By Daniel Strauss
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Republicans are now stuck being associated with conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh calling a Georgetown law student a slut.
Democrats have been hammering Limbaugh and Republicans since the radio host criticized Sandra Fluke the student for stressing the importance of birth control during a congressional hearing on President Obamas contraceptive mandate.
Limbaugh called Fluke a slut and a prostitute because he said she was effectively asking taxpayers for money for contraception.
On Thursday Democrats urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to publicly denounce Limbaughs statement.
They wont disassociate themselves from it. Theyre tattooed with that Pelosi said in an interview with
Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent. I wouldnt want those words repeated in my office.
In the same interview Pelosi also went after Republicans for their opposition to the contraception mandate which requires employers to provide contraception in their healthcare plans without a co-pay or deductible.
Churches and houses of worship are exempt from the mandate and the White House has offered an accommodation for groups affiliated with religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals. Those entities do not have to provide contraception but their employees must be able to get the contraception through the employers insurer.
They dont believe in a government role except when it comes to women exercising her conscience on an issue like that Pelosi said. People who choose to marry and find comfort with each other they decide that government should step in there. But clean air clean water food safety public safety public education public health Medicare Medicaid Social Security they want to end the government role.
A day earlier the Senate tabled legislation that would allow employers to opt out of the mandate if they oppose it on religious or moral grounds.
The White House has not deciphered how its accommodation will work in cases when the faith-based institution and the insurer are one in the same.
Graham tells Obama to quit talking about what Israel should or should not do
By Justin Sink - 03/05/12 08:58 AM ET
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said President Obama should focus his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on sending clear signals to Iran that the country would face devastating consequences if it continues to seek a nuclear weapon rather than urging restraint on the part of the Israelis.
We shouldnt be talking about what Israel might do to protect themselves we should be talking about what Iran faces if they continue to enrich uranium Graham said Monday on Fox News.
The South Carolina lawmaker said that the best way to avoid war with Iran is to prove to them they would not win and accused the president of sending mixed messages on Americas commitment to the Middle East.
When you withdraw from Iraq when you pull back the surge unnecessarily because of election cycles it sends mixed messages Graham said.
On Sunday Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference that loose talk of war only helped Iran and undermined sanctions and diplomatic negotiations.
Now is not the time for bluster Obama said. Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in.
But Graham said the president should use his meeting with Netanyahu to assure the Israeli prime minister of Americas commitment to supporting its ally.
I think the prime minister of Israel needs to be reassured that the United States recognizes Israel can make their own decisions ... as a sovereign nation and that we see things just like they do Graham said.
Quit talking about what Israel should or should not do. Tell the Iranians Stop enriching or else and heres what we want you to do to prove youve stopped enriching he added.
Graham said he was unconvinced sanctions could do the job alone.
As everyone talks they keep enriching. As their economy gets hurt they keep enriching ... The only way to stop the Iranians in my view is if they believe a military strike of devastating consequences will come their way if they dont start.
The South Carolina lawmaker went on to say Iran developing nuclear capabilities was not an acceptable choice.
If they get a nuclear weapon then thats something you dont want on your resume as a president Graham said.
GOP Headwinds
It once looked likely that Republicans would win control of the Senate. Now its a much closer call.
Republican strategists and the GOP establishment werent breathing that much easier on Wednesday the day after Mitt Romneys presidential primary victories in Arizona and Michigan than they had been the day before. But at least they were breathing. Many had been holding their breath after Rick Santorums wins in Colorado Minnesota and Missouri on Feb. 7. (Of course holding your breath might be better than being apoplectic which is what they were after Newt Gingrichs 13-point victory in South Carolina.) Its not that party pragmatists have any particular affection for Romney but they have grown increasingly concerned about the GOPs prospects in November from top to bottom. They see a Santorum nomination as distinctly unhelpful and a Gingrich nomination as an outright disaster. Now a Romney nomination is once again a lot more likely than not. This race though seems destined to go much longer than many of us expected.
Its hard to get a good reading of the political climate. We are a little more than eight months away from the election. Its fair to say that the Democratic Party and the generic Democrats in Congress have bad numbers in the national polls. For the Republican Party and Republicans in Congress however the numbers are even worse. Whether the gap between the two is widening is open to dispute. Recent polling by Stan Greenbergs firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for both the Democracy Corps and the Womens Voices Women Vote Action Fund suggests that the Republican brand is in deep trouble. Greenbergs polling shows that Democrats saw a drop in their numbers over the course of much of last year but unlike the GOP they have recovered somewhat during the past three months.
Looking at the Gallup Organizations two February surveys that tested voters favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward the parties (the question wasnt asked in January) the Republican Party averaged a 42.5 percent favorable and 51.5 percent unfavorable rating a net minus 9 points. In the three 2011 surveys that featured the question taken in January April and September the average was 44.7 percent favorable and 47.7 percent unfavorable a net minus 3 points. On a net basis the GOP brand has dropped 6 points from last year.
Conversely in the two February surveys the Democratic Party averaged a 48 percent favorable and 47 percent unfavorable rating a net plus 1 point. Its average in the three 2011 surveys was 44 percent favorable 50.3 percent unfavorable a net minus 6.3 points. The Democratic brand has improved 7.3 points since last year.
Its possible that Republicans will pick up only two seats in the Senate.
Generic congressional ballot-test measurements are all over the map ranging from a wash to an 11-point advantage for Democrats. For some reason the question always seems to skew 3 or 4 points in favor of Democrats. The likely election outcome is still a net loss of House seats for Republicans; but predictions of a 25-seat net shift in favor of the Democrats which would give them control of the chamber still seem farfetched to me.
My sense is that some headwinds have developed for Republicans in Congress caused by overheated rhetoric on the presidential campaign trail coupled with actions at the congressional gubernatorial and state legislative levels. The velocity and effects of those headwinds are impossible to know at this point. The surprise retirement announcement by Sen. Olympia Snowe R-Maine is sure to give GOP strategists some heartburn (though no doubt some tea partiers are saying good riddance). It takes a seat that was very likely to remain in the Republican column and potentially shifts it to the tilting-Democratic column. Maine is the 12th-most-Democratic state in terms of party identification as measured by Gallup last year.
My personal view had been that the most likely Senate outcome in November would be somewhere between a Republican gain of three seats turning the chambers current makeup of 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans into a 50-50 proposition (with the majority resting on the outcome of the presidential race) and a six-seat net gain for the GOP flipping the Senate to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats. The most likely outcome seemed to be a Republican gain of four or five. In recent weeks my gut has told me that I should drop the possibility of a six-seat gain and just say a gain of three to five seats for the GOP. With Snowes seat in Maine now in play that seems very prudent. The only question is whether to drop the floor to two seats saying two to five compared with my three-to-six view in past weeks.
The magnitude of the GOP gain will hinge on the outcomes in about four states with each party currently holding two of the seats. Democratic incumbent Jon Tester in Montana and the Democratic open seat in Virginia are likely to go wire-to-wire in the Toss-Up column. Scott Browns seat in Massachusetts and appointed Sen. Dean Hellers seat in Nevada for the GOP are also Toss-Ups. To be sure other seats fall into the Toss-Up column: namely open Democratic seats in Hawaii New Mexico and Wisconsin. Sen. Claire McCaskill D-Mo. is also an extremely vulnerable incumbent albeit with an underwhelming trio of opponents.
The bottom line is not whether Democrats will lose Senate seats and Republicans will gain them but how many. Democrats have 23 seats up (read at risk) and the GOP has just 10. Democrats have to deal with seven open seats to just three for the GOP. Democrats have 11 seats in danger and Republicans have just three. Can the GOP get the three seats it needs with a White House victory or four seats with a loss? That is a closer call than it seemed a couple of months ago.
This article appeared in the Saturday March 3 2012 edition of National Journal.
