Ex-Officials, James Baker and Warren Christopher, Offer Plan to Revamp War Powers Act

New York Times,  July 7th

WASHINGTON — Two former secretaries of state have declared the War Powers Resolution of 1973 obsolete and proposed a new system of closer consultation between the White House and Congress before American forces go into battle.

Their proposal would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week except in rare cases requiring emergency action. Congress, for its part, would have 30 days to approve or disapprove of the military action.

The plan would create a new committee of Congressional leaders and relevant committee chairmen, with a full-time staff with access to military and intelligence material. The president would be required to consult with the group in advance of any extended strike.

Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and James A. Baker III oversaw a year-long study of the longstanding tension over war powers between the executive and legislative branches. In a report to be released on Tuesday, they concluded that the 1973 law, which was passed in the waning days of the Vietnam War and which aimed to limit the president’s ability to commit American forces to war unilaterally, never served its intended function and must be replaced.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Tuesday,, Mr. Christopher, who served under former President Bill Clinton, and Mr. Baker, who served under the first President Bush, wrote that the 1973 act is “ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst. No president has recognized its constitutionality, and Congress has never pressed the issue. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on its constitutionality.”  Click here to read more in the New York Times.

Today’s New York Times features this article about the McCain campaign and those who guide it.  It includes brief bios on the key advisers and lobbyists who run McCain’s campaign; Steve Schmidt, Mike Murphy, Rick Davis and of course, Karl Rove.

New York Times, July 7th 2008

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain’s campaigns have long been defined by internal squabbling and power plays, zigzagging lines of command and a penchant by the candidate for consulting with former advisers without alerting current ones, always a recipe for disquiet.

After a period of relative calm on that score, it is becoming clear that his campaign is once again a swirl of competing spheres of influence, clusters of friends, consultants and media advisers who represent a matrix of clashing ambitions and festering feuds. The cast includes the surviving members of Mr. McCain’s 2000 campaign, led by Rick Davis and Mark Salter; a new camp out of the world of Karl Rove, led by the recently ascendant Steve Schmidt; and on the periphery, the ever-present Mike Murphy, Mr. McCain’s strategist in the 2000 presidential race who has been dispensing advice to the candidate to the annoyance of the other camps, and is the subject of intensifying rumors in Republican circles that he is about to re-enter the campaign.

Mr. McCain is uncomfortable firing people or banishing them entirely. His orbit remains filled with people who have been demoted without being told they are being demoted, like Mr. Davis, who continues to hold the title of campaign manager even as Mr. Schmidt manages the campaign. Yet, Mr. McCain inspires uncommon loyalty in those who serve with him — hence the willingness of Mr. Murphy to consider coming back into the McCain campaign, despite his own rather brutal history of enmity with Mr. Davis.

Here is a guide to the forces and personalities to watch through the campaign and, presumably, into a McCain White House:

STEVE SCHMIDT A veteran of President Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004 who had been traveling around the country with Mr. McCain, Mr. Schmidt was sent back to headquarters and put in charge of, well, just about everything that matters. Mr. McCain characterized this as no big deal; others in his campaign said it was indeed a major shift as Mr. Schmidt in effect dislodged Mr. Davis.

Mr. Schmidt is working without compensation from the campaign, a way of signaling to people that he is prepared to return to his family in California should this latest shake-up not work. His ties with Mr. McCain are not as deep as those who worked in Mr. McCain’s first presidential campaign, and who are suspicious that Mr. Schmidt is something of a proxy for Mr. Rove.

MIKE MURPHY He has been in Mr. McCain’s orbit since he ran for president in 2000; it seems safe to say that few people understand Mr. McCain as well as Mr. Murphy does. He has on several occasions offered Mr. McCain blunt advice about how to fix his campaign. Mr. McCain has told two friends in recent weeks that that he would like Mr. Murphy as his senior strategist, and before the most recent shake-up that put Mr. Schmidt in charge, Mr. Murphy told at least one associate that he was interested in coming back.

It is not clear how Mr. Schmidt, among others, would react to that. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Schmidt had their differences when they worked together for the re-election of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, though by all accounts, those are mild compared with Mr. Murphy’s differences with other people in the various factions at Mr. McCain’s headquarters.

Mr. Schmidt did not return an e-mail message seeking comment. Mr. Murphy, while declining to comment about the possibility of his joining the McCain campaign, said that he admired Mr. Schmidt and that there were no differences between them.

“Steve Schmidt has been a friend of mine since I originally helped recruit him into the Arnold world back in 2005,” Mr. Murphy said. “Steve and I are friends, and we get along fine.”

One other potential hindrance to Mr. Murphy coming in: He is a founder of DC Navigators, a lobbying firm whose clients include insurance firms and the Indian Gaming Association, to name a few. Mr. McCain said he did not want any working lobbyists in his campaign. Mr. Murphy said his role at the firm was not as a lobbyist. “I’ve never been registered in my life,” he said. “I told my partners months ago that if I did McCain, I’d leave the firm.”

RICK DAVIS Mr. Davis is nothing if not a survivor. He managed to emerge from the staff wars of the McCain campaign last year as the manager — escaping blame as the campaign collapsed under the weight of its debt and was forced to lay off most of his staff. Mr. Davis without question deserves some credit for helping to steer Mr. McCain from the brink of withdrawal to securing the Republican nomination. Yet his management (and survival) skills do not necessarily translate into what it takes to run against a candidate like Senator Barack Obama; Mr. Davis came under fire as Mr. McCain’s campaign became characterized by missteps and squandered opportunities. He lost power after Mr. Schmidt went to Mr. McCain and warned him that he needed to make changes in his operation, or accept the fact that he is going to lose.

KARL ROVE You thought we were going to write a story about the internal dynamics of a Republican presidential campaign without mentioning Mr. Rove? The chief strategist for Mr. Bush in 2000 and 2004, Mr. Rove is not directly involved in the McCain campaign, but his presence there can be seen in the number of his protégés who now hold central roles there. Mr. Schmidt tops that list; coming in a very close second is Nicolle Wallace, who was communications director for Mr. Bush in 2004 and in the White House.

All of this intrigue breeds discouragement among even those former McCain associates who do not dispute the notion that voters now might be getting an early glimpse of the messy, unstructured way in which a McCain White House might be managed. They are hard-pressed to explain why Mr. McCain tolerates this — or encourages this — or why he has trouble cutting ties with people who have not served him well over the years.

“I can’t answer the why,” said John Weaver, who was one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers before being forced out in a shake-up last year. “It is just that way and for his own sake, he needs to finally, firmly decide where he wants to take this campaign.”

McCain says: “I’ll reduce deficit by winning war in Iraq.”

Huffington Post, July 7th

On Monday, John McCain released the outlines of his economic agenda, promising to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by saving money from achieving victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction,” McCain’s memo read.

But if the goal is to reduce deficit by cutting down on foreign expenditures, the question should be raised: whose Iraq plan — McCain’s or Barack Obama’s — would do more?

Estimating costs for troop withdrawal, long-term occupations, and even current operations, is a tricky business, made more complicated by the difficulties in pinpointing exactly what each candidate is seeking to do with U.S. troops once he enters office.

But the Congressional Budget Office has put out several possible templates for an American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan that offer an approximation of the costs of Obama and McCain’s policies. Should the candidates follow through with their proposals, taxpayers would be spending, perhaps, tens-of-billions (if not hundreds-of-billions) more under McCain. The Arizona Republican argues that this is a price worth paying. But it is still worthwhile noting just how much more his Iraq policy would contribute to the deficit.  Click here to read more about McCain’s proposal at the Huffington Post.

First the Iraqi’s announce that they don’t want to negotiate a long term Agreement of Forces treaty with the Bush Administration and that they want a timetable on the removal of foreign forces (soldiers and contractors) from their country.  Then Syria says there will be no peace with Israel until Bush is out of office.

Iraq Wants Timetable for US to Leave

Washington Post; July 7th

BAGHDAD, July 7 — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has for the first time suggested establishing a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, a step that the Bush administration has long opposed.

Maliki floated the idea on Monday during a visit to the United Arab Emirates, where he spoke with Arab ambassadors about a security pact being negotiated to determine the future role of U.S. troops in Iraq. The agreement would replace a U.N. mandate authorizing the presence of the troops, which is set to expire Dec. 31.

Maliki said that Iraq has proposed a short-term memorandum of understanding with the United States instead of trying to forge a longer term pact on an issue that has spawned opposition across Iraq’s political divides.

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Maliki said, according to a statement released Monday by his office that did not specify how long a period a memorandum would cover. “In all cases, the basis for any agreement will be respect for the full sovereignty of Iraq.” Click here to read more in the Washington Post.

Syria sees no Israel peace before Bush quits

Reuters; July 7th, 2008

PARIS (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has told a newspaper his country is unlikely to make peace with Israel while President George W. Bush remains in office.

However, in an interview published on the website of Le Figaro daily on Monday, Assad said he was betting that the next U.S. leader would get more involved in the peace process.

Assad said Syria and Israel were looking for common ground to start face-to-face negotiations, adding that it was vital to find the right country to mediate such talks.
“The most important thing in direct negotiations is who sponsors them,” Assad told Le Figaro, saying that the United States had an essential role to play.

“Frankly, we do not think that the current American administration is capable of making peace. It doesn’t have either the will or the vision and it only has a few months left,” he said.  Click here to read more on Syria and Israel at Reuters.

Mississippi and other former strongholds may turn to Democrats this fall. Pundits now think five to seven Republican seats are endangered. Only one Democratic seat (Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu) is considered “close.” Obama’s campaign strategy to put resources into all 50 seats is changing the Senatorial map.

Los Angeles Times, July 6th, 2008

WASHINGTON — Mississippi, one of the nation’s most conservative states, has not elected a Democratic senator in a quarter-century. It has voted for Republican presidential candidates in the last seven elections.

But this year, there is a real chance that the state will send a Democrat to the Senate.

That prospect is a window onto a remarkable political trend that has been eclipsed by the fireworks surrounding the 2008 presidential contest: Democrats are running strong Senate campaigns in states such as Mississippi, Alaska and North Carolina that Republicans have long taken for granted.

The outlook for the GOP is so grim that party leaders have readily conceded there is no chance they can regain control of the Senate in 2008, even though Democrats’ current majority is slim, 51-49.  Click here to read more at the Los Angeles Times.

Obama’s shuffle to the right suggests this man is ruthless enough to win

His U-turns may trouble progressive Democrats, but they are the mark of a man who is determined not to be another principled loser like Kerry

Jonathon Freedland, Guardian.Co.UK. July 2, 2008

Call it the Potomac shuffle, the traditional election-year dance in which a candidate who has earlier moved left or right to win over the party faithful in a primary campaign promptly slides back to the centre to appeal to the rest of the country. Barack Obama, quite a mover on the dancefloor, has spent the month since he beat Hillary Clinton to the Democratic nomination giving a demonstration of this time-honoured piece of Washington choreography - and at an unusually high tempo, too.

Just yesterday he announced, in a speech on religion aimed at wooing evangelicals - who Democrats believe are no longer a guaranteed bloc for the Republicans - that he would continue George Bush’s support for “faith-based initiatives”, channelling public money to religious groups to perform social services, whether drug rehab or care for the poor. (Side note: watch for David Cameron, who also favours this approach, to claim he is Obama’s spiritual brother.)

A day earlier Obama had delivered an equally long address on the virtues of patriotism. On his lapel was the flag pin he has worn since mid-May, the same pin he once disdained as an unnecessary, shallow display of love of country. More substantively, Obama has tacked towards the centre on a string of issues where a matter of months ago he was to be found much further left.

He once opposed legislation needed for Bush’s much-reviled programme of domestic surveillance; now he supports a new law that would grant immunity to phone companies that help the government eavesdrop on US citizens. He was an advocate of gun control, but only hemmed and hawed when the supreme court struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on hand guns last week. He now says he will consider joining his Republican opponent John McCain in calling for a cut in the corporate tax rate. Suffice to say, these were not positions Obama took when he was trying to win Democratic votes in New Hampshire or Iowa.  Click here to read more at the Manchester Guardian online.

Like many Americans, evangelicals are finding themselves disaffected with Republican leadership and increasingly up for grabs. These voters say views on abortion and homosexuality won’t define them in November. The environment and social justice are moving to the forefront of their discussions.

CNN Politics.com, CNN News, June 30th 2008

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (CNN) — They’re spiritual misfits. Rabble-rousers. They packed the shell of the old Baptist church on Negley Avenue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to hear author, Christian activist and fellow misfit Shane Claiborne stump on the campaign for a third party candidate, Jesus.

The dreadlocked Christian activist from Philadelphia and his team parked a black school bus around the back. The hand-painted gold letters on the side read “Jesus for President.”

The bus runs on vegetable oil and, yes, it’s a political statement.

“It’ll be a long time before we fight a war over used veggie oil,” says Claiborne with a sly smile.

Claiborne is touring the country, packing churches and community centers, in support of the book he and Chris Haw co-authored, “Jesus for President.”

“This whole project is about the political imagination of what it means to follow after Jesus,” Claiborne said. “The language of Jesus as Lord and savior is just as radical as it would be to say ‘Jesus as our commander in chief’ today.”

Young evangelicals represent an important swing-voting bloc. They’re not a lock for Republicans as their parents were. Their feet are firmly planted on issues dear to both parties. Traditional family values are, as they have been in the past, an important issue.

But these voters say views on abortion and homosexuality won’t define them in November. The environment and social justice are moving to the forefront of their discussions.  Click here to read more at CNN News.

John McCain who said “I will never tell you lies” is using former Air Force Col. Bud Day a 2004 “Swift Boat Ad” attacker.

CNN News, Rebecca Sinderbrand, June 30th, 2008

One of the members of John McCain’s new Truth Squad — which his campaign says was launched to respond to unfair attacks on his record of military service –- was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and appeared in an attack ad for the group in 2004.

The group was created to attack 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry’s military service record.

“How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you when you condemned their fathers and grandfathers?” asked former Air Force Col. Bud Day, who was a prisoner of war with McCain in Vietnam, in a 2004 Swift Boat Vets spot.

McCain has said that he opposed the group’s efforts. But nevertheless, these “communicator, surrogates” are joining the McCain Campaign and are empowered to speak for John McCain.

On a campaign conference call Monday, a Politico reporter asked Day if there was any similarity between former Gen. Wesley Clark’s controversial Sunday comments about McCain’s military service and his own remarks about John Kerry during the last presidential campaign.

Day dismissed any equivalence. “The Swift Boat ‘attacks’ were simply revelation of the truth. The similarity does not exist here,” he said. “…One was about laying out the truth. This one is about attempting to cast a new shadow on John McCain.”

Editorial Comment: What was Obama saying the other day about 527 groups when he discussed campaign finance strategies?   

McCain and Obama traded speeched on patriotism. Obama distanced himself from Wes Clark’s remark that “being a prisoner of war, does not necessarily qualify John McCain to be Commander in Chief.” Meanwhile, McCain’s campaign organized a conference call supporters to bash Obama led by George E. “Bud” Day, a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Amid aides’ sniping, Obama, McCain turn to patriotism

By Margaret Talev and William Douglas | McClatchy Newspapers, June 30th, 2008

WASHINGTON — Kicking off a week of Independence Day campaigning, the two leading presidential candidates turned Monday toward themes of patriotism and military experience, with whispers of the 2004 Swift boat veterans’ controversy.

Democrat Barack Obama, who didn’t serve in the military and opposes the Iraq war, delivered a speech defending his vision of patriotism. He said that today’s debate over patriotism was rooted in simplistic caricatures from the 1960s culture wars, and he defined patriotism instead as “loyalty to America’s ideals.”

However, in his remarks at President Harry Truman’s hometown of Independence, Mo., Obama diverted briefly from his sweeping rhetoric to criticize a challenge to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain’s credentials made Sunday by one of his campaign’s surrogate spokesmen.

Retired Gen. Wes Clark, in a television appearance, suggested that McCain isn’t qualified to be president. As for McCain’s military experience — he’s a Vietnam veteran who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war after his plane was shot down — Clark said that getting shot down in a plane didn’t qualify one to be president.

Obama distanced himself from the comment.

“I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign,” he said Monday. “And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine. … For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country, no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary.”

Meanwhile, McCain’s campaign organized a conference call for several supporters to bash Clark and, by extension, Obama.

McCain’s supporters included retired Air Force Col. George E. “Bud” Day, a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That group attempted to discredit 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s Vietnam War record. Its efforts spawned a verb, “Swift-boating,” which politicians use to describe smear campaigns against them. Click here to read more at McClatchy News.

Delayed Treatment is a common problem for Americans, even those with health insurance.  But vulnerable populations; youngest, oldest, sickest and poorest are more likely to delay.

ABC News, June 27th 2008

New data tracking the health care habits of Americans highlighted gaping holes in the country’s health care system — and who is falling through them. And it appears that those who are most vulnerable — the youngest, oldest, sickest and poorest — are the ones getting medically shortchanged.

The number of people who delay or do not get medical care, including those with insurance plans, increased to 59 million people in 2007, up from 36 million people in 2003, according to the report from the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington, D.C.

“It’s more than a wake-up call. This is an alarm clock in terms of the system not working well, and not caring for the vulnerable,” said Dr. Rick Kellerman, chairman of the American Academy of Family Physicians Board of Directors.

The cost and logistical problems involved in visiting the doctor are the main deterrents for people who need to see a physician. Click here to read more at ABC News.