats' "base," favors withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. An April 20-24 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 64 percent of respondents said that the United States should "set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008," while 32 percent said it should not. The same poll also found that 57 percent said Congress "should have the final say about troop levels in Iraq," while 35 percent said the president should.
An April 20-23 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 56 percent of those polled agreed with "Democrats in Congress, who say we should set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq." Thirty-seven percent agreed with "President Bush, who says we should NOT set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq." Moreover, in an April 12-15 Washington Post/ABC News poll, 51 percent of respondents said that the United States should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, while 48 percent said it should not set a deadline. The same poll found that 51 percent of respondents said they supported "legislation that would continue funding for the war, but also set a deadline of no later than August 2008, for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq"; 46 percent opposed it.
Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert recently wrote that Mark Halperin asked to leave his position as ABC News political director and author of The Note to become an ABC News analyst. After several weeks, The Note has debuted its new format, without Halperin in charge.
Why am I here ?
Ummm, because you are smart and sexy?
Klein also called Democrats "isolationists" in this week's issue of Time magazine, even though Democrats are for multilateralism while conservatives seek unilateral, pre-emptive strikes without even having good intelligence on a given threat.
MMFA should post an article about this other instance of Joe Klein's stupidity. He said,
That's also a courageous statement, given his populist constituency (John Edward's constituency, that is), which tends toward isolationism.
Read whole article.
Did miss something or are Rick Klein and Joe klein the same person?
Oh well. The confusion helped me find disinformation from another Klein. Isn't that great?
Also in this same, stellar edition of The Note, we get the Breaking News that John Edwards is now getting $12 haircuts.
At last our long, national nightmare is over.
If i recall correctly, Nov 7, 2006 indicated republicans should move toward the democratic position, that includes diplomatic efforts.
The Iraq funding issue is getting some nutty spin in righty world.
I tuned into Der Rushbo for a bit this am, and he had some bizarre, convoluted rant as to how the Dems are "painting themselves into a corner" with the war. I'm going to see if I can break it down;
Democrats want the U.S. to "lose the war" (in Iraq or On Terror, he wasn't clear)
Democrats want the U.S. to "lose the War" before '08, so that it will "appear " to be a loss for Bush.
Democrats, through some sort of dastardly mass hypnosis, are trying to frame the war as Bush's war.
If the Dems win in '08, they must cut funding,retreat immediately and surrender from Iraq, or there will be massive bloody demonstrations.
If any dittohead posters can clarify, that would be terrific.
Did anyone hear Keith Olbermann's coverage of Bush's stupendously stupid and misleading comments about Iraq and 9/11 and Al Qaeda?
Will someone PLEASE tell Bush that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not "Al Qaeda"? Al Qaeda is the group that plotted and planned the 9/11 attacks. The Al Qaeda in Iraq group is different people. That group (AQiI) is only in Iraq because we invaded Iraq. Their attacks in Iraq aren't stopping them from attacking us here. Just like we can talk about differing issues at the same time, they can attack us in different areas at the same time too if they so wish.
Here's some of the comments by Bush! You won't believe them! Or, then again, maybe you will! Dana Milbank's article for the Washington Post says "It's all about Al Qaeda again". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202305.html?hpid=topnews
In a speech about Iraq yesterday morning at the Willard Hotel, the president mentioned Osama bin Laden's group -- 27 times. "For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11," Bush told a group of construction contractors.
"The primary reason for the high level of violence is this: Al-Qaeda has ratcheted up its campaign of high-profile attacks," Bush disclosed.
The man who four years ago admitted "no evidence" of an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks now finds solid evidence of a role in Iraq by the Sept. 11 hijackers.
"I don't need to remind you who al-Qaeda is," Bush reminded. "Al-Qaeda is the group that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens."
This new line of argument would seem to present some difficulty for the White House, and not only because, as the Pentagon inspector general reported last month, al-Qaeda had no ties to Iraq before the U.S. invasion in 2003.
“Al Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq."
"The primary reason for the high level of violence is this: al Qaeda has ratcheted up its campaign of high-profile attacks, including deadly suicide bombers carried out by foreign terrorists. In the past three weeks, al Qaeda has sent suicide bombers into the Iraqi parliament."
"The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens."
No, it's not the same bunch, Mr President, and it's shameful that you would try to mislead people in such a manner!
Here's the link to the full speech from the White House press release.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070502-2.html
Hannity went on a rant about how it was morally reprehensible for the Dems to attach strings to the funding and and they should just pull it altogether if they don't like the war. Which would of course put the blame only on the Dems. I guess it's morally reprehensible for the Dems to outsmart Bush.
Cheney outsmarted Bush .
I didn't realize that 64 percent of the American people are in the Democrats' base. How big does that make the Democratic Party overall?
Sad part is that the Democrats are already saying they will give Bush a funding bill without any timetables involved. It was all a political con game to make Bush look bad while NOT doing anything to end the war crime.
Demo-conned again, America. And the bodies continue to be flown home to Dover AFB.
Is it me RedKing or do you not have a grasp on majority power vs presidential veto?
The majority party in power NOW is the democrats. Yes. However, the majority they hold is NOT enough to override a presidential veto. Period. They did their best, pork barrel spending (most ACTUALLY necessary) and all to put forth a reasonable plan for the troops to come home soon. The president vetoed it and they couldn't stop him from doing that. Now I blame the president defunding the withdrawl funding bill and allowing this charade to continue.
---"And the bodies continue to be flown home to Dover AFB."---
And with the stroke of his pen, Bush ensures it.