US Political News

A retired Air Force general, who also weighs in as a Fox News contributor, has joined the ranks of “birthers” by defending Army doctor Terrence Lakin, who refused to serve in Afghanistan because he does not believe President Obama was born in the United States and therefore has no authority to deploy him. Lt. Col. Lakin is facing a court martial.

Now, Talking Points Memo says retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney has filed an affidavit on Lakin’s behalf. The document raises concerns about Obama’s legitimacy and demands release of his birth records.

“It is my opinion that LTC Lakin’s request for discovery relating to the president’s birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this president whether his service as Commander in Chief is Constitutionally proper,” McInerney wrote to the court. “. . . According to our Constitution, the Commander in Chief must now, in the face of serious — and widely held — concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his credibility by authorizing release of his birth records, or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here.”

Hawaiian authorities have stated repeatedly that Obama’s birth certificate is on file and in order. But the rumor that he was not born in the United States is alive and well on the Internet.

McInerney, a graduate of West Point who retired in 1994, served in Vietnam and was commander of the 11th Air Force in Alaska.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article

It is arguably the world’s most famous office, but it’s doubtful many viewers of President Obama’s address to the nation Tuesday night noticed the makeover the West Wing room got while the president was on vacation.

The Oval Office has been redecorated. It’s still round. But in some ways, it looks more like a well-appointed den than a formal place where some of the most powerful people in the world meet. The New York Times put it this way: “The look is angular and modern — it evokes the feel of a den — and tends toward natural hues of brown and taupe, than the gold and yellow tones favored by President George W. Bush.”

A yellow sunburst rug designed by former First Lady Laura Bush has been pulled up and replaced by wheat- and cream-colored carpeting emblazoned with the presidential seal and quotations by Lincoln, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Martin Luther King Jr. Two yellow sofas have been hauled off and in their place are brown ones woven with red, white and blue threads. They face a new coffee table and a backdrop of striped wallpaper. A grandfather clock and portraits of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are still in place.

Obama still sits behind a bulky, old fashioned desk called the “Resolute” — made with timbers from a British warship and used by nearly every president since Rutherford B. Hayes (exceptions: LBJ, Nixon and Ford). Earlier, the White House removed a bust of Winston Churchill and replaced it with one of King.

Taxpayers did not pay for the remodeling, as most of the bill was footed by the White House Historical Association, according to the Obama administration, which did not disclose the cost except to say it was in line with what previous occupants have spent. But it was not an unusual undertaking, as most chief executives have put their own stamps on the workplace. Even so, the Times quoted Obama from February 2009 when he said in a budget address, “There are times where you can afford to redecorate your house, and there are times where you need to focus on rebuilding its foundation.”

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), who said she “unknowingly” broke Congressional Black Caucus Foundation rules by awarding thousands of dollars in scholarship money to four relatives and a top aide’s two children, will repay the money, the New York Times reports.
Members of the Black Caucus are given $10,000 every year to award scholarships. They must follow certain rules in awarding the privately raised money, including a requirement that winners not be related to caucus members nor live or study in the lawmaker’s district. According to the Dallas Morning News, Johnson provided 23 scholarships totaling $25,000 to two of her grandsons, two of her great-nephews and to an aide’s son and daughter, all between 2005 and 2009.

At first the Dallas lawmaker denied violating the anti-nepotism regulation, but later said in a statement she made a mistake and would work with the foundation to “rectify the financial situation,” The Associated Press reported. On Tuesday, Johnson’s press secretary, Dena Craig, said the nine-term congresswoman was recovering from surgery and would not be able to comment.
Rep. Donald Payne, (D-N.J.), who chairs the foundation, denounced the “self-dealing” move and vowed to prevent further violations of the scholarship rules.

Johnson, 74, is expected to win a 10th term in November over Republican Stephen Broden. It is unclear if her actions violate Congressional rules. Neither the House ethics committee nor the House Office of Congressional Ethics responded to questions Tuesday, the Times said.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article

President Obama’s speech Tuesday night marking the end of combat operations in Iraq drew a largely — but not universally — negative response from Republicans. One particular sticking point for many Republicans was the president’s failure to tip his cap to the apparent success in Iraq of the counterinsurgency “surge” strategy — authored by Gen. David Petraeus and implemented by President George W. Bush over the objections of many Democrats, including then-Senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Sen. John McCain, who ran against Obama in the 2008 general election and an early proponent of a troop surge in Iraq, said on Fox News: “What [Obama] should have said: ‘I opposed the surge. I was wrong. I made a mistake and George W. Bush deserves credit for doing something that was very unpopular at the time.’ ” McCain added, “Instead he had to say it’s well known that George Bush loves the troops.”Read Our Other Iraq coverage:

- Obama in Oval Office Address: Iraq War Combat Mission Is Over
- Transcript of President Obama’s Speech on Iraq
- Iraq Scorecard: The War So Far
- Biden Gives George W. Bush Some Credit for Iraq Surge Success
- No Brass Bands When Troops Return Home From Iraq
- Jill Lawrence: What I Want to Hear From President Obama on Iraq — Never Again

In a written statement, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas echoed that sentiment, saying: “It’s puzzling to listen to this White House try to take credit for the results of the strategy he and Vice President Biden adamantly opposed from the start.”National Review’s Jonah Goldberg blogged: “I don’t expect an ‘I was wrong’ from an Oval Office address (though it would be nice — as it would have been from Bush more than once, too). But Obama’s lawyerly avoidance of reality makes him seem petty and raises the suspicion that he can’t think straight about these issues. That is dangerous.”

(In an interview with PBS on Wednesday morning, Biden did give Bush some credit for the surge. “If you really go back and take a look at this,” he said, “you can argue the surge made possible what was the most significant thing that occurred — which was a political transition where we put over 100,000 Sunnis on the payroll — the sons of Iraq. General Petraeus deserves a lot of credit and the last administration.”) Other conservatives, acknowledging that a commander-in-chief who opposed the Iraq War from the start had to thread a difficult rhetorical needle, were less critical. The hawkish Bill Kristol wrote at The Weekly Standard, “In sum, the president seemed to me to go about as far as an anti-Iraq war president could go in praising the war effort.” And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said: “By adopting the Bush administration’s plan for winding down the war and transitioning security responsibilities to the Iraqi military over time the President has enabled us and the Iraqis to build on the gains our troops have made.” Others grumbled that a speech billed as a major address on the implications of ending combat operations in Iraq should not have veered into an economic talk – which some critics viewed as a transparent attempt to win votes for Democratic candidates in November. On Fox News, Charles Krauthammer called the speech “flat and odd” and said the economic tangent showed Obama’s focus isn’t on international affairs, but is really on “changing America at home.” Conservative blogger Erick Erickson Tweeted: “So [Obama] gave a few platitudes on Iraq and turned this into a speech on the economy? And mentions ‘dependence on foreign oil’?” The president also continued to be criticized for his speaking style, which is more professorial than many would like from a leader. As National Review editorialized, “The president’s Oval Office address wasn’t confidence-inducing.” David Brooks, one of two in-house conservatives at The New York Times, said the address was intended to be a “unifying” speech, but felt it fell short in his mind. Speaking on the PBS “NewsHour,” Brooks flatly took issue with the president’s contention that the Iraqi people have moved beyond sectarian violence. Brooks also wonders about the wisdom of announcing, as Obama has in the past and did again last night, that all American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of next year. Brooks who is known as a stylish writer, also gave low marks to the White House speech-writing staff. “Frankly, just stylistically I think there’s been a deterioration in the quality of Obama’s speeches — the literary quality,” Brooks said. Repeating a litany of phrases in the speech — “We must give our children the education they deserve . . . we must jump-start industries . . . we must unleash innovation . . . our troops are the steel in our ship of state” — Brooks added: “These are sort of normal political metaphors, but they are not the fresh, high-literary quality Obama had a year or two ago.” Finally, Obama was criticized for a lack of passion — a complaint that has usually come from the president’s left but which emanated from the right last night as well. RedState’s Erickson, for example, blogged that this was “President Spock addressing the nation without emotion.”

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article

Two Republican lawmakers and one Democrat could face a House ethics investigation over complaints about fundraising events they held in close proximity to votes on a Wall Street financial reform bill last year.

The independent Office of Congressional Ethics found enough evidence of wrongdoing in the cases of Reps. John Campbell (R-Calif.), Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.) to recommend the matter for a formal investigation, the
New York Times reported Tuesday. The preliminary probe focused on House members who raised money from lobbyists or executives opposed to the overhaul of government oversight of investment banks and financial houses when the bill came to a vote in December 2009.

Each of the congressmen criticized the ethics office’s recommendation. Crowley, who attended a fundraising event at the home of a lobbyist the same night that he voted against a series of amendments requiring more openness in certain Wall Street trades, “complied with the letter and spirit of all rules regarding fundraising and standards of conduct,” his office said.

Crowley, who is in his sixth term, eventually voted for the reform legislation, while Campbell and Price voted against it. Price said in a statement that it was “truly a mystery” to him how the ethics office arrived at its recommendation. “There being no evidence of any wrongdoing or any inconsistency in my policy position, one can only guess as to the motive behind their decision or even why they chose to initiative a review in the first place.”

The case now goes to the bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The group generally meets in secret and it could be months before it makes a public utterance about any findings. As always, the challenge is the difficulty of proving a quid pro quo — directly linking the acceptance of a contribution to a specific act by a lawmaker.

The ethics office recommended dismissing investigations of five other House members: Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Christopher Lee (R-N.Y.), Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) and Melvin Watt (D-N.C.).

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article

Pressed for an answer and choosing his words carefully, Vice President Joe Biden gave credit to former President George W. Bush for the success of the 2007 “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq, which Biden said arguably made possible a political transition and the recent withdrawal of American combat forces.

At first, Biden allowed only that President Obama in his Iraq speech Tuesday night had “acknowledged President Bush’s contribution,” PBS said. But when “NewsHour’s” Margaret Warner asked for something more specifi on the role of the previous occupant of the White House, Biden said: “If you really go back and take a look at this, you can argue the surge made possible what was the most significant thing that occurred — which was a political transition where we put over 100,000 Sunnis on the payroll — the sons of Iraq.

“General [David] Petraeus deserves a lot of credit and the last [Bush] administration.”

Biden was interviewed Wednesday in Baghdad in the midst of his visit to mark the pullout of U.S. combat troops. However, 50,000 American military forces remain in the war-torn country in advisory and support roles, and the Iraqi government is in political turmoil.

Read Our Other Iraq coverage:

- Republican Reaction to Obama’s Iraq Speech: Mostly Negative
- Obama in Oval Office Address: Iraq War Combat Mission Is Over
- Transcript of President Obama’s Speech on Iraq
- Iraq Scorecard: The War So Far
- No Brass Bands When Troops Return Home From Iraq
- Jill Lawrence: What I Want to Hear From President Obama on Iraq — Never Again

Biden and Obama, as Democratic senators, both opposed the surge in military muscle when the policy was implemented. Biden said Wednesday that if Republican leaders like Rep. John Boehner want to say, “the surge did this — fine, fine.” But he told NewsHour “the fact of the matter is we’re not there yet. We’re making significant progress. The only time success will be able to be declared is when the Iraqis form a government, and several years from now [when] they are in a position to maintain their own security, they are not a threat to their neighbors, and their economy is growing and prospering.”

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article

Right on the heels of a poll giving the Republicans a 10-point edge on this year’s “generic” congressional ballot, a USA Today/Gallup poll says that Americans believe Republicans on Capitol Hill would do a better job on seven of nine key election issues.

The issues on which Republicans enjoy their biggest margins are on terrorism, immigration, federal spending and the economy, according to the poll conducted Aug. 27-30. The Democrats prevail only on health care (and that’s by a statistically insignificant difference) and the environment (the margin of error for this poll is 4 points).

Here are the margins by which Republicans are leading:

- Terrorism: 55 percent to 31 percent, with 15 percent undecided.

- Immigration: 50 percent to 35 percent with 15 percent undecided.

- Federal spending: 50 percent to 35 percent with 15 percent undecided.

- The economy: 49 percent to 38 percent with 13 percent undecided.

- Afghanistan: 45 percent to 38 percent with 17 percent undecided.

- Jobs: 46 percent to 41 percent with 13 percent undecided.

- Corruption in government: 38 percent to 35 percent with 26 percent undecided.

The Democrats lead on health care by 44 percent to 43 percent with 12 percent undecided, and on the environment by 54 percent to 31 percent with 14 percent undecided.

The four issues that 51 percent or more of those surveyed say are “extremely” important when it comes to their vote are, in order: the economy, jobs, corruption in government and federal spending. Health care comes in at 49 percent and the environment, where Democrats have their biggest advantage, is last at 28 percent.

One must-read for those of you digesting the Gallup generic ballot poll and ones like this is Nate Silver’s “The Democrats’ New Normal” at his FiveThirtyEight.com blog.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Read Politics Daily’s 2010 Elections Round-Up

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article

Two new polls show former Republican Rep. John Kasich leading Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland in the Ohio gubernatorial race.

A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Aug. 30 has Kasich ahead 47 percent to 39 percent with 7 percent preferring some other candidate and 7 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4 points. In mid-August, Kasich’s margin over Strickland was 48 percent to 40 percent and at the beginning of that month it was 45 percent to 42 percent.

If “leaners” are included — those who did not express an initial preference but were pressed to make a choice — Kasich leads by 52 percent to 40 percent.

A Public Policy Polling survey conducted Aug. 27-29 has Kasich ahead of Strickland by 50 percent to 40 percent, with 10 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4.5 points. In PPP’s last Ohio poll in June, Kasich’s lead was only 43 percent to 41 percent.

Both polls show majorities of voters with negative views of Strickland. In Rasmussen’s poll, voters disapprove of the job he is doing by a 59 percent to 39 percent margin, and he is seen unfavorably by 53 percent compared to 42 percent who view him positively.

PPP says voters disapprove of Strickland’s performance by 52 percent to 34 percent with 14 percent undecided.

A third of voters in PPP’s survey do not know enough about Kasich to be sure of their opinion of him and that is true for 15 percent in the Rasmussen poll, suggesting that, at this stage of the campaign, the election looks more like a referendum on Strickland than a groundswell for Kasich.

Both polls show Kasich commanding a higher level of support among fellow Republicans than Strickland does among Democrats. In PPP’s survey, Kasich gets 89 percent of GOP voters compared to Strickland’s 78 percent among Democrats. In Rasmussen’s poll, Kasich gets 86 percent compared to Strickland’s 75 percent.

Kasich leads Strickland among independents (20 percent of the sample) in the PPP poll by 44 percent to 33 percent, with 23 percent undecided. In the Rasmussen poll, Kasich’s lead among unaffiliated voters is 56 percent to 22 percent with the balance undecided or preferring another candidate. Rasmussen does not provide the size of the samples it uses for parties and independents.

PPP’s Dean Debnam says, “”Republicans are united around John Kasich, and independents are likely to go strongly toward him as well. To win, Ted Strickland has the Herculean task of bringing disloyal Democrats back to the fold and getting more of his party faithful out to the polls than plan to vote now.”

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Read Politics Daily’s 2010 Elections Round-Up

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article

On today’s podcast we are joined by Politico’s Shira Toeplitz and Maury Litwack, author of “The Capitol Plan.”

Toeplitz, who closely followed the elections in Alaska, told us she was surprised by Joe Miller’s upset of Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

She also argued that Sarah Palin wasn’t a major factor in Miller’s election, and that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) acted appropriately when it provided legal counsel to the Murkowski campaign.

Litwack’s “The Capitol Plan” explains how individuals, businesses, and nonprofits can use grassroots techniques to lobby members of Congress (and avoid paying big fees to K Street lobbyists).

Check out the podcast!

Subscribe to “The Matt Lewis Show” on iTunes!

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article

As Barack Obama appeared on television Tuesday to declare the end of the U.S. combat role in Iraq, were viewers happiest in Baghdad, Washington, D.C., or Tehran?
The obvious answer would seem to be Washington or Baghdad. In fact, some analysts believe the real winner of the war in Iraq is neither the Iraqis, nor Americans, but the Iranians. It’s a sobering analysis, especially in light of the United Nations-imposed and U.S.-backed sanctions against Iran, intended to to influence the country’s intractable position on its nuclear capability.
Mohammad Bazzi, adjunct senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote Monday at the GlobalPost.com: “In February 2003, as he marshaled the United States for war, President George W. Bush declared: ‘A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.’ Now, as the U.S. military concludes its combat role . . . Iraq is indeed a dramatic example for the Middle East, but not in the ways that Bush and his administration envisioned. Iraq did not become a beacon of democracy, nor did it create a domino effect that toppled other dictatorial regimes in the Arab world. Instead, the Iraq war has unleashed a new wave of sectarian hatred and upset the Persian Gulf’s strategic balance, helping Iran consolidate its role as the dominant regional power.”
Reached by phone in Beirut, Bazzi elaborated in an interview with Politics Daily. The bottom line, Bazzi explained, was that “Iran has basically leap-frogged the U.S. in the level of influence that it can exert on most Iraqi factions.” The spring’s election and its aftermath, Bazzi said, underscored how effective Iranian influence has been, especially with maneuvering between Iraq’s Shiite factions. “I’d argue that Iran started filling the political void that the U.S. has left in Iraq years ago, and now it becomes even easier with fewer U.S. troops,” he said, noting that the 50,000 U.S. troops that will remain on the ground concern the Iranians. “On a political level, Iranians have played politics in Iraq much more effectively than the U.S. Part of that is that all the Iraqi factions recognized that Iran is not going anywhere, but the U.S. was going to leave, but the Iraqis are stuck with their neighbors.” The Iranians, he said, are “getting a little concerned about the political stalemate in Iraq.” Iranians, Bazzi said, are “keen on playing this role of the political broker.” To that end, they called almost the entire Iraqi leadership to Tehran right after elections. “The Iranians view their strategic interest in Iraq on several levels. Immediate, of maintaining a friendly government in Baghdad, because they don’t want to go back to the days of Saddam where there was an extremely adversarial threat next door. The Iranians will want a friendly, Shiite-led government in Baghdad, and they see that as the new reality.”
A weak Iraq is also in Iran’s interest, Bazzi explained. “If Iraq is not as dominate as it once was, if it is friendly and compliant, then it enables Iran to maintain regional dominance in the Persian Gulf.” Finally, he said, Iraq has become a “bargaining chip and a proxy in their conflict with the United States.” Read Our Other Iraq coverage:

- Republican Reaction to Obama’s Iraq Speech: Mostly Negative
- Biden Gives George W. Bush Some Credit for Iraq Surge Success
- Obama in Oval Office Address: Iraq War Combat Mission Is Over
- Transcript of President Obama’s Speech on Iraq
- Iraq Scorecard: The War So Far
- No Brass Bands When Troops Return Home From Iraq
- Jill Lawrence: What I Want to Hear From President Obama on Iraq — Never Again

It’s in Iran’s best interest that U.S. political influence diminish in Iraq, said Bazzi. Ironically, a door has opened, partly as a result of the Obama administration’s minimal attempts to try and influence Iraqi decision making. That “hands-off approach has backfired a little bit — the Iranians are perfectly willing to get down and dirty and get heavily involved.” Bazzi noted there there are many entry points into Iraqi society. An oppressive heat wave in June brought temperatures reaching up to 50 degrees Celsius in Iraq. The combination of blackouts, electricity failures, and general lack of electricity provoked riots; not only was there no air conditioning, it was hard to watch the World Cup.
“Seven years after the U.S. invasion, there is still no reliable electrical grid. It’s true that electrical output is higher than in the time of Saddam, and Saddam had a policy of diverting output to Baghdad and to Sunni cities and leaving other parts of country in dark. But that failure to provide electricity and drinking water and basic services are good examples of the frustration Iraqis feel at their own government and frustration they feel at the U.S. that really dampened any sense of joy . . .They don’t see basic, everyday life issues getting resolved.” And that frustration opens the door further to outside influence, including from Tehran.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

View the Original article