Washington Extra – Obama’s China cloud
A bright spot of Barack Obama’s presidency – foreign policy – all of a sudden was taking some hits as the White House struggled to deal with a crisis involving a Chinese dissident.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney blasted away at Obama, talking of a “day of shame for the Obama administration.” Charges – vigorously denied by the White House – swirled that Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng may have been persuaded to leave his protective shelter at the U.S. embassy in Beijing so that high-level U.S.-China talks could go more smoothly. Another scenario being floated was that Obama’s team naively accepted Chinese assurances that Chen would not face government harassment if he rejoined his family at home.
The drama only escalated when Chen himself made an appeal, by telephone to a congressional panel, to come to the U.S.
Obama’s bid for re-election on Nov. 6 is thought to hinge on matters far from China: mainly whether he can convince voters that he is best suited to improve a U.S. economy that has been slow to add jobs in the aftermath of a deep recession. And that’s where Romney and his fellow Republicans are sure to keep most of their focus between now and November.
But today, Obama might have seen Romney’s attacks coming, as well as Chinese officials’ complaints of meddling in the Chen affair. He just may not have expected the stinging criticisms that emerged from some human rights groups.
Here are our top stories from Washington…
Washington Extra – ‘Wild ride’ ends
The sharpest debater in the 2012 field of Republican presidential candidates exited the race touting a hodgepodge of initiatives that made his failed race so colorful.
“Suspending the campaign does not mean suspending citizenship,” Newt Gingrich warned in his long-awaited announcement that he was quitting. He then ticked off the vision of America he will continue to pursue as a private citizen:
His fabled U.S. colony on the Moon, holograms in houses, cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, not to mention a national energy policy/balanced budget that would free the United States from “radical Islam, Saudi kings and Chinese bondholders.”
The bombastic former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives brought an element of unpredictability to the Republican presidential nominating contest. His come-from-behind victory in South Carolina in January briefly led some to wonder whether Mitt Romney really could be knocked off.
Not so. As primary defeats began to pile up, Gingrich’s campaign became less about his big ideas and more about the St. Louis zoo penguin who had the nerve to peck at the hand of this notorious animal lover.
“It was a truly wild ride,” a tired-looking Gingrich said as he bowed out, refusing to answer reporters’ questions.
Here are our top stories from Washington…
Romney looks to give Bernanke the boot
“I’d be looking for somebody new.”
Those words from the U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney may give Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke some pause – or at least thinking about some other job prospects if the GOP frontrunner wins the Nov. 6 election.
As we report, Romney, a former business executive who’s made the economy the cornerstone of his campaign, has made it clear that if he wins the White House he will try to replace Bernanke. The Fed chief’s term ends in January 2014 – a year after the next president takes office. Although Bernanke was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, Democratic President Barack Obama give him second term in 2009.
Bernanke, who was back in the spotlight on Wednesday as he defended current U.S. monetary as being on track, has been both vilified and revered for his role amid the Great Recession that began in 2008. Critics contend he is pursuing a reckless money-printing binge that exposes the world’s largest economy to a dangerous inflation risks while his defenders credit him with bold moves to stimulate growth that prevented a repeat of 1929-level depression.
Romney is signaling he wants the Fed – and the economy — to take a different direction. And that means giving Bernanke the boot, he says.
Getting rid of Bernanke would be about as clueless as every other portion of Romney’s economic incompetence. He didn’t even move into Bain – with other people doing the investing – until he had a 100% salary guarantee in case he screwed up.
The man has the courage of the average bear – none! He has the competence of today’s Republican Party – none!
Part of the success story of the stimulus package has shown up around the country in basic manufacturing industries and continues. Half the credit goes to the halfway measures Obama was able to force past the Party of No – before it became the Party of Never. The other half goes to Bernanke and the availability of greenbacks for industrial revival.
Ohio steel being the best example. Unemployment down to 7.5% in that state.
Washington Extra – Moonshot no more
Earth calling Newt: When the biggest news of your presidential campaign is the penguin biting your hand at the zoo, it’s probably time to pack it in.
Even though Newt Gingrich’s odds of winning the Republican nomination were about as long as those of realizing his dream for a moon colony, the 68-year-old seemed to enjoy himself to the end. “I never got the sense that he was quote-unquote down,” said adviser Charlie Gerow. “I got the sense on a couple of occasions that he was tired. Really tired.” And really in debt. His campaign spent $4.3 million more than it brought in.
For all his offbeat ideas, Gingrich did bring a dose of seriousness to this campaign. With some stellar debate performances and a deep knowledge of politics and history, he probably made Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum study more and work harder to win support.
Members of the media, targets of some of his most vicious attacks, may not miss Newt much. But there’s no denying that, for the world of news, Gingrich was the gift that kept on giving, right up to his encounter with a penguin.
Here are our top stories from Washington…
US high court appears to back Arizona on immigration – Conservative justices who hold a majority on the Supreme Court appeared to endorse Arizona’s immigration crackdown, rejecting the Obama administration stance that the federal government has sole power over those who illegally enter the United States. During 80 minutes of oral arguments, the justices suggested by their questions and comments that states have significant latitude to adopt laws that discourage illegal immigrants from moving to and staying in the country. For more of this story by James Vicini and Joan Biskupic, read here.
Washington Extra – Gift of the gas
After negotiating a tricky stretch of road, the Obama campaign may be easing into the straightaway in the gas-driven presidential race.
News on Monday of a delay in the planned closure of the largest refinery on the East Coast could mean an end to skyrocketing gas prices. And that would effectively take the wind out of a forceful Republican line of attack — that the president is to be blamed for $4 a gallon gas, arguably the most visible price in the American economy today.
The narrative was working against the president, who currently gets some of his lowest poll marks for his handling of energy prices, even though the causes of higher prices are largely beyond his control. Even so, we shouldn’t expect the Republicans to simply drop the rhetoric.
“Until we are at the point where people don’t feel like they’re squeezing their entire paychecks into the gas tank, it’s an issue that Republicans are going to keep talking about,” said a Senate Republican aide.
Here are our top stories from Washington…
Signs of cheaper gas could brighten Obama campaign – New signs of lower gas prices could give a boost to President Obama’s re-election hopes and blunt a potent weapon that Republicans have used to attack him. News of a month long delay in the planned closure of the largest refinery on the East Coast was the latest indication sky-rocketing gasoline prices may have peaked. Industry experts say keeping Sunoco’s Philadelphia refinery open will ease supply concerns and help underpin a gradual decline in gasoline prices during the summer. For more of this story by Alister Bull, read here.
No privilege for most stay-at-home moms -poll
The recent flap over women voters — especially stay-at-home mothers — has sent both Republican and Democratic pundits scrambling and with good reason: many stay-at-home moms aren’t affiliated with either party and are a ripe target for swing votes, a new poll shows.
The survey from Gallup Inc also finds that moms who don’t work aren’t exactly a pampered lot, despite Ann Romney – the wife of a multi-millionaire businessman – being portrayed as their standard bearer. It found most moms who stay home are more economically disadvantaged than their working peers.
Women with more education and those with higher family incomes are far more likely to work after having children than lower-income women and those who have less schooling, the polling firm found.
“It does appear that stay-at-home mothers are more economically disadvantaged than working mothers, rather than more advantaged. And this may be directly related to education,” Gallup said in its poll released this week.
The dust-up over whether women who don’t work and instead stay home with their children are privileged arose last week when Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen made comments that seemed to criticize Ann Romney, whose husband Mitt is one of the wealthiest people to ever seek the U.S. presidency and who has never been employed outside her home.
According to Gallup, which interviewed more than 45,000 U.S. adult women over three months earlier this year, most mothers with children under age 18 work outside the home — 63 percent. Thirty-seven percent stay home.
The survey found 84 percent of moms with young kids who have postgraduate-level education also have a job along with 75 percent of college graduates and 66 percent of those with just some college coursework. That compares with 48 percent of those who have at most a high school education.
Washington Extra – Going to the dogs
It’s now official: The presidential campaign is going to the dogs. And like a lot of things this election year, it’s doing so via Twitter.
For months, aides to Republican Mitt Romney have tried to live down the much-publicized tale of the Romney family’s trip to Canada in 1983, when Romney transported the family dog, Seamus, in a crate that was strapped to the top of the car. The episode, in which the dog lost control of his bowels, has been lampooned by Democrats who have portrayed Romney as an uncaring former corporate executive.
David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Democratic President Barack Obama, used Twitter to post a photo of his boss and the Obama family dog, riding inside the presidential limousine.
“How loving owners transport their dogs,” Axelrod wrote.
Late Tuesday the Republicans struck back on the dog front – and did so in a way that reflected how the Romney and Obama campaigns are using Twitter, often several times a day, to throw verbal darts at each other.
After The Daily Caller, a conservative news website, reminded its audience that in his book “Dreams from My Father,” Obama had described being fed dog meat when he was living in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom re-tweeted Axelrod’s photo of Obama and Bo but added a new caption: “In hindsight, a chilling photo.”
Thus began a night of dog-themed political chatter on Twitter, which both campaigns say has quickly become a crucial vehicle for delivering their messages – whether they involve serious policy issues, or, well, other stuff.
Washington Extra – The Romney Doctrine?
When it comes to U.S. presidents and foreign policy, it’s always been a matter of what they do during crises, rather than what they say on the campaign trail.
Running for president in 2000, George W. Bush campaigned against “nation building.” But the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, changed everything, and Bush wound up launching an invasion of Iraq that led to a decade-long war and redefined U.S. foreign policy.
Now, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is talking tough on foreign policy – and seeking to cast Democratic President Barack Obama as naïve and soft. Romney is promising a “more aggressive” approach toward China, Russia and the Middle East. He says he would swiftly brand Beijing a currency manipulator, refuse to concede to Moscow on nuclear issues and put more emphasis on defending Israel from a potential attack by Iran.
Romney says he would ratchet up the financial pressure on Iran through sanctions, while leaving the option of military action on the table. His campaign clearly wants to give the impression that he might prove more willing than Obama to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program.
So would an attack on Iran really be more likely under a Romney administration? That’s unclear.
What is clear is that this is the campaign season, and that Romney’s rhetoric is an effort to diminish Obama’s foreign policy accomplishments, which – as Democrats will remind you – include killing al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. And while Romney is defining a decidedly hawkish foreign policy, it remains uncertain how he would tackle what his own website calls a “bewildering array of threats and opportunities.”
Bush ran on rhetoric and nation building. Once elected Bush did what was always his plan and that was pre-emptive attack. Obama ran on nation building and has proven that is his foreign policy. Romney has since the beginning of his run this time surrounded himself by Bush advisors, operatives, etc. Romney’s foreign policy of the Romney doctrin is the same as GWBush Doctrin and that is pre-emptive attack. Pre-emptive attack also pre-emptively increases the size of government, increases the deficit, un-justified costs as they are pre-emptive, and increases the defense budget with outside contractors. Romney’s domestic policy also mirrors GWBush policy. Trickle down economics no matter how you cut it. It also focuses solely on cuts and not revenue building. Cuts to the safety net, cuts to most domestic programs. Investments all in defense or defense related areas. I didn’t deem Romney qualified as the GOP nominee in 2008 and I do not now.
Washington Extra – Tea Party poopers
All that Tea Party support in 2010 for the 87 House Republican freshmen seems to have come with a price — and now it’s time to collect.
Representative Michael Grimm found his office filled with activists wanting to know why he hadn’t done more to slash government spending and why he had voted to raise the U.S. debt limit. He too is frustrated, the former Marine told them, but you just can’t shut down government and stop paying the soldiers.
There is Tea Party talk that the freshmen have become corrupted by Washington and part of the bureaucratic fabric that they very much despise. By one account, two-thirds of the freshmen have compromised while only 20 or so have maintained the zero tolerance Tea Party line on spending.
Alas, the Tea Party could end up giving the Republican freshman class of 2010 more grief than the Democrats heading toward the November elections. If 2010 was the year the Tea Party emerged as a political force in Washington, 2012 will be the year that determines whether the movement can live with itself on Capitol Hill.
Here are our top stories from Washington…
Lawyer behind Super PAC ruling launches his own
The conservative lawyer who helped end political spending limits for corporations has now taken advantage of new campaign finance rules that allow “Super PACs” by launching one of his own.
Republican James Bopp, who advised Citizens United in its case to eliminate restrictions on campaign contributions by companies and unions, filed paper work last week with the U.S. Federal Election Commission to create his USA Super PAC.
The move opens the door for the Republican National Committee vice chairman to help boost Mitt Romney just as he solidifies his lead in the party’s primary fight.
Bopp had been the legal muscle for a Super PAC for Romney’s main rival Rick Santorum, called Leaders for Families, but threw his support behind the wealthy former businessman in February. Santorum suspended his campaign on Tuesday.
The Indiana lawyer represents a number of conservative clients including the National Right to Life Committee and Focus on the Family, so his PAC could help steer donations from the more Evangelical wing of the Republican Party. It might also attract former Santorum supporters.
Still, it’s not clear who will donate to one of the latest PACs to emerged since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs. FEC or how Bopp will use its funds. Calls to his law firm were directed to his cell phone, which did not allow a voicemail. He did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
Hat tip to Reuters reporter Alexander Cohen.
And so we continue to have the best government money can buy. What ever happened to People who went into politics to serve their country.
Now they simply go into Politics to get rich.
