President Bush has been vowing to veto the House Dem leadership's legislation calling for withdrawal from Iraq by Fall 2008 at the latest -- with the timing to be determined by whether the Iraqi government is meeting the benchmarks laid down by the White House itself.

This afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a hard-hitting statement hammering Bush for the veto threat:

President Bush’s Iraq policies weaken our military’s readiness, dishonor our nation’s promises to our veterans, and fail to hold the Iraqi government accountable for overdue reforms.

By threatening to veto the House’s military funding bill, the President is walking away from his promise to the American people. The President has vowed to veto a bill that contains his own reform benchmarks for performance by the Iraqi government, our Defense Department’s own standards for troop readiness, and America’s promise to our veterans.

With his veto threat, the President offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders, including the commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, who declared in Baghdad this week that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily.

The House of Representatives will soon have a chance to choose a new direction for the American people. The bill the President dismisses out of hand will measure the Iraqi government’s actions by the standards Mr. Bush himself set, conforms deployment of our troops to existing military standards for readiness, and provides badly needed help to an overburdened military and veterans’ medical system wracked by scandal.

Update: It's worth noting that this statement comes amid an intense debate within the House over whether the House Dem leadership's measure to end the war is aggressive enough. For all the rhetorical aggressiveness in a statement like this, liberal House Dems still worry that the leadership's actual legislative approach lacks the teeth it needs to end the war. The Dem leadership argues that their approach is needed to maintain Dem unity. At any rate, that's the context; make of this latest statement what you will.

The John Edwards campaign is quickly moving to raise campaign cash off of the fact that he was the first Dem to pull out of the Fox-hosted debate. Even as the news was breaking yesterday that Dems were nixing the debate, leaving it effectively dead, Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince sent out a fundraising appeal late yesterday evening to contributors and supporters, reminding them that he'd been the first to jump. From the fundraising letter:

Dear XXXXXX: You may have heard by now that John Edwards was the first candidate to officially say no to the Fox News debate in Nevada—and because of the hard work of so many grassroots and netroots Democrats, news is breaking tonight that Fox is out.

Fox has already started striking back at John for saying no. (There's a surprise—Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes—the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel—said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "runs a real risk of losing the voters."...

The truth is, Fox News can "report" whatever they want. And when it works for us, we'll deal with them on our terms. But this campaign is about responsibility and accountability, and we need to send the message to Fox that if they want to be the corporate mouthpiece of the Republican Party more than they want to be an impartial news outlet, they shouldn't expect Democrats to play along.

You can send that message by contributing today, and remind Fox News that in this election, Democrats won't take their spin lying down...

Note the props Edwards gives to the netroots and the general let's-fight-back feistiness -- further evidence of his serious bid to be the netroots candidate. If you're interested, the full fundraising letter is after the jump.

Read more »

Here's the letter Senator Harry Reid and the Nevada state Democratic Party sent to Fox News informing them that they were pulling out of the Fox-hosted debate set for this summer:

March 9, 2007

Marty Ryan
Executive Producer
Fox News Political Programs

Dear Marty,

A month ago, the Nevada Democratic Party entered into a good faith agreement with FOX News to co-sponsor a presidential debate in August. This was done because the Nevada Democratic Party is reaching out to new voters and we strongly believe that a Democrat will not win Nevada unless we find new ways to talk to new people.

To say the least, this was not a popular decision. But it is one that the Democratic Party stood by. However, comments made last night by FOX News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far. We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments.

In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a Presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore canceling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action.

Sincerely,

Tom Collins
Chairman, Nevada State Democratic Party

Harry Reid
U.S. Senator (D-NV)

Another Democratic candidate has pulled out of the proposed Democratic debate hosted by Fox News: Bill Richardson. Markos "Kos" Moulitsas has just reported that Richardson "just called to say that he will not be doing the Fox News debate in Nevada." Richardson had previously been the only candidate to confirm he would be going to the debate in August, and John Edwards had already pulled out in response to objections by Democratic activists that Fox should not host a Democratic debate. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other candidates have yet to say whether or not they'll attend.

Update: The Politico reports that the Nevada State Democratic Party is cancelling their involvement with the debate. Since the debate had been a joint project of Fox and the state Dems, it is now effectively dead.

Late Update: The Huffington Post adds more, reporting that the Democrats say they're pulling out because Fox News head Roger Ailes publicly joked about the Democratic candidates:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Nevada Democratic Party announced today that they are backing out of a Fox News-sponsored presidential debate in August following Fox President Roger Ailes's recent remarks comparing Democratic Senator Barack Obama to al Qaeda terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Fox News did not answer calls seeking reaction to the decision. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had already announced that he would not participate in the Fox debate. His party followed suit today, under pressure from the more than 265,000 people who signed a petition calling Fox "a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel" and urging Nevada officials to cancel. Danny Coyle, a MoveOn.org member who serves on the Executive Board of the Carson City Democratic Central Committee, yesterday offered a resolution calling on the state party to drop Fox, and it passed overwhelmingly among the grassroots Democrats in attendance.

Okay, so we're having a heck of a time getting the Rudy Giuliani campaign to give us details about this new group we referenced below called "Firefighters for Rudy."

We do know this much so far, however: The executive director of "Firefighters for Rudy" appears to be an aide to Giuliani. And the phone number for "Firefighters for Rudy" is the same number as the press office of Rudy's campaign.

A quick recap: As reported earlier, the Giuliani campaign sent out a release in response to stories this morning in which the firefighters union faulted his performance on 9/11. The release offered the following as a contact:

Contact: Tim Brown Executive Director of Firefighters for Rudy

The idea, obviously, was that this "group" of firefighters is countering the fire union's claims. So all we want to know is the following: When was this group formed? And how many members does it have? A Google search turned up nothing at all illuminating. So we left detailed questions about the group's formation and membership with the Giuliani campaign's communications director about it. No answer yet.

Also intriguing: For some reason, even though the group's executive director, Tim Brown, is offered as a contact on the release, when you call the number offered you get directed to the Rudy campaign press office. When you ask for Brown, you're directed to a press officer.

Who is Tim Brown? Today, Firefighting News identifies him as an "aide" to Giuliani. So is "Firefighters for Giuliani" a campaign offshoot, or something like that? If so, fine -- we just wish the campaign would say definitively one way or the other, tell us how long it's been in existence, and most important, tell us how many members it has. Could it be this Yahoo group with all of three members? Maybe. Maybe not. We just want to know more about Firefighters for Rudy, dammit!

Update: Success! We just reached Tim Brown, the executive director of Firefighters for Rudy, by calling the phone number accompanying this info about registration of the domain name, which notes that the name was taken out in August of 2006. It sounded like the guy's cell phone.

At any rate, when we asked Brown if he was the executive director of Firefighters for Rudy, he said that he was. When we asked if he was an aide on the campaign, he paused for awhile before saying, "yeah." When we asked him what his title on the campaign was, he said -- you guessed it -- "executive director of Firefighters for Rudy."

So we then posed the question of how many members it has. At that point, he said he was going to have "other folks" get back to us.

Aaarrrrghhhh! Frustration. If the executive director of this group doesn't know how many members it has, then who does?

Here are a few quick updates on the movements of the Presidential candidates:

* Sen. Barack Obama was the only major Dem Presidential candidate who's campaign did not contribute any cash on Wednesday at a fundraiser for the South Carolina Democratic Party's primary fund. South Carolina Democratic officials, including House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, have said that it wasn't a slight as budget considerations between "want to" and "have to" allocations of money are unknown outside of the individual campaigns.

* Sen. John McCain spoke out against repealing the military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy last night in New York City, claiming that it is working well. He made no mention, however, of the at least 322 service members with skills in Arabic, Farsi, Korean and other critical languages who have been discharged since 1993 because of the policy.

* The AFL-CIO is threatening to ask Democrats to move their nominating convention out of Denver, Colorado because Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed a bill that would have made it easier for unions to organize. The labor-organizing bill is likely to be re-introduced and the union is making the threat as leverage to get Ritter to guarantee that he won't veto the new bill.

* Karl Rove called Sen. Barack Obama "articulate" yesterday while speaking at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service. Sen. Joe Biden got in trouble earlier this year when he described Obama as "articulate" and "clean," terms which some say are historically loaded with negative implications for African-Americans.

* Sen. Christopher Dodd announced today that Reps. Xavier Becerra and Rosa DeLauro and former Sen. Jim Sasser will serve as national co-chairmen for his presidential campaign. They join Sanford Cloud, former president of the National Conference for Community and Justice, in leading Dodd’s effort.

More after the jump.

Read more »

Guess who John McCain relies perhaps more than anyone else for counsel on foreign policy? None other than Henry Kissinger. The Associated Press reports that McCain let the secret slip at a recent fundraiser at which the guest of honor was the former Secretary of State. "When I have a question about something that's going on in the world, I call Dr. Kissinger and he is able to connect the dots for me," McCain said, according to the AP. "It is easy to be an expert on one aspect of some international situation. He's one of the only people I've ever known who can connect the entire scenario for you in a way that you understand the completeness of the challenge." Others who McCain says he consults: Brent Scowcroft, George P. Shultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol.

It looks as if Ann Coulter's "faggot" insult of John Edwards has set the tone for a new right-wing taunt: That John Edwards could become our "First Woman President." Check out this screen grab of Rush Limbaugh pushing the new smear:

Rush's diatribe above was inspired by an article yesterday in the conservative New York Sun entitled, "Could Edwards Become First Woman President?." The artice quoted abortion rights activist and Edwards backer Kate Michelman saying that Edwards "understands the reality of women's lives."

The Sun then suggested that her praise for Edwards on women's issues is "provoking debate" that Edwards may soon lay claim to the title of "First Woman President," and to attack Michelman and the Edwards campaign for pushing such an argument. The kicker: Neither Michelman nor the Edwards camp were ever quoted actually making any such point.

Nevertheless, Rush picked up on the article and said:

So John Edwards is on tap now, according to one of the nation's largest abortion rights supporters to become the first woman president in the United States — and, of course, the barrier is down. The first black president, Bill Clinton. That barrier is broken. Sometimes all you can do is laugh at these people. Speaking of the Breck Girl ...

Here we go ...

This is interesting: Today we're getting our first look at how Rudy's campaign team is responding to what is arguably its first bout of genuinely negative press.

As we reported earlier today, both The Hill and Roll Call ran pieces this morning reporting that the International Association of Firefighters is still irate about certain aspects of Rudy's 9/11 performance. The story's a dangerous one for Rudy because it obviously strikes at one of the key rationales of his candidacy: His allegedly sterling 9/11 performance.

This morning, in what may be a sign that it recognizes the danger of the story, the Rudy camp struck back. It emailed out to reporters a letter it had sent to "Americas firefighters." It was written by one Lee Ielpi, who is described as a retired firefighter and who took the union to task for criticizing Rudy.

"There is no one who respects firefighters and first responders more than Rudy Giuliani," Ielpi writes. "Those of us who have worked with him know that Rudy Giuliani has always been a steadfast and unrelenting supporter of firefighters and first responders."

Intriguingly, the letter was sent out by Tim Brown, who is described as the Executive Director of a group called "Firefighters for Rudy."

This, of course, raises a few questions that we will be seeking answers to. Has "Firefighters for Rudy" been in existence for longer than 24 hours, or did it spring Athena-like from that great Rudy forehead at around the time that the Rudy campaign heard that the bad stories were being put together? How many members does "Firefighters for Rudy" have? Etc.

Anyway, we've had a glimpse of the Rudy camp's first real effort to fend off negative press. It was interesting.

A new American Research Group poll shows that the two Republican frontrunners each hold narrow leads over the two Dem frontrunners:

* Rudy-Hillary 48%-42% * Rudy-Obama 46%-41% * McCain-Hillary 45%-42% * McCain-Obama 46%-42%

Uh oh -- it looks as if Rudy Giuliani's image as the savior of 9/11 is being sharply questioned by some of the people who were on the scene and following Rudy's orders at the time: Firefighters.

The Hill reports that the International Association of Fire Fighters has drafted a letter saying that Rudy would be the only Presidential candidate not invited to the union's upcoming forum. Apparently the union is still seething about some aspects of Rudy's leadership that day.

Though the union decided ultimately against sending the letter, the ire of firefighters about Rudy's conduct still has the potential to cloud perceptions of what may be his leading selling point: His allegedly sterling performance in the aftermath of the attacks. Full story and details here. Roll Call adds more here.

Karl Rove is hard at work trying to craft a legacy for George W. Bush and has "begun trying to put his own distinctive spin on current events and the longer historical view," today's Washington Post reports.

"There's plenty of evidence that the Bush legacy is of more than passing interest at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," the paper says "Plans for the Bush library are taking shape, and there seems to be a loose White House campaign to try to define Bush's tenure more favorably than the rough verdict now being rendered by the American public, largely over the Iraq war."

Rove told the paper that the biggest Bush legacy will be the "Bush doctrine," which "says if you train a terrorist, harbor a terrorist, feed a terrorist, you will be treated like a terrorist yourself." If that's to be Bush's biggest legacy, Rove certainly has some work to do if he wants history to view Bush in a better light than the present does.

Rudy Giuliani is quietly trying to mend relations with a former high-profile antagonist -- his one-time police commissioner Bill Bratton, today's New York Times reports.

The paper says Rudy quietly met with Bratton recently for the first time since 1996, the year Bratton left the job. Bratton was being feted by the media for the crime drop, overshadowing the credit Rudy was getting for it, which led Rudy to force Bratton out of the job.

The move by Rudy to smooth over relations with Bratton is key because Bratton, who's currently Los Angeles police commissioner, is well-positioned to publicly cast doubts on one of the issues that's key to his Presidential run: New York's drop in crime.

Former House Speaker New Gingrich has admitted he had an extramarital affair even while he took the lead in persecuting former President Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky, the Associated Press reports.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, said in an interview with James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, according to a transcript given to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

We'll bring you a full transcript when it's available.

Okay, so I just spoke to a Capitol Hill source who shared some interesting detail about just how tense the behind-the-scenes back and forth was today in the House over what to do about Iraq. Some tidbits:

* There was an awkward moment this morning during a closed door meeting -- before the press conferences today -- where the House Dem leadership was trying to get everyone on board behind their approach. The source says that while Nancy Pelosi was addressing the assembled Dems, a bunch of liberal Dem members stood up and walked out to get to their previously scheduled press conference at which they unveiled their own approach. This was a tense and pregnant moment, my source says.

* Also interesting: It appears that there's been some behind-the-scenes erosion in support for the liberal position, according to this source. After both press conferences, another closed-door meeting ensued. "A number of folks who were supportive of the [liberal position] seemed to have heard the magic words they needed to hear from the leadership to get on board with their approach," this source says. "There was some erosion of support for the Progressive/Out Of Iraq position."

Adds the source: "There's been a big push back and forth all day on this."

* According to my source, one of the things that's particularly galling to the liberals is that earlier drafts of the leadership's approach contained a measure that would have forced funding to stop if the troops weren't withdrawn by the date mandated in the legislation. But, my source says, that language was gone from the final version. This pissed off some liberals who think that this was a needless concession to moderate "Blue Dog" Dems that will dilute the measure's ultimate effectiveness.

Incidentally, right now the liberal House Dems are crafting a statement in response to the leadership's proposal. It should be out shortly. (Update: The liberal Dems' statement is out. It's after the jump.)

Anyway, there you have it: A little behind-the-scenes color. It's been quite a day in D.C.

Read more »

Gotta love this. The GOP House leadership has now weighed in on the proposal unveiled by the House Dem leadership today. Their response? By golly, we won't let those Dems end this war:

Indeed, the Republican minority leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, practically invited his Democratic colleagues to bring the measure to the floor.

“Can you defeat this bill?” Mr. Boehner was asked at a Capitol news conference.

“Oh, we can,” he replied.

Mr. Boehner said the Democratic leadership’s idea would be self-defeating for the United States, “telegraphing to our enemy” a timetable for pulling out...

Mr. Boehner called the Democrats’ latest plan “a twist on an old adage: failure at any cost.”

“The Democrats are using the critical troop-funding bill to micromanage the war on terror, undermining our generals on the ground and slowly choking off resources for our troops,” Mr. Boehner said.

If a bill with an arbitrary deadline were ever passed, Mr. Boehner said, America’s enemies in Iraq would “step back, sit back and wait until the dates come and go and then go ahead and press your attack.”

The Republicans want to continue the war; the Democrats want to end it. Let's not talk about "arbitary deadlines." In other words, let's continue the war until we achieve "victory" or forever, whichever comes first.

Not unexpectedly in the least, Bush advisers say he would veto any legislation looking like that which House Dems unveiled today, the Associated Press reports:

Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Bartlett called it "a political compromise in the Democratic caucus of the House aimed at bringing comity to their internal politics, not reflective of the conditions on the ground in Iraq."

"It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, he said. "Obviously, the administration would vehemently oppose and ultimately veto any legislation that looks like what was described today."

Which of course would mean Dems would need to override the veto. Which of course is a long shot at best. More here.

Here are a few updates on the movements of the Presidential candidates:

* The International Association of Fire Fighters originally decided that New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be the only 2008 Presidential candidate not invited to their upcoming forum, but changed their minds before finalizing the forum's schedule and Giuliani was invited. The reason that Giuliani was to be left out is that some members of the union feel that Giuliani showed a “disgraceful lack of respect” for firefighters killed on 9/11 when he cut the number of firefighters allowed to search the remains at Ground Zero from an estimated 300 to 25 and later arrested some firefighters who protested.

* In positive news for Giuliani, the former New York City Mayor has wooed Rep. Peter King away from Sen. John McCain. King co-chaired McCain's 2000 campaign, but will be supporting his fellow New Yorker this time around.

* Though both former Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Joe Biden were expected to attend the DC fundraiser last night for the South Carolina Democratic primaries, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd were the only Presidential candidates to actually appear at the event. The event ended up raising $150,000.

* New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was vetted for Vice President in 2004 by John Kerry's campaign team, and he says the fact that he passed the process should lay questions about his behavior towards women to rest, but Ben Smith reports that the vetting may not have been as thorough as Richardson's campaign claims.

* Iowa state Rep. Janet Peterson recieved a phone call recently from Sen. Hillary Clinton while she was in the middle of giving birth to her son. Clinton purportedly called to speak to Peterson because the Iowa Democrat would be unable to attend a private meeting Hillary was holding with state Democrats in Des Moines on Monday.

* Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has named Jason Roe, a former aide to Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida, as his third deputy campaign manager. Romney has also formed a women's leadership team in South Carolina that will include Debbie DeMint, the wife of Sen. Jim DeMint, former South Carolina First Lady Ann Edwards, National Committeewoman for the state GOP Cindy Costa and state Rep. Nikki Haley.

Read more »

Should voters take into account a candidate's religion in evaluating whether they would make a good officeholder? The answer is yes, according to GOP candidate Mike Huckabee. "I find that very important because my faith will let people know what my judgments are based on, what my values system is about and where it comes from," Huckabee tells The Salt Lake Tribune. "It's a good predictor of how I would likely make decisions and what I think are the important factors in that."

Incidentally, Huckabee declined to say in an earlier interview with the Tribune's parent company whether he thinks fellow conservative candidate Mitt Romney's Latter-Day Saints religion is a cult: "I really don't know that much about it, other than I know Mitt's a nice guy."

Update: This post originally misattributed the Huckabee quotes to the wrong news source. The mistake has been corrected.

A new poll suggests that the margin between those who oppose defunding the war and those who back it may be tightening. While previous polls show that the number of those who oppose defunding have comfortably outnumbered those who are for it, the new NBC-Wall St. Journal poll shows a much tighter margin: 45% for cutting off funding, 48% against. Perhaps not surprisingly, the language in such polls dramatically effects the outcome: While previous polls have shown a fairly large margin of Americans would personally vote to cut off funding if they served in Congress, other polls that asked that question in the third person — asking not what respondents would do themselves, but what they think Congress should do — have shown a wide majority against defunding the escalation. Is this new poll an aberration, or a sign that the public starting is becoming even more anti-surge than polling has already shown them to be before?

As fallout from the Walter Reed scandal continues to tarnish the Pentagon's image and raise calls from improved treatment of veterans, at least one presidential candidate has attempted to insert her voice into the debate. Speaking today at the Center for American Progress, Senator Hillary Clinton called fora new GI "Bill of Rights" to guarantee soldiers adequate equipment in the line of duty, proper health care, and suitable compensation.

Read more »

"Well, maybe the Democratic primary needs a pro-war candidate."

Editor and Publisher -- which has been doing yeoman's work keeping track of all the newspapers that have decided they don't want to publish the work of someone who calls people "ragheads" and "faggot" in public -- now brings us news of a fourth paper that has chucked her overboard.

From a statement by the editor of the Times of Shreveport, LA:

Today we move past the rhetoric and unproductive dialogue offered by Ann Coulter. The Times is dropping her column effective immediately.

It is her recent “joke” about John Edwards being considered a “faggot” that is the back-breaking straw for a decision we've openly discussed for some time. We had a dialogue with readers last year regarding whether Coulter was a responsible commentator and journalist.

Her repeated use of hyperbole in the call for the death of some journalists and politicians was beyond the pale. And while we all believe she was “just kidding,” her "shock-jock'' writing style is no different from Howard Stern's practical jokes and bathroom humor that aims to draw a school-yard snicker but falls well short of reasonable, thought-provoking journalism. Unlike the work of a Thomas Sowell or a Kathleen Parker, two thoughtful conservatives, does a Coulter column raise the level of discourse?

The answer: rarely.

United Press Syndicate, which distributes her column, tells me that around 100 papers carry it. As noted yesterday, the Syndicate is refusing to drop her column. UPS' explanation for this is here.

Still, four papers have now dropped her. That's not insignificant.

Drip...drop...drip...drop...

Religious Right Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave might again face her 2006 third-party opponent in 2008 — but this time running on the Democratic line. The Longmont Daily Times-Call reports that Eric Eidsness, an ex-Republican who ran as the Reform Party candidate last year, has now changed his registration to the Democrats and is gearing up to seek the Dem nod against Musgrave. The centrist Eidsness is a former Naval Officer who was also appointed by President Reagan to a position in the Environmental Protection Agency back in the 1980's, and took 11% of the vote last fall, while Musgrave was reelected by a 46%-43% margin.

Eidsness has been publicly welcomed to the Democrats, though the nomination might not be his for the taking. Other possible candidates are taking a look at the race, and some Democrats might bear ill will towards Eidsness — while his votes came largely from disaffected Republican-leaning moderates, it's also possible he might have also helped Musgrave win reelection by taking votes that would have otherwise gone to Democratic nominee Angie Paccione, who is also considering another run.

Dear Mr. Salem,

I'm a reporter for Talking Points Memo, the national political blog. Given the large amount of concern there is out there over Universal Press Syndicate's continued carrying of Ann Coulter's column, I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions via email and give you a chance to address those concerns.

1) In the letter you have been emailing out to readers who have expressed concern about Coulter's description of John Edwards, you write that the company has no "legal interest" in what writers do outside the relationship with you. I take this to mean that Coulter's use of the anti-gay slur outside of her column has no relevance to whether you'll continue to publisher her.

But is there anything at all that she could say outside of her relationship with that might dissuade you from continuing that relationship with her? If she went on TV and said that the Holocaust hadn't happened or that slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans, would you continue that relationship? What if she described African Americans as "niggers" or if she described Jewish people as "kikes" in an interview? Would you continue distributing her column in such a case?

In other words, is there any limit on what she might say in public outside her column that would induce you to stop giving her the platform your syndication grants her? If the answer is no, why not? And if the answer is that yes, there are in fact things that she could say that would cause you to sever the relationship, why don't "raghead" and "faggot" constitute those things?

Surely the answer to that is yes. And given that there are some things that she would

(2) In your letter to readers, you also write:
"Whether the words she chose in referring to John Edwards were misplaced humor or outright bigotry, we would not have distributed them in her column." I take this to mean that if there are bigoted remarks in her column, you would not distribute that column, or you would edit out those remarks.

Why, then, has UPS distributed past Coulter columns containing clear examples of bigotry against other groups?

On Dec. 3, 2006, Coulter wrote: "What did we do to the Arabs? I believe Americans are the victims in that relationship. After the attacks of 9/11, profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan." On August 19, 2006, in a defense of ethnic profiling of Arabs, Coulter wrote, "I think a plane full of Arabs would attract attention -- except from people who had recently completed a government training program teaching them not to notice anyone's appearance."

Why grant a platform to someone whose business model is nothing more than relying on bigotry and

we have no legal interest in what they may do or say outside of that relationship.

The House Dem leadership has now wrapped up its presser laying out its plan for ending the war. Here's the key detail: President Bush will be required to certify on July 1 and again on October 1 whether the Iraq government is meeting key benchmarks in reducing violence and other areas.

If Bush certifies that, yes, the Iraqis are meeting them, then withdrawal would begin on March 1, 2008, and be completed by September 1 of that year.

If Bush certifies on July 1 that, no, the Iraqis are not meeting their benchmarks, then withdrawal would commence immediately and conclude in six months. If he certifies that the Iraqis are meeting the benchmarks on July 1 but not on October 1, then the same six-month withdrawal would kick into gear.

Bottom line: The House Dem leadership's approach would force withdrawal by the end of this year at the earliest, and by September 2008 at the latest.

There are a bunch of other details in the plan; the Associated Press account is here. More on the state of play soon.

Okay, so liberal House Dems have just concluded their press conference in Washington, where they laid out their preferred approach to ending the Iraq War.

The crux of what the liberals want is this: Any further funding for the war, they say, should be earmarked for funding withdrawal of the troops. The idea is to fund withdrawal, rather than defund the war.

Their proposal was best expressed in this statement by Dem Rep. Barbara Lee, in which she detailed the amendment she and other liberal House Dems such as Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler, Maurice Hinchey and others would like to see voted on in the House. Lee read aloud the following:

"We are here today to discuss our proposal for Congress to fully fund the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31st, 2007.

"The American people sent a clear message in November -- they called on Congress to bring a responsible end to the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq, and that is what the Lee Amendment is designed to do.

"Let me briefly explain what the Lee Amendment would do.

"It would require that all funds appropriated for Iraq could be used only for the following purposes:

"First, to complete the withdrawal of all US Armed Forces and military contractors from Iraq by December 31st, 2007.

"And second, to provide for the protection of those forces and contractors during the course of that withdrawal.

"We also clarify that while this would effectively end our military occupation of Iraq, it does not prohibit or restrict funds from being used for diplomatic efforts or reconstruction.

"According to a Gallup poll out this week, 6 in 10 Americans (58 percent) want U.S. troops to be withdrawn within 12 months.

"This very simple proposal represents where the majority of Americans are with regard to Iraq, and we are in discussion with our leadership to consider this proposal in formulating the supplemental."

The text of the Lee amendment is after the jump.

House Dem leaders, meanwhile, should be wrapping up their presser any minute now. More soon.

Read more »

Today is a key day for anyone watching the internal battles among House Dems over what to do about Iraq, as House Dem leaders and House liberals are staging dueling press conferences this morning to outline their approaches. House liberals are set for 9:30 A.M., while House Dem leaders will hold theirs a half hour later, at 10 A.M. A quick look at their differences is here. Lots to watch today.

Update: The Associated Press has some details of what House Dem leaders will be presenting today.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post adds this about the legislation House Dem leaders are pushing in hopes that it will unite the party:

Under the deal, to be formally drafted by the Appropriations Committee next week, Congress would institute the same tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush detailed in a national address in January. Under those benchmarks, the Iraqi government would have to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, and adopt and implement oil-revenue-sharing legislation. The government would have to spend $10 billion of Iraq's money on job-creating reconstruction and infrastructure projects; hold provincial elections this year; liberalize laws that purged Baath Party members from the government; and establish a fairer process for amending the Iraqi constitution. Bush would have to certify the benchmarks are met by year's end. If not, troops would begin leaving Iraq next spring, with all troops out of combat by the fall, a senior Democratic aide said.

"Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are vacuuming up support from a small group of inside-the-Beltway players with proven records raising millions of dollars, finessing policy and generating political buzz," The Hill reports.

McCain is the GOP candidate with the most K Street backing. Among his supporters:

* Charlie Black, chairman of BKSH & Associates * Rich Bond, political director to former President George H.W. Bush and Republican National Committee chairman * Tom Loeffler, chairman of The Loeffler Group, who raised $375,000 for Republicans in 2004 * Bush fundraisers Wayne Berman, Richard Hohlt, David Metzner, and David Girard-diCarlo

Meanwhile Rudy has intensified his courting of K Street in recent weeks, wining over lobbyist Dirk Van Dongen and James Miller. Romney, meanwhile, has the backing of lawyer Theodore Olson, Bush fundraiser Bill Paxon, and lobbyists Vin Weber and Ron Kaufman, who was Bush's political director.

National Dem strategists think they've found an ideal candidate to challenge Minnesota freshman GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann's reelection next year, Roll Call reports. He is Elwyn Tinklenberg, the former mayor of Blaine and former transportation secretary.

"He is the same 'perfect fit' for the suburban and exurban 6th district that they found in 2005 — though he never made it onto the ballot come Election Day," Roll Call says. "In the previous cycle, Tinklenberg was the first Democrat to declare his candidacy for the open seat in April 2005. National Democrats immediately embraced him, noting that his strong support of the Second Amendment and opposition to abortion rights melded perfectly with the socially conservative district northwest of the Twin Cities."

Tinklenberg, however, decided not to run, deferring instead to child-safety advocate Patty Wetterling, who was the choice of local Dems but went on to lose to Bachmann in the general election. Now it may be Tinklenberg's turn.

Mitt Romney — whose inroads with Jeb Bush's backers have been well-documented — has now picked up the support of George W. Bush's former business partner, Texas Congressman Mike Conaway, Romney's campaign has announced. Conway — who was elected in 2004 from a district seemingly tailor-made for him in Tom DeLay's redistricting — served as Chief Financial Officer of Bush's failed oil company, Arbusto, before going to Washington. Conaway's support is a good get for Romney, as it will likely enable him to tap the same members of Texas' GOP and business establishment that helped bankroll Bush's rise to power in Texas and beyond.

It turns out that the Presidential race has started early for the voters, too. A new Gallup poll finds that nearly half of Americans are already focused on the 2008 election -- though very few have made up their minds about whom they will back for President. The poll finds that 48% of respondents have given "quite a lot" of thought to the race, while only 15% of registered voters have selected their candidate. Full poll here.

Okay, so tensions are heating up tonight among House Dems over what to do about the Iraq War.

Liberal House Dems have just released a new statement shooting down rumors that there's any deal with the House Dem leadership over how to confront the White House over its request for continued funding of the war.

As noted earlier, members of the Progressive and Out of Iraq caucus are preparing to go public tomorrow with their own approach to halting the war. Tonight, rumors were swirling among reporters and others that some kind of deal had been reached to accomodate the libs and circumvent their press conference.

But now, the liberal House Dems have just released a statement saying, in effect, No Can Do:

"We have had a constructive dialogue with members of our party's leadership regarding the upcoming supplemental debate. However, at this time, we have not reached any final agreement regarding the supplemental. We look forward to discussing our proposal to fully fund the withdrawal of US soldiers and military contractors with members of the press tomorrow morning at 9:30am in the Radio/TV gallery."

Things are getting very interesting. Tune in tomorrow.

Update: The House Dem leadership is planning its own press conference for tomorrow morning -- game on...

The liberals are coming! Get ready -- progressive House Dems are going public with their own plan to end the Iraq War.

As we reported here yesterday, a bunch of key liberal House Dems are now taking behind-the-scenes steps to build support for an approach to ending the Iraq that's more aggressive than the one preferred by the House Dem leadership.

The liberals' approach is this: They want any Congressionally-approved funding for the war to be earmarked specifically for withdrawal -- the idea being that they are pushing for a "fully-funded withdrawal," rather than a defunding of the war.

Now these liberals are going to present their plan to the public. Tomorrow morning, a group of them -- including Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler and others -- will hold a press conference to detail the specifics of their plan. It'll be interesting to see how the House Dem leadership reacts.

As we also reported yesterday, the liberal Dems are privately circulating a "dear colleague" letter designed to win over other House members to their approach. We have the letter for you after the jump.

Read more »

Bill Clinton is hosting a bunch of "intimate gatherings in New York this month in support of Hillary for President," according to an internal Hillary fundraising email that went out to elite donors and other supporters and was emailed to Election Central.

As we first reported here a few weeks ago, Bill recently started hosting elite high-dollar events for Hillary on his own designed to bring in big bucks for Hillary's campaign. The unorthodox tactic is made possible by the unique circumstances enjoyed by a Presidential candidate whose spouse is a former President -- and hence at least as big a fundraising draw as she. It enables her to be off campaigning or raising money while he brings in big sums for her on his own.

Now Bill appears to be upping his efforts on this front. According to the fundraising email, Bill is hosting at least five such events this month alone:

President Bill Clinton is headlining a number of intimate gatherings in New York this month in support of Hillary for President. Dates include: March 13, 8:30PM in New York City; March 15, 8:30PM in New York City; March 19, 6:00PM in New York City, March 19, 8.30PM in Scarsdale; and March 22, 6:00PM in New York City. A more detailed schedule will follow. In the meantime, if you know anyone who is interested in attending one of these receptions, please contact XXXXX.

"Intimate" in this context would suggest that in exchange for high-ticket fees, donors can have face-time with the former President.

Incidentally, here's another thing that's interesting about this memo: It also included an attached copy of a recent New York Times column by David Brooks for recipients to read -- the one that argued that Hillary need not apologize for her 2002 vote to authorize President Bush to go to war.

*********************************

Update: To our contention that "it's good to be the spouse of a former President," TPM Reader LE rejoins: "It's even better to be the son of a former president, especially when one shares the same basic name and the father had had only one term. Many people who voted for G.W. Bush in 2000 thought they were giving a "well-deserved" second term to the original Bush." Indeed.

So here's a bit more detail on the private fundraisers that Bill Clinton is hosting -- without Hillary -- for her Presidential campaign. It appears that Bill is hosting a bunch of "intimate gatherings in New York this month in support of Hillary for President," according to an internal Hillary fundraising email I've obtained.

As we first reported here a few weeks ago, Bill recently started hosting private elite high-dollar events on his own designed to bring in big bucks for Hillary's campaign. The tactic, which appears to be unprecedented, is made possible by the unique circumstances enjoyed by a Presidential candidate whose spouse is a former President -- and hence at least as big a fundraising draw as she. It enables her to be off campaigning while he brings in big sums for her on his own.

Now Bill appears to be upping his efforts on this front. According to an internal fundraising email that went out to elite donors and other supporters, Bill is hosting at least five such events this month alone.

From the memo:

President Bill Clinton is headlining a number of intimate gatherings in New York this month in support of Hillary for President. Dates include: March 13, 8:30PM in New York City; March 15, 8:30PM in New York City; March 19, 6:00PM in New York City, March 19, 8.30PM in Scarsdale; and March 22, 6:00PM in New York City. A more detailed schedule will follow. In the meantime, if you know anyone who is interested in attending one of these receptions, please contact XXXXX.

The memo

This is interesting: It looks as if two of Hillary Clinton's most powerful black supporters in South Carolina are playing hardball with Barack Obama.

State Senators Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson, who have both endorsed Hillary, attempted to block an invitation for Obama to give a speech at the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus annual fundraiser — and tried to use their clout as members of the caucus to arrange a speaking engagement for Hillary instead, The Associated Press reports.

Making this power-play particularly notable, the speaking slot is generally offered to a black person — so if they'd succeeded in shuffling out Obama and putting in Hillary, it would have been perceived as a major snub to African Americans. The event's organizers, however, ultimately agreed to go ahead with the invitaiton to Obama after Jackson and Ford backed down.

Ford has previously stated in no uncertain terms his opposition to the party nominating a black person for President: "Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black and he's at the top of the ticket — we'd lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything." The Hillary camp has denounced Ford's remarks.

Here are a few updates on the movements of the Presidential candidates:

* Sen. John McCain's campaign is working under the radar to change the Presidential nomination rules in California to allow independents to vote in the Republican primary. If he is successful, the move has the potential to benefit McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani while hampering former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is trying to cast himself as the most traditionally conservative top-tier candidate.

* Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel uttered the I-word -- impeachment -- recently in an interview with Esquire magazine, saying that President Bush thinks "he's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment."

* In a move that could benefit Rudy's candidacy, California's state assembly approved legislation yesterday that seeks to move the state's primary up to Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. The bill now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has previously indicated support for the measure.

* Sen. Chris Dodd got some positive news on Sunday when he won a straw poll of York County, South Carolina Democrats with 28 percent of the votes. Barack Obama finished with 24 percent, Hillary Clinton had 18 percent, and John Edwards pulled in 11 percent. No other Democrat got more than 10 percent.

* Moderate Republicans such as Former New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman, former Missouri Sen. John Danforth and former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele are looking to revive the centrist Republican Leadership Council, which has barely been active since 2003, in order to recruit and cultivate candidates who are fiscally conservative, but socially moderate for local, state and federal races.

* National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre is expected to attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for the notoriously pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani. Ben Smith has video of LaPierre criticizing New York City's gun laws, which presumably include the ones from Giuliani's term as Mayor. UPDATE: Though he was invited, it turns out LaPierre will skip the fundraiser.

More after the jump.

Read more »

John Lewis, the powerful Dem Congressman and Civil Rights icon whose endorsement is being aggressively sought by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, says in an interview with The Politicker that he's not ready to pick between the two:

Assessing their performances in Selma this weekend, Lewis said that both candidates convinced him of their civil rights chops, but, for the moment, neither is getting his endorsement.

After praising both candidates -- "they are both good and different" -- Lewis added that being faced with such a choice was a political embarrassment of riches: "More than anything else, 42 years later, to have an African-American and woman as the leading two contenders for the nomination is unheard of." The Politicker's full interview is here.

The wingers are really, really going to be irked by this one: It turns out that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman and the frequent target of lots of right-wing rage, is actually working in concert with the Bush administration as part of its efforts to promote America's image in the Muslim world.

McClatchy News reports that Ellison has taped an interview with Voice of America, the Federal government's official international radio and TV organization, and will soon be participating in a teleconference with Karen Hughes. Both are intended to burnish the U.S.'s image abroad by showing off the opportunities Muslims enjoy in this country. A Pakistani producer for Voice of America told McClatchy that Ellison is "the most famous freshman Congressman in the world," and he and other officials told McClatchy that Ellison's participation is a positive step in helping repair the country's image in the Muslim world. Condoleezza is also reportedly going to meet with Ellison soon to try and figure out how Ellison's stature can be used to the U.S.'s advantage.

Ellison, of course, has made no secret of his distaste for the President's policies. He's even publicly mused on impeachment. Nevertheless, he says he's happy to work with the administration: "I've said I'm willing to do whatever I can to make some friends for America."

John Edwards has pulled out of the Dem Presidential debate in Nevada amid a growing furor over the debate organizers' decision to allow the gathering to be hosted by the pro-GOP Fox News network. Edwards senior adviser Jonathan Prince emailed the following statement to the Daily Kos blog:

“We will not be participating in the Fox debate. We're going to make lots of appearances in Nevada, including debates. By the end of March, we will have attended three presidential forums in Nevada - and there are already at least three proposed Nevada debates. We're definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don't see why this needs to be one of them.”

Coming on the heels of Edwards' refusal to fire two campaign bloggers accused of anti-Catholic bigotry, this latest decision makes it even clearer that Edwards is making a serious bid to be the "netroots" candidate. Here's some positive feedback from Atrios, Matt Stoller, and John Aravosis.

The still-outstanding question: What will the other Dem candidates do?

"I mean, this is divorce on steroids. To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That's rough. I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control."

-- Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, quoted by CNN on why Rudy Giuliani's public breakup with Donna Hanover will turn social conservatives against him. Via Atrios.

Is Chuck Hagel, the most outspoken GOP Iraq War critic, on the verge of announcing a candidacy for President? ABC News reports that Hagel has told two unions, the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Building and Construction Trades Department, that he wants to participate in their upcoming GOP cattle call scheduled for March 14.

Although a Hagel aide said the Senator has not made a decision about a campaign, a spokesperson for one of the unions told ABC, "I think it's fair to say that if Sen. Hagel is accepting the invitation to be a participant in a presidential candidates' forum that he is, in fact, a candidate for president."

GOPers are skeptical, however. Former Reagan Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein, for instance, told ABC that Hagel's dissent from Bush Administration policy on Iraq "flies in the face of ... having any viable way of getting the nomination."

Uh oh. A new poll finds that Rudy Giuliani is leading Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania and Florida, two of the top three swing states, while the two are locked in a virtual tie in the third key state of Ohio. The numbers from the new Quinnipiac University poll are as follows:

* Florida: Rudy 47%, Hillary 42% * Pennsylvania: Rudy 51%, Hillary 40% * Ohio: Hillary 44%-43%

Rudy fares even better against Barack Obama, holding leads in all three states. We'll bring you a link to the full poll as soon as it's available.

Update: The full poll is here. As always, the numbers from this and all other polls can be found in our TPM Poll Tracker.

In their quest to forge consensus on a way to confront the White House over its request for more money for the Iraq war, House Dem leaders are struggling to reach a deal with liberal Dems over a spending bill that would allow votes on various amendments sought by members who want a more aggressive approach, Roll Call reports.

As reported here yesterday, key progressive Dems last night circulated a "dear colleague" letter seeking to build support for a more confrontational approach than the one being entertained by House Dem leaders. The more aggressive approach being pushed by liberals would agree on funding for the troops, but only if it were also mandated that withdrawal commence according to an established timetable.

The House leadership is entertaining the possibility of allowing votes on amendments containing such provisions in exchange for a vote from progressive members on their less-confrontational approach, which would allow the President to send unprepared troops into battle if he sought a "waiver" to do so. It remains to be seen whether such a compromise will mollify restive liberal Dems. Full story here.

Further cementing Rudy Giuliani's status as the frontrunner in the GOP Presidential primary, the new Gallup poll finds that he's leading John McCain by an astonishing 24 points, 44%-20%. Also surprising: The poll finds that Rudy is the first or second choice of 64% of GOP voters, the only Republican primary candidate who commands a majority in this category. And asked who they'd prefer if the choice were between just Rudy and McCain, 58% pick Rudy, while only 34% pick the Arizona Senator.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Gallup finds Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by a 36%-22% margin, with Al Gore coming in third with a surprisingly strong 18%. Edwards lags behind with 9%.

Okay, here are some more signs that the House Dem leadership is facing a backstage challenge from its liberal members over its plan to confront the White House over its request for more funds for the war.

I've just learned that Dem Reps. Barbara Lee, Jerrold Nadler, Maurice Hinchey and other key members of the House Dems' progressive caucus are planning to send out tonight a "dear colleague" letter to other members that will seek to build support among colleagues for an alternate approach to the one being pushed by the House leadership.

The alternate approach originated with Lee, who's also a member of the Out of Iraq caucus and who is proposing an amendment to the House leadership's current plan. The amendment would only allow financing to protect American troops in Iraq pending a full pull-out according to an established timetable. The idea would be to frame the proposal as "fully funding withdrawal," rather than as defunding the war effort. While some of these ideas have been made public, the new plan to start seriously rounding up support has not.

This alternate approach has the backing of a number of key House progressives, all of whom are expected to sign the letter.

The prospects of success for the new approach are unclear. In another sign of a more aggressive posture from liberals in the House, a House progressive caucus source tells me that backers of the proposal are now starting to "whip count" -- that is, canvass other members to gauge how many will line up behind her approach. The source expects to have a good idea of the numbers later in the week. So stay tuned.

Meanwhile, we'll bring you the full text of the letter as soon as it goes out to fellow House members tonight.

A couple of the Dem Presidential hopefuls have now issued statements responding to the Libby conviction.

Barack Obama:

"The conviction today underscores what happens when our foreign and national security policies are subverted by politics and ideology. Leaks and innuendo in pursuit of a flawed policy lead to shameful episodes such as this. It should never happen again."

John Edwards:

“Today’s verdict in the Libby case is an important step in holding the Administration accountable for its consistent misuse and manipulation of intelligence to further its ideological agenda. But there are serious questions about whether the buck actually stopped with Scooter Libby. The American people deserve to know if Mr. Libby has been made a scapegoat in order to protect anyone else.”

Nothing yet from Hillary.

Interestingly, both Obama and Edwards stopped short of making Harry Reid's demand that the White House pledge not to pardon Libby. Thoughts?

Update: Here's Hillary Clinton's statement:

“While justice has been served in the Libby case, the real lesson to come from it is that we must be vigilant in ensuring that the intelligence on burgeoning threats to our nation is beyond reproach. Clearly, the Bush Administration wasn't forthcoming about the intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq and as a result damaged the country's credibility. We need to ensure that our intelligence is accurate, reliable and free of political influence.”

Here are a few updates on the movements of the Presidential candidates:

* Sen. Hillary Clinton picked up an important New Hampshire endorsement today when Rep. Mary Jane Wallner, the Majority Leader in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, announced her support for the former First Lady today.

* Meanwhile, Clinton told Radio Iowa yesterday that campaign appearances by her husband, President Bill Clinton, will be rare, but "it'll happen when it can."

* Sen. Barack Obama is drawing some criticism for disinviting Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr from delivering a public invocation at Obama's Feb. 10 Presidential announcement. Wright is the pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago of which Obama is a member.

* In an interview with David Kuo for Beliefnet, former Sen. John Edwards said Jesus "would be appalled" by "our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs."

* Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who asked the media to respect his family's privacy yesterday, will make his first trip to Iowa next month, indicating that he plans to compete in the state's caucuses where social conservatives traditionally dominate.

* Sen. Joe Biden called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "madman" while speaking in South Carolina yesterday and even hinted that he could be "assassinated" by foes within in Iran.

More after the jump.

Read more »

A daily newspaper in Pennsylvania has dropped Ann Coulter's syndicated column in the wake of her "faggot" comment. The paper, the Lancaster New Era, delivered the news today in a terse note to readers:

LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. -- The Lancaster New Era has halted publication of Ann Coulter's syndicated column, following her crude characterization of presidential candidate John Edwards as a homosexual, at a public appearance on Friday.

Coulter's use of name-calling, sarcasm and overstatement in her columns too often detracts from the arguments she seeks to make. Her writing leads her political opponents to respond with name-calling and vitriol.

The quality of public discussion falls below that which Lancaster County residents expect in the opinion pages of their daily newspaper.

Lancaster County residents of whatever political view -- conservative, moderate or liberals -- deserve intelligent discussion of issues. Ann Coulter no longer provides that.

Making this more interesting, New Era editor Ernie Schreiber noted in a follow up interview with Editor and Publisher that the decision was driven in part by the fact that the paper's readership is overwhelmingly Republican and conservative:

He told E&P that Coulter "was hurting our credibility. Our community is largely conservative and Republican. They expect insightful discussion of issues...

Schreiber said of Coulter: "I can't defend her antics, and I don't want the New Era associated with them."

How many other papers carry Coulter's column? How many of them still want to be associated with Coulter's "antics"? And for that matter, how long will major networks allow themselves to be associated with them? This little Pennsylvania daily has a heck of a lot more class than news giant NBC does, that's for sure.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Libby verdict:

“I welcome the jury’s verdict. It’s about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics. Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney’s role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct.”

Note that he, like Nancy Pelosi, cast the verdict as a broader indictment of the Bush administration, but did her one better by demanding that the White House pledge now not to pardon Libby.

Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Dana Perino is declining to comment on Reid's call for a no-pardon pledge.

The House Speaker's blog posts Nancy Pelosi's statement on the Libby verdict:

Today's guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual.

This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.

In the wake of the Libby verdict, Fox News has wheeled out a brigade of legal analysts along with the network's usual TV hosts -- and they are all reaching oddly similar conclusions: The verdict is flawed, and there was no underlying crime. A sampling is below.

Legal Analyst Andrew Napolitano:

When you even so even so much as hint to the jury that the defendant is going to take the stand, and then he doesn't, the jury begins to wonder.

Fox News Reporter Jim Angle:

And I should say one other thing: We've talked to a lot of defense lawyers and former federal prosecutors about this case. When Scooter Libby went to the FBI and before the grand jury, he was advised by an old friend who is not a criminal lawyer. And in talking to many criminal lawyers and former prosecutors, they have all said, when you go before a grand jury and you cannot remember, do not try to help them, do not try to sort through your memory, just say you do not remember. Scooter Libby, many believe, simply went too far in trying to remember things, and did not remember them correctly. Obviously, the prosecution says he knowingly lied, but there are a number of people who said they would never let their clients go into a grand jury and start sorting through their memories and saying anything nearly as specific as he did to both the FBI and the grand jury here.

Victoria Toensing, Washington lawyer and former Barry Goldwater Senate staffer, who helped write the 1982 law governing the leaking of a CIA official's identity:

I am totally surprised, because the verdict is inconsistent. That doesn't bother the law at all; the courts don't care if verdicts are inconsistent, because they say whichever way the jury reached the decision, that's up to the jury. But practically, the verdict is inconsistent because if you're looking at this, you would either think Scooter Libby had decided to lie to the FBI and the grand jury, or he did not. And it seems to me rather strange that it's split. Oh, in the one situation talking to the FBI, he did not, and in the others, he did. It doesn't make sense.

Fox News Commentator Fred Barnes:

I would stop short of calling it politically devastating, however, because no one was charged with an underlying crime here of actually having illegally leaked the name of Valerie Plame Wilson to the press. We know who the original leaker was - Richard Armitage at the State Department - but he wasn't charged, nor was anyone else. So this is not quite as devastating as it could be if there was some underlying crime.

Libby's defense attorney speaks:

Defense attorney Ted Wells said he was very disappointed in the verdict.

"Despite our disappointment in the jurors' verdict, we believe in the American justice system and we believe in the jury system. We intend to file a motion for a new trial and if that is denied, we will appeal the conviction, and we have every confidence that ultimately Mr. Libby will be vindicated," he said.

"We believe, as we said at the time of the indictment, that he is totally innocent, totally innocent and that he did not do anything wrong," Wells continued.

Here are the four charges Libby was convicted on:

* obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame;

* making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert;

* perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert;

* a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.

Libby faces a probable sentence of one-and-a-half to three years in prison when he is sentenced by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton.

"Scooter" Libby has been found guilty on multiple counts in the Plame leak trial, CNN says. More in a bit.

Update: Including on obstruction of justice, according to The Times. He was cleared on charges of lying to the FBI.

John Edwards is claiming to have won the Tom Vilsack sweepstakes -- that is, the battle by the current Presidential candidates to win over the backers of Vilsack, who dropped out of the race a couple weeks ago and still carries considerable clout in the all-important state of Iowa. The Edwards campaign has just announced that they picked up the backing of "more than 100" Vilsack supporters. The full list of them is after the jump. Be warned: It's long.

Read more »

Mitt Romney has been aggressively wooing the GOP's conservative base — but how will anti-immigration conservatives react when they hear that Romney's now running a radio ad in Spanish in Florida?

Romney's new ad, which you can listen to here on the Romney campaign's Web site, is intended as outreach to Florida's Cuban community — a key GOP constituency in the state. The ad features former state GOP chairman Al Cardenas promoting Romney to the Cuban-American community:

"Es una época difícil en el mundo, en las Américas y en una Cuba en transición/Mitt Romney entiende la dinámica de Cuba."

Translation: "It is a difficult time in the world, in the Americas and in a Cuba in transition/Mitt Romney understands the dynamic of Cuba." Romney has been building a strong campaign organization in Florida, thanks to the support of many in Jeb Bush's organization, but it's unclear what the GOP's more nativist elements would think of his decision to reach out to immigrants in a language other than English.

Barely days after Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama crossed paths in search of black votes in Alabama, the two candidates are set to go head-to-head for Jewish votes when they give dueling speeches before a pro-Israel lobbying group, today's Daily News reports. Hillary and Obama will both hold receptions at the Washington policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee next Monday.

Meanwhile, the New York Post reports that Obama came to Hillary's home state last night, slipping into New York City to raise cash at a fundraiser attended by such donor bigs as George Soros' son and former John Kerry fundraiser Jamie Whitehead.

President Bush's approval rate has sank to the dismally low level of 30%, a new Zogby telephone poll finds. The number matches his all-time low last December.

Key number: The poll also finds that Bush is viewed possibly by only 20% of self-described independents.

In what could amount to the biggest change to Presidential politics in decades, a bunch of states are trying to shift their primaries to February 5 -- possibly creating a situation where the nominees of the major parties are essentially selected in one day, today's Boston Globe reports.

"At least 19 states have moved or are considering moving their primaries to the first Tuesday in February -- contests that would follow earlier ones in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina," the paper says.

Key fact: If only 10 of those largest states succeed, that would mean that the states that are home to what amounts to more than half the nation's population would be staging their primaries on a single day.

House Dems are still struggling to forge consensus around an approach to confronting the White House over its request for funding for the Iraq war -- and the internal differences among Dems could delay action until next week, Roll Call reports:

As of Monday evening, the chances of committee action on a bill this week were slipping away and it was unclear whether House Democratic leaders would include language, first proposed by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), to restrict in some way the president’s ability to deploy troops to Iraq unless he publicly acknowledges that he is sending troops into combat without meeting certain readiness requirements.

However, one House Democratic leadership aide indicated that the bill most likely would include a provision requiring the president to report to Congress on whether the benchmarks he set out for the Iraqi government are being met. And there were other indications Monday that House Democratic leaders were considering language requiring the president to seek Congressional approval for any military action against Iran.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported late last night that the White House is set to complicate matters even further by asking for more money for the escalation than it had previously requested. With all these piece in motion, the high-stakes brinsmanship is only likely to intensify today.

Moving further from the private sector and closer to a full-blown run for President, Rudy Giuliani sold the investment banking arm of his consulting business yesterday to an Australian firm for an undisclosed amount, The Washington Post reports.

One expert interviewed by the paper thinks the sale of Giuliani Capital Advisers LLC was driven by a political desire to put more daylight between Rudy and his onetime clients. "The organization has dealt with all varieties of clients over time, some of whom would expose his image to certain perception problems," said Columbia Business School professor Eric Abrahamson. "I would imagine that, fairly soon, he would have to completely distance himself from the business."

Hillary Clinton is set to launch a major new effort to reach out to women -- one that will include enlisting high-profile female achievers in many fields other than politics, today's New York Times reports.

This is interesting: House Dem leaders are suggesting to members that they raise the issue of conditions of veterans' hospitals in their districts as a way of localizing the Walter Reed scandal and keeping public attention focused on it, a House Dem caucus source tells us.

At their weekly closed-door Monday meeting with the press secretaries of House Dems today, House caucus aides suggested to the assembled flacks that their members tour their local Veterans hospitals and look into the conditions there, the source says. "The idea is, `Here's a great opportunity to localize the story, to bring it home, as another failure of the Bush administration towards the troops,'" the source says.

"It was, `Here's a good way to talk about this publicly and get the issue in the paper, here's a tight message,'" the source continues. "Dems want to be branded as the people who support the troops. Republicans don't support the troops. Here's a perfect case study in that."

A second caucus source adds, "The purpose of this is not just to keep it in the spotlight, but to really ensure you're keeping up with going on at your local VA hospitals, stressing that Democrats are the party that does support the troops." So if you suddenly see more coverage of this in your local papers, now you'll understand why.

The percentage of those who think success is definite or even likely in Iraq just keeps sinking -- and it's now dropped to just 28%, or barely more than one in four, in a new poll just released by USA Today. The electorate appears somewhat conflicted on what should be done to end the war, however, though large majorities want some sort of Congressional action: