Clinton plans to stump for Carmona

Former President Bill Clinton, a Democratic Party superstar and the last Democrat to carry Arizona in a presidential election, is set to headline a Wednesday rally in Tempe for U.S. Senate candidate Richard Carmona.

The "Get Out The Vote" event is scheduled for 8 p.m. on Arizona State University's Sun Devil Performance Lawn, 650 S. Athletes Place, Carmona's campaign announced Saturday.

Early voting for the Nov. 6 election begins Thursday.

The rally is free but anybody wanting to attend must register online at carmonaforarizona.com/early-vote.

Carmona, a former U.S. surgeon general who is running as a Democrat, is locked in a tough fight against six-term Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake for the retiring GOP U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl's seat.

An automated poll of 595 likely Arizona voters conducted last week by the Democratic company Public Policy Polling indicated the race is still close, but showed Carmona leading Flake for the first time, 45percent to 43percent, with 12percent undecided.

The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The poll has energized the Carmona campaign and his supporters.

Clinton defeated Republican challenger Bob Dole in 1996 to become the only Democrat to carry Arizona since President Harry Truman did so in 1948.

Third-party candidate Ross Perot also was on the ballot in 1996.

In 2006, Clinton stumped in Arizona for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jim Pederson, who wound up losing his hard-fought battle to unseat Kyl.

In other developments:

Carmona and Flake are expected to square off several times in the next few weeks.

On Wednesday, the candidates will appear before The Arizona Republic's editorial board for a 1:30 p.m. meeting that will be live-streamed on azcentral.com.

At 5 p.m., they will debate Libertarian candidate Marc Victor on Channel 8's (KAET) "Arizona Horizon" program.

Flake and Carmona will meet again Oct. 15 for a 6 p.m. debate on Tucson's Channel 6 (KUAT); Oct. 17 for an 11 a.m. debate on KJZZ (91.5 FM) radio's "Here and Now" show; and Oct. 25 for a 12:30 p.m. debate in front of an audience at Arizona Western College in Yuma that will air later on local TV and radio.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, praised Republican Mitt Romney's performance in his Wednesday debate against President Barack Obama.

Four years ago, McCain, R-Ariz., debated Obama three times.

"The difference is this time he had a record that he had to defend," McCain told The Republic.

Nowicki is The Republic's national political reporter. Follow his blog at azdc.azcentral.com.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Clinton plans to stump for Carmona

Former President Bill Clinton, a Democratic Party superstar and the last Democrat to carry Arizona in a presidential election, is set to headline a Wednesday rally in Tempe for U.S. Senate candidate Richard Carmona.

The "Get Out The Vote" event is scheduled for 8 p.m. on Arizona State University's Sun Devil Performance Lawn, 650 S. Athletes Place, Carmona's campaign announced Saturday.

Early voting for the Nov. 6 election begins Thursday.

The rally is free but anybody wanting to attend must register online at carmonaforarizona.com/early-vote.

Carmona, a former U.S. surgeon general who is running as a Democrat, is locked in a tough fight against six-term Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake for the retiring GOP U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl's seat.

An automated poll of 595 likely Arizona voters conducted last week by the Democratic company Public Policy Polling indicated the race is still close, but showed Carmona leading Flake for the first time, 45percent to 43percent, with 12percent undecided.

The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The poll has energized the Carmona campaign and his supporters.

Clinton defeated Republican challenger Bob Dole in 1996 to become the only Democrat to carry Arizona since President Harry Truman did so in 1948.

Third-party candidate Ross Perot also was on the ballot in 1996.

In 2006, Clinton stumped in Arizona for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jim Pederson, who wound up losing his hard-fought battle to unseat Kyl.

In other developments:

Carmona and Flake are expected to square off several times in the next few weeks.

On Wednesday, the candidates will appear before The Arizona Republic's editorial board for a 1:30 p.m. meeting that will be live-streamed on azcentral.com.

At 5 p.m., they will debate Libertarian candidate Marc Victor on Channel 8's (KAET) "Arizona Horizon" program.

Flake and Carmona will meet again Oct. 15 for a 6 p.m. debate on Tucson's Channel 6 (KUAT); Oct. 17 for an 11 a.m. debate on KJZZ (91.5 FM) radio's "Here and Now" show; and Oct. 25 for a 12:30 p.m. debate in front of an audience at Arizona Western College in Yuma that will air later on local TV and radio.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, praised Republican Mitt Romney's performance in his Wednesday debate against President Barack Obama.

Four years ago, McCain, R-Ariz., debated Obama three times.

"The difference is this time he had a record that he had to defend," McCain told The Republic.

Nowicki is The Republic's national political reporter. Follow his blog at azdc.azcentral.com.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Obama, Invoking Clinton, Says Romney Budget Doesn't Add Up

MELBOURNE, Fla. — President Obama, picking up where former President Bill Clinton left off, said Sunday that the budget proposals offered by Mitt Romney and Paul D. Ryan do not add up.

The president was quick to jump on appearances by his Republican rivals on the Sunday morning talk shows, in which they were asked separately what loopholes they would close to pay for their proposed tax cuts. Neither of the men answered the question.

The relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Clinton started off rocky — Mr. Obama, after all, ran against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008. But after Mr. Clinton’s ringing endorsement of Mr. Obama in a well-received Democratic convention speech on Wednesday, the president mentioned his Democratic predecessor at every stop on a bus tour of Florida over the weekend.

“President Clinton told us the single thing missing from my opponents’ proposal was arithmetic,” Mr. Obama told a rally here, to a burst of applause.

“When my opponents were asked about it today,” Mr. Obama said, “it was like 2 plus 1 equals 5.”

On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Mr. Romney did not answer several questions from the host, David Gregory, on which tax deductions he would seek to eliminate, saying only that he would target “some of the loopholes and deductions at the high end” while lowering the “burden on middle-income people.”

On the ABC News program “This Week,” Mr. Ryan said that “the best way to do this is to show the framework, show the outlines of these plans, and then to work with Congress.”

Mr. Clinton, at the Democratic National Convention, said the Romney-Ryan plan did not  add up. Since then, Mr. Obama has adopted that line on the stump, and he has reiterated it in almost all of his public remarks.

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 9, 2012

An earlier version of this post said incorrectly that former President Bill Clinton addressed the Democratic convention on Thursday. His speech was Wednesday.

View the original article here

Analysis: Clinton argues the case for re-election

CHARLOTTE – President Obama and his Republican opponents have fought to a draw for nearly four years over the best way to fix the economy. On Wednesday, Obama turned to the Democratic Party's explainer-in-chief to win the argument: Bill Clinton.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

President Obama joins former president Bill Clinton on stage following Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Wednesday.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

President Obama joins former president Bill Clinton on stage following Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Wednesday.

The former president did what he does best. He made the case for a Democratic-style economic revival based on investments in individuals and innovation. He stood up for the man who defeated his wife four years ago and stated the case against Mitt Romney better than anyone else has been able to do. For 48 minutes, he delivered a stunning tour de force that had delegates on their feet.

"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: 'We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in,' " Clinton said in nominating Obama for a second term. "I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better."

That Democrats turned to Clinton — whose troubled presidency nevertheless produced a flourishing economy and four years of budget surpluses — reflects their inability to make the case that Americans are better off than they were four years ago. In recent days, top Democrats have stumbled awkwardly over that question.

Clinton, perhaps better than anyone else in the party, knows how to make that case — particularly in a venue that he has mastered as a convention speaker in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and now 2012.

"He takes over the room," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. "Clinton's … masterful at making the contrast."

Clinton certainly took over the room at precisely 10:34 p.m., to the same Fleetwood Mac song that was the theme of his 1992 campaign: Don't Stop.

"I want to nominate a man who's cool on the outside, but who burns for America on the inside," he said. When he was finished, Obama came out to embrace him.

Clinton's speech was akin to a point-by-point rebuttal of the entire Republican convention in Tampa last week. It was vintage Clinton the educator, explaining to an adoring audience where their party can brag about progress and the other side cannot.

To win the four-years-ago argument, Clinton contrasted Obama's administration and the one it followed under George W. Bush— and asked which one Americans want in 2012.

"The most important question is, what kind of country do you want to live in?" Clinton said. "If you want a you're-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility — a we're-all-in-this-together society — you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden."

Economic 'building blocks'

In an interview on NBC before the speech, Clinton said his task was to make Americans understand that the economy is on the upswing — even if they can't feel it yet. The message is simple: Be patient. "That's the whole election, really," Clinton said. "People have to decide whether something they can't feel is still the right direction for the country because of things that have been done."

So the former president delivered a full-throated, occasionally humorous and extemporaneous defense of Obama's record, from the 2009 economic stimulus to financial regulation, health care and student loan overhauls. He called them "the building blocks of a new American prosperity."

The endorsement of his Democratic successor came in contrast to 2008, when Clinton was a reluctant supporter of the young senator who blocked his wife Hillary's path to the White House. Over the past four years, the two men haven't bonded personally so much, but they have seen eye-to-eye on policy.

Clinton lauded Obama for seeking compromise and conciliation while Republicans have sought to block him at every turn. "One of the main reasons we should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation," Clinton said. As evidence, he noted Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate despite Biden's own campaign for president in 2008 — and picked another presidential contender for secretary of State.

"Heck," Clinton said, "he even appointed Hillary."

He peppered his prepared address with off-the-cuff remarks such as "Y'all better listen carefully to this, this is really important" — then responded point by point to attacks from Mitt Romney's campaign.

Clinton was eager to attack the Republican ticket — not on a personal level, but based on economic and fiscal policies he believes are ill-fated. Some of his toughest language came on issues he said were "personal to me," including GOP claims that Obama wants to dismantle the welfare overhaul Clinton signed in 1996 and his policies are responsible for a national debt that just topped $16 trillion.

"Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left," he said. "We simply cannot afford to give the reins of government to someone who will double down on trickle-down."

Celebrating progress

Democrats were eager for someone to make the case of Clinton-Obama vs. Bush-Romney. The Time Warner Cable Arena was packed, forcing fire marshals to close the doors.

"It's no accident that Democrats celebrate our past presidents," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., "while Republicans virtually banish theirs."

In some ways, Obama has been Clinton's equal or more. While the then-president tried and failed to overhaul the nation's health care system, Obama succeeded. And while Clinton pushed through a deficit-reduction package in 1993 that helped lead to balanced budgets years later, Obama pushed through an economic stimulus package that many economists say helped prevent another Great Depression.

The task now will be for Obama not to pale by comparison tonight.

"Obama is an outstanding orator," says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. "He can hold up to Clinton."

Contributing: Deirdre Shesgreen, Gannett

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Fact check: Bill Clinton at the DNC

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Former president Bill Clinton's stem-winding nomination speech was a fact-checker's nightmare: lots of effort required to run down his many statistics and factual claims, producing little for us to write about.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

Former president Bill Clinton addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Thursday.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

Former president Bill Clinton addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Thursday.

Republicans will find plenty of Clinton's scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out.

Overselling 'Obamacare'

The worst we could fault him for was a suggestion that President Obama's Affordable Care Act was responsible for bringing down the rate of increase in health care spending, when the fact is that the law's main provisions have yet to take effect.

Clinton said that "for the last two years, health care costs have been under 4% in both years for the first time in 50 years." That's true, as reported by the journal Health Affairs in January of this year. But Clinton went too far when he added: "So let me ask you something. Are we better off because President Obama fought for health care reform? You bet we are."

Actually, the major provisions of the 2010 law — the individual mandate, federal subsidies to help Americans buy insurance, and big reductions in the growth of Medicare spending — haven't yet taken effect. Experts mainly blame the lousy economy for the slowdown in health care spending. As a report by economists and statisticians at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported last year, for example (as quoted in the Washington Post): "Job losses caused many people to lose employer-sponsored health insurance and, in some cases, to forgo health-care services they could not afford."

And this year, the New York Timesalso reported:

New York Times, April 28, 2012: The growth rate mostly slowed as millions of Americans lost insurance coverage along with their jobs. Worried about job security, others may have feared taking time off work for doctor's visits or surgical procedures, or skipped nonurgent care when money was tight.

The Times also quoted experts who said consumers' and physicians' behavior may be changing, and the "anticipation of the health care overhaul" could be a reason. Said the Times: "Many health care experts said they believed that the shift toward publicizing medical error rates and encouraging accountable care seemed to be paying dividends — and that providers were making changes in anticipation of the health care overhaul, which further emphasize accountable care." But that would explain only part of the slowdown, if it's truly a factor at all.

Other exaggerations

Other exaggerations and missteps were minor by comparison.

Clinton claimed Medicare will "go broke in 2016? if Romney is elected and repeals the federal health care law. Medicare will not "go broke," but a part of it — the hospital insurance trust fund — would not be able to pay full benefits for hospital services. Physician and prescription drug benefits, financed separately out of general tax revenues and premiums, wouldn't be affected.

As we explained in our Aug. 22 article, "A Campaign Full of Mediscare," the Medicare hospital trust fund is on pace to be exhausted by 2024 — or by 2016 if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. But Medicare would still collect payroll taxes sufficient to pay most hospital bills that would come due. Medicare trustees estimate the fund could pay 87% of its costs. The funding gap would continue to grow, and by 2050 the fund could cover only 67% of its bills. That's a serious situation to be sure, but it's not as though Medicare itself would suddenly halt all payments.

Clinton also exaggerated when he said Obama's 2009 stimulus bill "cut taxes for 95% of the American people." That's too high. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit cut taxes temporarily for about 95% of workers — those with "earned income." But it didn't benefit pensioners or the unemployed, for example. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated in 2010 that it benefited 76% of all families and single individuals.

Clinton was substantially correct when he said oil imports were at "a near 20-year low." He referred to a recent prediction that U.S. dependence on imported oil would fall this year to 42%, which Bloomberg News reported would be "the lowest level in two decades."

But Clinton's point was that the president's energy policies were "helping" to bring that about. Bloomberg, however, gave credit to "a boom in oil production from the shale formations of North Dakota and Texas," made possible by a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing.

And plenty of other Clinton statistics checked out as accurate. For example, he said that since 1961, when John F. Kennedy took office, 42 million private-sector jobs had been added while Democrats held the White House, compared with 24 million while Republicans were in office. And that's exactly what Bloomberg News reported in a May 8 story.

He also accused Republicans of blocking 1 million potential new jobs, but that checked out, too:

Clinton: Last year the Republicans blocked the president's job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs.

Two independent economists — Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics and Joel Prakken of Macroeconomics Advisers — had estimated that Obama's proposed American Jobs Act would add more than 1 million jobs. Zandi claimed it would add 1.9 million jobs; Prakken 1.3 million. Senate Republicans blocked the $447 billion measure, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell denounced it as "a charade that's meant to give Democrats a political edge" in 2012.

Oh yes — technically, Clinton's speech was to nominate Obama. When he finished, convention delegates made it official: President Obama is the Democratic Party's candidate for president in 2012.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Bill Clinton to Have Marquee Role at Democratic Convention

The prominent role of Mr. Clinton, which is scheduled to be announced on Monday, signals an effort by the Obama campaign to pull out all the stops to rally Democrats when they gather for their party’s national convention in Charlotte, N.C. An even more important audience will be the voters across the country who will see the address carried by television networks.

“There isn’t anybody on the planet who has a greater perspective on not just the last four years, but the last two decades, than Bill Clinton,” David Axelrod, a top strategist to the Obama campaign, said in an interview on Sunday. “He can really articulate the choice that is before people.”

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will appear on the final night of the convention, making the case for Mr. Obama before the largest audience of the week during an outdoor speech at the Bank of America Stadium. The vice president and Mr. Obama will appear together on stage before they accept the party’s nomination for a second term in the White House.

It is unusual in recent election cycles, although not without precedent, for the vice president not to get the stage to himself during a night at the convention. But in his speech, aides said, Mr. Biden is expected to remind Americans about the last four years and the administration’s accomplishments in a difficult economic climate.

The invitation for Mr. Clinton to be center stage at the convention signifies another milestone in the complicated and evolving relationship between the two presidents.

At the party’s convention in Denver four years ago, all eyes were on Mr. Clinton as he offered a full-throated endorsement of Mr. Obama in a speech that served as something of a truce after a contentious primary fight with his wife.

For Mr. Clinton, who has become one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party, the speech will be among the most high-profile roles yet that he has assumed for Mr. Obama. The address is intended to offer a strong contrast with the Republican ticket and will be closely watched, particularly given a string of blunt statements — and retractions — that Mr. Clinton has made this year when talking about the Obama administration.

For example, Mr. Clinton called for temporarily extending all of the tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, including the Bush-era rates, which put him at odds with the president. He later apologized for those comments, but not before the Republican National Committee seized on the controversy.

Cheney on ’08 Palin Choice

Dick Cheney said on Sunday that Sarah Palin was not ready in 2008 to be his successor as vice president and that Senator John McCain’s decision was “a mistake” that Mitt Romney should seek to avoid making in his own choice of running mate.

Speaking to ABC News in his first interview since undergoing a heart transplant in March, Mr. Cheney said Mr. McCain’s choice clearly reflected considerations other than Ms. Palin’s ability to serve as vice president.

Asked whether a presidential candidate should consider how well a vice-presidential nominee might appeal in a particular state or to a demographic group, Mr. Cheney said, “Those are important issues, but they should never be allowed to override that first proposition.”

View the original article here

Comments by Clinton and Summers Spark Tax Cut Debate

White House officials and Congressional Democrats responded just as vigorously, saying neither the former president nor Lawrence H. Summers, a past director of the National Economic Council, ever said that all of the tax cuts should be extended.

The heated exchange illustrated how politically sensitive the tax cut expiration has become amid fresh data showing the economy slowing. A majority of voters say the federal budget deficit should be tackled with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich. In an April New York Times/CBS News poll, 56 percent favored boosting the economy by spending on education and infrastructure while raising taxes on the wealthy, against 37 percent who favored cutting taxes and spending.

But Republicans have stood firm against any tax increase, and they are on the offensive, thanks in part to the comments of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers.

“Even Bill Clinton came out for it, before he was against it,” Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said.

Both Democrats released statements shortly after their televised interviews denying they had said that they favored extending all the tax cuts. President Obama has endorsed extending tax cuts for the middle class, but he has promised to oppose any extension of Bush-era tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000.

But after Friday’s weak jobs report for May, the Democrats have been on the defensive.

Representative Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat who wants his party to stand its ground, said: “There’s a reason to be alarmed. Historically, economic sentiment in May predicts the outcome of presidential elections, and people are edgy.”

In the appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that sparked the exchange, Mr. Summers appeared to signal that he favors a temporary extension of all the tax cuts. After the host, Mika Brzezinski, mentioned Mr. Clinton’s tax cut comments and the bad jobs report, she pressed Mr. Summers for his views.

He responded: “The real risk to this economy is on the side of slowdown, certainly not on the side of overheating, and that means we’ve got to make sure we don’t take gasoline out of the tank at the end of this year. That’s got to be the top priority.”

A few minutes later, he added, “For the medium and long term, we obviously have to do things to control the deficit,” explicitly embracing tax increases on the rich.

“You’ve got to look to the people who’ve gotten the most gains from the economy over the last 30 years, and who have also gotten the biggest tax reductions,” he said. “It’s not taking from them. It’s simply asking them to do their fair share at a time when the country has to pull together to work through some difficult problems.”

Together, the comments appeared to suggest that Mr. Summers opposed allowing any tax cuts to expire at the end of the year and preferred allowing the cuts on income above $250,000 to expire later. But he was not explicit on the issue, and White House officials denied that Mr. Summers, one of Mr. Obama’s closest economic confidants, had broken with the president.

Mr. Summers released a statement saying: “I fully support President Obama’s position on tax cuts. I have often said and continue to believe that promoting demand is the most critical short run priority for the American economy. Extending the high-income tax cut does little for demand and poses substantial problems of fairness and fiscal prudence.”

Those events mirrored the dispute over Mr. Clinton’s comments barely 12 hours before. In an interview on CNBC, Mr. Clinton appeared to say tax increases and Republican-led spending cuts should be temporarily set aside until the economy regains its footing.

“What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what’s necessary in the long term debt-reduction plans as soon as they can, which presumably would be after the election,” he said.

Mr. Clinton’s remarks were likewise vague, and a Clinton spokesman on Tuesday quickly said the former president does not believe tax cuts for the wealthy need be extended.

Regardless of intent, some damage may have been done. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for two years in December 2010 because of a struggling economy. At 1.9 percent, the growth rate in the first three months of this year was slower than the end of 2010, when the economy grew 2.8 percent.

But Republicans gave no indication they are willing to cut a broad, anti-austerity deal. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House majority whip, said Republicans will not come to the table until they believe they have a White House negotiating partner.

“You need somebody on the other side who wants to make a deal, and the No. 1 way to do that is to put people before politics,” he said. “And this president this year has done nothing but politics.”

View the original article here

On Stump, Romney Is Fond of Bill Clinton and Obama Praises Reagan

And for that matter, just for clarity, Ronald Reagan certainly would not be supporting President Obama, either.

To listen to the candidates on the campaign trail these days is a form of political whiplash. Mr. Romney lavishes praise on the very Democratic Mr. Clinton for breaking with his party’s traditional big-government orthodoxy, while Mr. Obama harks back to the very Republican Mr. Reagan for agreement that millionaires should not pay lower tax rates than the middle class.

The inside-out rhetoric, of course, is mainly about scoring points against the opponent in an increasingly fiery election year. When Mr. Romney refers favorably to Mr. Clinton, it is to make the point that Mr. Obama has abandoned the centrist legacy of his Democratic predecessor. When Mr. Obama invokes the spirit of Mr. Reagan, it is to argue that the Republican Party of Mr. Romney has drifted far away from its popular roots.

But the admiration expressed for the two former occupants of the White House also testifies to the fluidity of presidential reputations. Lost to history, it seems, is just how much Democrats loathed Mr. Reagan in the 1980s as an anti-communist zealot who thought that ketchup was a vegetable. Or how much Republicans despised Mr. Clinton in the 1990s as a slick huckster who dishonored the Oval Office. In the space of time, polarizing presidents have become historic statesmen.

“Presidential candidates occasionally seem to recant their onetime political opposition to a recent president of the opposite party,” said the presidential historian Michael Beschloss. “One reason is that with some historical distance, they may sometimes come to genuinely appreciate leadership qualities they didn’t notice before.” But, he added, “more often it’s politics.”

Mr. Beschloss recalled that Gerald R. Ford and the elder George Bush opposed Harry S. Truman in 1948 but after entering the White House themselves cited him, genuinely, as a role model. Richard M. Nixon derided George McGovern for not living up to the legacy of Mr. Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Even Mr. Reagan cited John F. Kennedy in arguing for tax cuts, overlooking his own past criticism of the Democrat’s economic policies as “old Karl Marx.”

Frank J. Donatelli, a former Reagan White House political director, said the flattery had less to do with genuine admiration than calculation. “You want to show that your opponent is at odds with a respected former president from his own party as a way to marginalize him,” Mr. Donatelli said. “It’s a bid for centrist voters who nevertheless admire Reagan and Clinton’s records and results.”

Still, the notion that Democrats could hold out Mr. Reagan as a model or Republicans could do so with Mr. Clinton suggests how passions fade over the years. Both left office with high approval ratings and came to be appreciated for their successes, while failures and scandals have been overlooked. Mr. Reagan today is remembered for restoring national confidence and helping end the cold war. Mr. Clinton is remembered for reforming welfare and balancing the budget. It helped that both presided over periods of economic growth with comparatively little armed conflict overseas.

Mr. Obama began citing Mr. Reagan during the 2008 campaign as a political jab at his primary opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Unlike her husband, Mr. Obama said, Mr. Reagan had been a “transformative political leader.” Now with Mrs. Clinton in the cabinet and Mr. Clinton on the campaign trail alongside him, the president has dropped the comparison, but he still cites Mr. Reagan to make arguments in favor of economic, immigration and nuclear disarmament policies.

He quoted Mr. Reagan just last month as he pushed for a new tax on millionaires. “That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Obama said. “He thought that in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so.”

A couple weeks later, Mr. Obama was at it again. “Ronald Reagan could not get through a Republican primary in this election cycle,” he said. “Could not get through it. Here’s a guy who raised taxes. That in and of itself would have rendered him unelectable in a Republican primary.” Standing with him that evening was none other than Mr. Clinton, no longer a poor shadow of Mr. Reagan in Mr. Obama’s rendering but now a president who accumulated a “remarkable record” as he turned around a party that “was a little bit lost.”

Mr. Clinton has become a frequent touchstone for Mr. Romney lately as well. Instead of the president impeached for lying under oath to cover up an affair with an intern, Mr. Clinton in this telling is the apostle of fiscal responsibility as opposed to that “old-school liberal” now in the White House.

“Almost a generation ago, Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government was over,” Mr. Romney said this week. “Even a former McGovern campaign worker like President Clinton was signaling to his own party that Democrats should no longer try to govern by proposing a new program for every problem.

“President Obama,” he went on, “tucked away the Clinton doctrine in his large drawer of discarded ideas, along with transparency and bipartisanship. It’s enough to make you wonder if maybe it was a personal beef with the Clintons, but really it runs much deeper.”

From Mr. Romney’s perspective, it does not hurt to remind centrist Democrats of the past tensions and disagreements between Mr. Obama and the Clintons.

Not that every president from another party becomes suddenly acceptable. Mr. Romney has implicitly compared Mr. Obama to Jimmy Carter, while Mr. Obama routinely links Mr. Romney to the policies of George W. Bush. When Mr. Bush endorsed Mr. Romney before ducking into an elevator this week, Mr. Romney made little note of it, but the Obama camp eagerly spread the news.

To guardians of the former presidents’ legacies, the latest campaign-trail tributes ring hollow. John D. Podesta, a former Clinton chief of staff who now leads the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, said it was “ironic that Romney is so exuberant in embracing Clintonomics” since Mr. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, invested in education and technology, and balanced the budget. “Maybe Romney was too busy firing people in the ’90s to have noticed,” Mr. Podesta said.

Craig Shirley, a conservative consultant and Reagan biographer, likewise said that Mr. Obama’s invocations of Mr. Reagan were off base. “At first blush, I would say good for him,” he said. “But deeper, I would say Obama is profoundly misinformed if he thinks Ronald Reagan would agree with any of his policies. The fundamental difference is Reagan believed in people while Obama believes in government.”

View the original article here

Clinton argues for Libya mission on eve of vote (AP)

WASHINGTON – Scrambling to turn back the fiercest congressional challenge to the president's military authority on Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pleaded with House Democrats on Thursday to continue U.S. military involvement in the NATO-led operation.

Defiant Republican leaders pushed toward a crucial vote to cut off funds for hostilities.

Just hours after bluntly posing the question, "Whose side are you on?" — Moammar Gadhafi or the Libyan people, Clinton met with rank-and-file Democrats to explain the mission and the stakes if the House votes to prohibit funds. The administration requested the closed-door meeting.

"The issue today, as she pointed out, was whether or not we were going to abandon what is an effort that our allies have made at the request of the United Nations, the Arab League and others to intervene and to support our allies in this effort," Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said following the session. "I agree with her strongly that ... to send any signal today that Congress is not supportive of the effort to involve itself in a humanitarian effort at the request of a broad international coalition would be a mistake."

House Republicans and Democrats are furious with President Barack Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization for the 3-month-old war against Libya, as required under the War Powers Resolution. The 1973 law, often ignored by Republican and Democratic presidents, says the commander in chief must seek congressional consent within 60 days. That deadline has long passed.

Obama stirred congressional unrest last week when he told lawmakers he didn't need authorization because the operation was not full-blown hostilities. NATO commands the operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work as well as drone attacks and bombings.

A New York Times report that said Obama overruled some of his legal advisers further incensed members of Congress.

Reflecting the widespread dissatisfaction, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the chamber will vote Friday on two measures: a resolution to authorize the operation and legislation that would cut off funds for hostilities such as Predator drone attacks and airstrikes.

"I just believe that because of the president's failure to consult with the Congress, failure to outline for the American people why we were doing this before we engaged in this puts us in the position where we have to defend our responsibility under the Constitution," Boehner said. "And that's why these resolutions are in fact going to come forward."

The bill would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort.

"I don't want to do anything that would undermine NATO or to send a signal to our allies around the world that we are not going to be engaged," Boehner told reporters. "This is primarily a fight between the Congress and the president over his unwillingness to consult with us before making this decision."

Three-term Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said Clinton apologized for not coming to Congress earlier. But he said she warned about the implications of a House vote to cut off money.

"The secretary expressed her deep concern that you're probably not on the right track when Gadhafi supports your efforts," Walz said.

Rep. Howard Berman of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said such a vote "ensures the failure of the whole mission."

Shortly before her appearance, the Congressional Progressive Caucus issued a statement calling for lawmakers to vote to cut off funds, saying the Libya operation undercuts the powers of Congress and is a blow to the constitutional checks and balances.

During a brief visit to Jamaica, Clinton said lawmakers were free to raise questions, but asked, "Are you on Gadhafi's side, or are you on the side on the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been bringing them support? For the Obama administration the answer to that question is clear."

Proponents of the House bill, including Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., the sponsor of the measure, said the administration "should have thought about that before they ignored the law."

In the Senate, backers of a resolution to authorize the operation wondered whether the administration had waited too long to address the concerns of House members.

"It's way late," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "This is one of the reasons why they're having this veritable uprising in the House, because of a lack of communication. And then the icing on the cake was probably for them when he (Obama) said that we're not engaged in hostilities. That obviously is foolishness."

He added, however, "That is not a reason to pass a resolution that would encourage Moammar Gadhafi to stay in power."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said no matter the view of the War Powers Resolution or the president's March 19 move to launch airstrikes against Gadhafi's forces, "either we finish the fight and Gadhafi's overthrown and he leaves Libya and the Libyan people have a chance to govern themselves or a vicious anti-American dictator stays in power, which would be very hurtful to us and our credibility in the world."

___

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.

View the original article here