Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Election Central Morning Roundup

Election Central Morning Roundup

By Eric Kleefeld and Benjy Sarlin - August 29, 2007, 9:33AM

Report: White House To Ask For $50 Billion More For Iraq
President Bush is reportedly going to ask Congress for an additional $50 billion in spending for the Iraq War. The announcement will come soon after General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker give their testimony to Congress — based around the idea that Congress won't be able to turn down the request after they've heard good news from those two officials.

Tim Johnson Addresses South Dakota
At a rally yesterday in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) thanked the people of his state for their support and patience, having been out of action in Congress since a near-fatal brain hemorrhage last December. "My commitment to you for my second chance at life is to make you and all South Dakotans the beneficiary of that gift," Johnson said.

RNC Planning Sanctions Against Five Primary States
The Republican National Committee is planning to strip at least half the delegates from five states — Florida, Michigan, Wyoming, South Carolina and New Hampshire — because of those states moving their primary dates ahead of the GOP's officially sanctioned calendar. A lingering question, however, is whether this is actually consistent with Republican doctrines. After all, they don't think sanctions work — the answer should be to invade and occupy the offending states.

Edwards Calls On Americans To Give Up SUV's
Ask not what your car can do for you but what your car can do for your country. John Edwards told an audience at a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Tuesday that he would ask Americans to stop driving sport utility vehicles. "I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said. "One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles."

Leading GOP Candidates Skip Lance Armstrong's Cancer Forum
Top-tier GOP candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and others declined to attend Tuesday's Livestrong Cancer Forum, leaving only Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback to discuss their views on combatting the disease. The Democratic forum on Monday drew a somewhat larger crowd — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich participated.

Huckabee Would Expand Anti-Smoking Laws
GOP candidate Mike Huckabee, participating in the Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum in Iowa, told the audience that he would sign a federal law banning smoking in public places. Many state and local governments have enacted similar laws, including New York and California. Huckabee said that his wife's battle against cancer in the 1970s has influenced his perspective on fighting the disease.

Republicans Ask: Can It Get Worse?
Republican strategists are wondering, in the wake of the Larry Craig scandal, just how bad their party's image can possibly get. "There is an expectation that leaders who espouse family values will live by those values," said Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. "And while the values voters don't demand perfection, I do believe they want leaders with integrity."

Comments (24)

someparisian wrote on August 29, 2007 9:46 AM:

the answer should be to invade and occupy the offending states.

oh, man. that's classic.

Aexia wrote on August 29, 2007 9:56 AM:

Both parties have a common interest in not seeing the nominating process thrown into chaos by states playing hopscotch on the calendar.

At least we shouldn't have to endure anymore hand-wringing over penalizing a swing state for breaking the rules they agreed to.

goethean wrote on August 29, 2007 10:22 AM:

"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said. "One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles."

Edwards is in aerospace if he thinks he's going to get any Americans to part with their monster trucks. They'd rather re-elect Bush.

acallidryas wrote on August 29, 2007 10:26 AM:

"And while the values voters don't demand perfection, I do believe they want leaders with integrity."

When did that standard start?

hwc wrote on August 29, 2007 10:33 AM:

Does anyone know why Barack Obama joined Guiliani, Romney, and McCain in skipping the Iowa cancer forum?

corinne wrote on August 29, 2007 10:37 AM:

Does anyone know why Barack Obama joined Guiliani, Romney, and McCain in skipping the Iowa cancer forum?

I think it's part of the larger plan to only attend forums/debates that are offically DNC sponsored.

mopper wrote on August 29, 2007 10:43 AM:

Yeah, corinne has it right: he gave out a blanket "no" to any forum to which he had not yet committed, including the cancer forum.

benjoya wrote on August 29, 2007 11:20 AM:

he gave out a blanket "no" to any forum to which he had not yet committed,

actually, i think he specified, as corinne wrote, that going forward he would only attend events sponsored (or co-sponsored) by the DNC.

sdhays wrote on August 29, 2007 11:37 AM:

... the answer should be to invade and occupy the offending states.

Well, actually, shouldn't the answer be to invade and occupy a state that is nearish to the offending state and had "a relationship" with that state?

RonK, Seattle wrote on August 29, 2007 12:14 PM:

"There is an expectation that leaders who espouse family values will live by those values"???

Um, no. There is an expectation that leaders who espouse family values will later be discovered to be leading double lives.

mopper wrote on August 29, 2007 12:25 PM:

benjoya--that was reported, but it was inaccurate.

The Trail got it right:

So after Sunday's nationally televised debate on ABC, he will stick to only the five official debates, two Iowa panels and a Spanish-language event, Plouffe wrote.

As he had already committed to those 3 events. So he'll be at 8 debates/candidate forums from here on out: the 5 DNC-sanctioned events, and the 3 to which he'd already committed.

The Trail

donna wrote on August 29, 2007 12:43 PM:

I continue to think there is something not authentic about Edwards. Last time around he ran as a centrist and supporter of the war -- the darling of the DLC establishment, Bill Clinton Jr. Now that these folks are forced (not using that word casually) to support Hillary, Edwards has no where to go except to appear to outflank Obama on the left. What he has settled on is truly disturbing. We are witnessing a return to old-style southern populism. While not overtly racist or sexist, he clearly implies it by making a direct emotional appeal to angry downscale white voters -- the "forgotten" ones. This is not about policies -- Edwards policies are not vastly different from the other dems. No, this is all about image and a glimpse into what his governing style will be -- us against them.

The populist techinique is to find an obvious enemy who stands as the reason for all your targeted voters' woes. In Edwards' case he focuses on the fat, rich, corporate thieves that are stealing your kid's food and giving your jobs to the third world. Edwards poses as the one who can personally battle against this demon FOR YOU because he is strong and brave and you need HIM. No one else cares like he does -- promise.

Now substitute "Corporate Thieves" for "Islamic Terrorists" and Edwards for Bush and you will get an idea about how this strategy works -- just two sides of the same coin. It works not just because there may be truth to the argument -- but because the manner in which the message is delivered stirs such strong, blinding emotions. As Michelle Obama pointed out recently, its hard for people to think clearly when they are in the grip of fear -- and I would add as it applies to Edwards -- anger.

Contrast this with Barack Obama's message. "I am here because of you" "We have to do this together." "We can disagree without being disagreeable." He is trying to help people to think, emphathize and work with each other to find common cause and solutions to our problems.

So we have a serious choice here for what direction we want our government to take. We can choose rage like Edwards is pedalling, or we can continue with the status quo of fear like Hillary and the republicans are advocating, or we can choose to bring our creative intellect forward and figure out constructive ways to work for our shared future at home and in the world.

P.S. Regarding Edward's call for driving more fuel efficient vehicles -- where exactly was he last election when we were going to war in Iraq over oil? Did he even recognize that oil dependence was/is one of our most important national security issues? I know he didn't take this issue seriously because I made a personal, direct appeal to his DLC advisor -- and was basically told that no one cared about this issue. By the way, the conversation took place in this fellow's SUV!

goethean wrote on August 29, 2007 6:17 PM:

While not overtly racist or sexist, he clearly implies it by making a direct emotional appeal to angry downscale white voters -- the "forgotten" ones.

I'm no Edwards supporter, but...huh?

Ross Best wrote on August 29, 2007 7:43 PM:

And now, class, you will write an essay on the following theme: "How is John Edwards like Adolf Hitler?"

donna wrote on August 29, 2007 8:15 PM:

A couple of weeks ago, Elizabeth Edwards whined that John wasn't getting due coverage from the press because is not black or a woman.

This week, Edwards says he is more electable --not by arguing that his policies are so much better (they are very similar to Obama's and somewhat similar to Hillary's) but because he claims only he is capable of carrying the South and of appealing to white rural men. That's code for folks who wouldn't consider voting for a woman or a black man because of race or gender. If you follow the comment sections on political blogs, you will soon begin to notice that one of the main arguments of Edwards supporters is that a black man can't win the presidency and that Hillary is a bitch.

I posted a similar version of my anti-populist screed on marc ambinder's blog and was responded to by several Edwards's supporters who made sure to point out that this country will not elect a black president. My fave was some guy whose ID is "rebelfriend."

If you want some more insight into how Edwards plays the race card check out:

www.thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com

mopper wrote on August 29, 2007 9:44 PM:

I have to agree with donna on one thing, whether or not Edwards is actively courting them, he certainly is accumulating if not out-right racists themselves, then condescending elitists who take the rest of the country to be racist.

And I quote:

I'm sorry, but the numbers for Barack Obama are a joke. I don't know of any honest, thinking person who believes that Barack Obama would be able to win a general election in 2008. To get a good, honest assessment from the black community on Obama, don't ask Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Ask comedians like D.L. Hughley, because in order to get laughs comedians have to be with the pulse of the community. You get more laughs if you know what you're talking about. And Hughley, and several other black comedians would tell you that there is no way in the world this country is going to elect a black man named "Barack Hussein Obama" President in 2008.

ambinder's comments section

It is interesting that while Edwards' campaign has basically conceded that his head-to-head numbers are basically even with Obama's (actually, Obama's are better, but that's neither here nor there), they're still pushing the electability angle (see the post to which that comment above is responding). That definitely does seem to be an implicit appeal to those who believe a black man cannot win.

Coupled with Liz Edwards recently saying Obama wouldn't campaign in the South (even though he's explicitly said he would), and you get a feel that there is an implicitly racial aspect to the electability argument, though I wouldn't necessarily say racist.

mopper8 wrote on August 29, 2007 9:50 PM:

More comments from that same section:

Edwards has potential to win all 50 states if the rethug hubris continues but there is no way Hillary (because of who she is) and Obama (because he is not white

There's more, if you'd like, including those who look at numbers that say Edwards and Obama are equally electable and conclude, "wow, I'm not surprised Edwards is the most electable. Who hear thinks America would vote for a black man?" or some such rubbish.

Edwards is attracting those votes, and his electability rhetoric certainly is not sending them away.

Ross Best wrote on August 29, 2007 10:36 PM:

McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Clinton or Obama. Talk about passion!

If only John Edwards would keep his voice down.

donna wrote on August 29, 2007 11:41 PM:

Ross Best,

Thanks for the Hitler crack.

I've been watching Edwards for a long time and with each passing day he seems more shrill. Doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me, but hey, I'm a jew -- what do I know?

runescape money wrote on December 6, 2007 2:40 AM:

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve online isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve online isk

lotro gld wrote on December 16, 2007 11:22 PM:

lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
lotro
lotro
lotro
lotro
lotro
lotro
lotro
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold

lotro gold wrote on December 16, 2007 11:30 PM:

LOTRO-Wiki is a Wiki Fansite dedicated to the Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game Lord of the Rings Online (LOTRO) developed by Turbine. The official LOTRO website is located at www.lotro.com.LotRO-Wiki is a free resource with at least 3,393 articles and is maintained by the contibutors, so feel free to help expand it!

http://www.buy-lotro-gold.us
http://www.buy-lotro-gold.us/index.html
http://www.buy-lotro-gold.us/lotro_gold.html

cheapgold wrote on December 16, 2007 11:31 PM: