Chelsa Clinton Michelle Obama Sean Hannity Glenn Beck Rush Limbaugh
Saturday, September 25, 2010
National Review: Help Joe Miller; UPDATED: Video of Joe Miller on Cavuto Added
An excellent editorial this evening from the editors of the National Review. In their piece, they take establishment Republicans to task for their incomprehensible refusal to strip Lisa Murkowski of her seniority, despite the fact that she is using that seniority as a rationale to run against the duly elected Republican candidate, Joe Miller:What does it take to earn the opprobrium of the Senate Republican caucus? Would running a write-in campaign against a Republican Senate candidate who won a fairly contested primary be enough to do it? If the offender is Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, apparently not.As we all know, Murkowski lost to Joe Miller a few weeks ago in the Alaska primary, proceeded to pout for a while, then announced a write-in bid for the Senate, which we had urged her in the strongest terms to forgo. It?s a desperation move, but with nearly $2 million to spend in the sparsely populated state she has the potential to cause some mayhem and complicate Miller?s path to victory.Given this, it would make sense to strip Murkowski of her status as the ranking member of the Energy Committee because 1) she deserves it; and 2) her appeal is primarily based on her pork-barreling prowess as an inside-D.C. player. Earlier in the week, it seemed Senate Republicans would do just that. At a meeting Tuesday, Republicans decided to boot Murkowski, and several news outlets reported as much. Minority leader Mitch McConnell was quoted saying there?s ?an issue as to whether or not it?s appropriate for her, under the circumstances, to continue as ranking member on the Energy Committee? ? Senate-ese for, ?She?s gone.?Then, the Republicans held a conference meeting where the worst chummy instincts of the Club took hold. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina says he was the only one to speak out in favor of stripping Murkowski. We are told that Murkowski?s friends spoke in her favor, and a secret vote was held ? and, amazingly enough, the Alaskan won.[...]Unless Republicans crack down on this behavior in the toughest manner possible, what incentive do tea-partiers have to play nice when a primary outcome goes against them? Why would they feel loyalty to a Republican party that doesn?t take its own rules seriously? Jim DeMint is urging people to donate to Joe Miller to boost him against Murkowski, and we urge our readers to contribute to that effort. Not only is Miller a better conservative, his race is an important test for tea partiers around the country. It?s too bad more Senate Republicans don?t realize that some things are more important than their colleague Lisa Murkowski?s feelings.Read the rest here. Support Joe Miller here.(h/t JRigsby)Update: Senate Republicans should follow the lead of their former caucus leader, Bob Dole. The moderate former Senate Majority Leader has formally endorsed Christine O'Donnell and sent her the maximum campaign donation allowable. Current Senate Republicans should follow Dole's example and demonstrate to skeptical conservatives that they are truly behind Joe Miller by stripping Lisa Murkowski of her seniority, as they should have done already.Update II: (h/t JRigsby) Joe Miller was interviewed on Fox News by Neil Cavuto. The GOP's refusal to relieve Murkowski of her seniority came up. At the 7:30 mark, Governor Palin's name came up. Miller had this to say:"I absolutely think that Governor Palin is a phenomenal asset to this country. She?s done extraordinary things for this country ? she?s doing extraordinary things right now. She is raising the level of dialogue, so that this nation addresses the problems that are happening at the central level."
As Predicted, Lisa Murkowski Exploiting Senate Republicans' Boneheaded Decision to Maintain her Seniority on Senate Committee
In a post two days ago I noted with incredulity that Washington Republicans had allowed Lisa Murkwski Murkowski to keep her seniority as ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee. At the time I explained how this was effectively a thumb in the eye of Republican nominee Joe Miller since Murkowski would surely spin this inexplicable decision to her advantage in her campaign against the Republican candidate:Murky's only selling point to Alaska voters is that her seniority on the committee allows her to continue bringing home the pork. By allowing her to keep her position as ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, she can (and will) continue to make this argument to voters.If Senate Republicans had done the right thing and stripped her of her seniority, the only justification she has (pathetic though it may be) for her write-in campaign would no longer exist.[...]By their inaction, Senate Republicans are assisting the campaign of a senator who is running against the Republican nominee and further infuriating their base.Sure enough, Murkowski is doing just that. Via Michael O'Brien at The Hill:Republican senators opted not to oust Sen. Lisa Murkowski from a top committee post because they believe she has a shot at winning reelection, Murkowski said.Murkowski, a GOP senator from Alaska who decided to pursue an independent write-in bid for reelection after losing her Republican Senate primary, said that her colleagues' decision to allow her to keep her position as ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was an "affirmation."Murkowski said Republican senators "recognize, 'You know what? Lisa might be a risk-taker, but she's got a real shot at coming back here, and it only makes good sense that we would not want to be so punitive that she would be discouraged by the actions of her colleagues,' " she said in a Q-and-A with Time magazine published Friday.If Republicans do take back the Senate in November, it will be in spite of the morons in Washington, not because of them. If an ordinary barbarian from Ohio could see this coming, why not the deep thinkers in the GOP establishment? I wouldn't give a dime to these inept fools. All donations should go to SarahPac, Take Back the 20, or directly to the candidate you're supporting (in this case Joe Miller).Related: One of the Tea Party Groups, Let Freedom Ring, has produced a hilarious Murkowski radio spot. Click here to listen.(h/t Mel)
Tony Hayward bill clinton Juan Williams racial controversy U.S. banks
Democrats Eye Texas Gov.'s Office amid Tight Polls
TYLER, Texas (AP) ? People tell Bill White he picked the wrong election to stage a rescue of the troubled Texas Democratic Party. It's a Republican year in a Republican state.But the former Houston mayor with the bald head and oversized ears, a lawyerly man who speaks so slowly and deliberately that reporters hardly need tape recorders, has not yet faded into the familiar doom Democrats have come to expect from their gubernatorial candidates every four years.A Democratic shocker in conservative Texas remains about as likely as a blizzard in Houston. Still, a series of recent polls shows a stubbornly tight race, in the single digits, leaving White within striking distance of longtime Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who is seeking re-election to an unprecedented third term in November. A decent showing by Libertarian Kathie Glass, courting many of the same tea party conservatives Perry has charmed, could also help White if she draws enough votes away from the governor."White has made some inroads in what is a very bad national environment for Democrats," said University of Texas pollster and political scientist Jim Henson. "But it's a very hard slog for him."Texas hasn't had a Democratic governor since George W. Bush defeated Ann Richards in 1994, and it's been just as long since any Democrat won statewide office. But Democrats insist Perry is vulnerable. The same anti-incumbent fervor that threatens to upend the Democratic-controlled Congress is turning voters against Perry, they say.The Democratic Governor's Association considers Texas among its "top tier" races and has showered more resources on White than any Texas Democratic candidate in the group's history, giving him more than $2 million so far, officials say.Some political observers are "shocked" that the second-longest serving governor in the United States has a fight on his hands, said Nathan Daschle, director of the association. "But it makes sense when you think about it through the lens of a change election, why voters would start to look for an alternative," he said.And White sees himself as the perfectly bland alternative to a smooth-talking opponent sometimes known as "Gov. Goodhair." He likes to describe the race as the "workhorse vs. the showhorse." Stylistically, there's no question that White's droning voice and plain appearance offer a stark contrast to the handsome, gun-toting, backslapping Perry, who shot a coyote while out on his morning jog earlier this year.Perry is also a highly disciplined candidate who leaves the day-to-day details of his campaign to the professionals. Not White. He immerses himself in campaign minutiae, from the wording of press releases to the scripts of his television ads."I think people deserve to hear the voice of the person they're voting for, rather than something that has been sanitized, poll-tested and crafted to manipulate people," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "They like authenticity."But White sticks to his own script, and it is difficult to draw the Harvard-educated businessman and lawyer away from his own talking points. Asked to name some living Democrats he admires, White mentioned one Democrat and one Republican ? underscoring his theme of bipartisan outreach. (They were Democrat Mike Beebe of Arkansas and Indiana's GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels).If White can seem stiff in interviews, he is more relaxed and natural when pressing the flesh with voters. On a recent swing through Tyler, a reliable Republican stronghold, White spoke passionately to retired educators, grabbing a wireless microphone and ? town hall style ? beginning his remarks by saying he wanted to "just have a talk." He later choked up when talking about his father, a retired teacher from San Antonio."I haven't supported a Democrat for governor in a long time," said Wayne Berryman, 71, a retired education administrator who came to see White speak. "I hope there are a lot more just like me."White needs people like Berryman, who voted for Perry in the last two elections but says he is tired of him now. Before Perry, no governor had served a full eight consecutive years. Now Perry is looking at a total of 14 if he's re-elected.Tyler, which hasn't seen a well-funded Democratic candidate in town in years, would seem an unlikely place for the Democrat to be spending valuable campaign time. But he has been here five times since May, and has visited 73 counties (Texas has 254) just since July 1.It's part of his strategy to peel away disillusioned Perry supporters and independents, and to limit his losses in the suburbs and rural areas that are staunch Republican strongholds. White is looking to carry Houston, where he was a popular mayor, while running up the scoreboard in the Democratic strongholds of south Texas and Austin.Perry has retained a lead in the polls, and analysts such as Henson predict undecided voters will break his way in coming weeks. The governor, who got his start in the state House in 1985 and has never lost an election, isn't taking anything for granted.Last week, Perry began running a barrage of negative TV ads against White, seeking to tar him as a tax-and-spend liberal in the mold of President Barack Obama. The president has dismal approval ratings in Texas, which makes it tough for White no matter how many times he visits Tyler.Retired Tyler football coach and assistant principal Dick Lindsay, 84, said he wasn't thrilled with Perry but can't vote for White because of "what's going on in Washington.""I won't support (White)," Lindsay said. "If he was something besides a Democrat, I could vote for him."
� Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Readout of the Ministerial Meeting on Sudan by NSC Chief of Staff Denis McDonough
4:47 P.M. EDT
MR. HAMMER: Good afternoon, everybody. Denis McDonough, our National Security Council Chief of Staff, just came from the Sudan meeting and we thought it’d be useful for him to give you a brief readout and take some of your questions specifically on that topic.
Denis.
MR. McDONOUGH: Thanks a lot, Mike, and the meeting is obviously still going on, as I think many of you have seen. And I think you have just got a copy of the President’s remarks and I think many of you were able to watch him on the televisions here.
I would just say -- I want to just spend a couple of minutes on the communiqué that came out of the meeting today. We believe that the communiqué is a historic achievement. It’s an unprecedented show of global unity in which the world communicates loudly and firmly that the referenda called for in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement must be held on January 9th and the results must be and will be respected.
I think you heard from both the Vice Presidents who came from Sudan -- Vice President Kiir and Vice President Taha -- that they intend to meet that -- those target dates and to respect the outcome of those referenda whatever the outcomes are.
We believe it’s a strong and detailed communiqué that brings together the more than 40 countries and international organizations, the two CPA parties, the African Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, around commitments for the Sudanese to undertake. It makes it clear that the core objective of the international community and all stakeholders in Sudan is the peaceful coexistence of the people of Sudan -- democratic governance, accountability, equality, respect, justice, and the establish of conditions for the conflict-affected communities to build strong, sustainable livelihoods.
And it includes specific commitments as follows: To hold peaceful and credible referenda that reflect the will of the people on January 9th. It makes it clear that the CPA parties bear the primary responsibility to carry out those referenda and meeting the CPA commitments, and that those CPA commitments don’t end with the referendums -- with the referenda.
They commit, importantly, and you heard this from the Vice Presidents, to respect the outcome of the referenda, and that they will be carried out within the framework of the agreement; that they will resolve the most critical issues necessary to provide a peace -- a path of peace and prosperity to all Sudanese regardless of the outcome; underscores concern about the situation, the humanitarian situation in southern Sudan; and underscores the need to develop governance capabilities -- again, regardless of the outcome of the referenda; expresses, importantly, concern about the security situation in Darfur; supports ending the conflict in Darfur; protecting civilians and calls for a halt of the arms flow into the region; and, importantly, underscores the principles of compensation, justice, and reconciliation in Darfur.
And last thing on this, as it relates to Darfur, there was a very clear call -- again, echoed importantly by the two parties to the agreement, both the government of Southern Sudan and the government of Sudan -- to an end of impunity in Darfur.
So, again, we think it was a historic communiqué that addresses issues as it relates to the CPA, importantly making the commitment that the referenda will be held on time, and also addresses the issues of accountability and impunity around Darfur as well.
So I’ll leave it at that and open it up to your questions.
Q If in fact the referendum goes ahead on the 9th and you end up with what seems to be a credible election for a separate state, would the U.S. be prepared to recognize Southern Sudan as a separate state?
MR. MCDONOUGH: You know, what we’re prepared to say today, David, is that we are prepared to, as the parties themselves said today, recognize and honor the outcome of the referenda, that they should be held on time, peacefully, and that everybody -- the more than 40 parties here that were in the meeting today, and the meeting is still going on as I suggested -- intent to respect the outcome of it regardless of the outcome.
We’ve also been, obviously, aggressively working with the parties. Scott has been in the region 20 times. Secretary Clinton has been having meetings all this week. And the President obviously has been having discussions this week. And we’ve laid out a diplomatic plan -- obligations and responsibilities of both of the parties going forward. So I think they have a clear understand of what we hope to hear from them and what we intend to do if they meet those targets.
Q Denis, there may be a distinction, a difference that I’m not understanding, but if you’re going to honor the outcome of the referendum -- and the referendum obviously is to create a separate state -- isn’t that the equivalent of saying that you would recognize the state if that was the outcome?
MR. MCDONOUGH: What I’m saying right now is I don’t want to -- I don’t want to jump to any conclusions of what the outcome of the elections will be -- of the referendum would be. But I’m telling you that --
Q But you will honor it either way?
MR. MCDONOUGH: That’s exactly what the party said today and that’s exactly what we’ve said all along on this.
Q Denis, as I understand it, the preparations for the referendum are woefully behind. Aside from the declarations today, is there anything in the communiqué or anything was agreed at the meeting in terms of increased assistance to speed up the process?
MR. MCDONOUGH: I think it’s a -- yes, it’s a fair question, and I think that you heard in the President’s remarks today that obviously he recognized that there’s been important progress on the referenda, but that it is still behind. Both of the parties, both the vice presidents, just committed again to the date and to making the necessary steps to meet the date.
I would just say a couple of things as it relates to this, Warren. Before the President announced his participation in this meeting, we were running into a series of roadblocks to include the unwillingness or inability of the referendum commission to order the referendum materials to conduct the referendum. We obviously still -- that’s changed. Early last week, the referendum commission went out and ordered those documents and those materials. That’s an important step and one that had been long in coming and is now underway.
The referendum commission has also released a series of important budget support to conduct the referendum. We think that’s also a positive step directly an outcome of the high-level attention of the international community as a result of today’s meeting.
Those are two positive steps. We’re looking for more. Obviously, the CPA, for example, calls for a period of 90 days for registration for voters in the referendum. That’s going to be compressed now. But we’re continuing to work with the parties, with the U.N., with USAID, to make sure that this -- these referenda come off on time, peacefully, and in a way that recognizes the will of the people of southern Sudan.
Q How about a question on the Middle East?
MR. MCDONOUGH: You are welcome to ask whatever questions you want. I’ll see if I can answer them.
Q Can you give us a status of talks between the U.S. and Israeli and Palestinian officials ahead of the freeze this week?
MR. MCDONOUGH: What I would say is that, as the President outlined yesterday in his remarks, we obviously continue to work this very aggressively. I think, importantly, there is -- continues to be very productive discussions between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And obviously the United States is working on those. Secretary Clinton is leading the charge and working this very aggressively. But we don’t have any big announcements yet on that, Julianna, but we are continuing to work it very aggressively.
Q President Ahmadinejad said today that he believes that as early as next month there will be a resumption of talks with the P5-plus-1. Have you gotten through any channels any indications that in fact they’re really ready to set a date, they’re really ready to go back? And on what terms would the U.S. go back?
MR. McDONOUGH: You know, the EU foreign policy chief, Kathy Ashton, reached out to the Iranians earlier this year to underscore their -- our interest, and that is to say the P5-plus-1’s interest, in resuming those talks. She’s reached out and hasn’t heard back. So when we hear back and when she hears back, then we’ll know whether they’re serious or not.
Q And are we willing to talk just on the TRR or do you want this to be a broader --
MR. McDONOUGH: We’ve been very clear that we have, as the President made clear yesterday, that we have a range of concerns and he made clear this morning on BBC Persian that we have a range of concerns that focus on the illicit nuclear program. Obviously the TRR is an important step, but by no means addresses the main issue about which we have concern. And the President also outlined additional concerns today on BBC Persian to include support for terrorism, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and our ongoing concerns about human rights.
Q Do you see anything in the sort of histrionics of Ahmadinejad this week that reflect what might be increased sort of domestic political pressure on him, perhaps more impact from sanctions than they might have expected?
MR. McDONOUGH: Hard for me to draw anything from the hateful and -- the hateful comments from President Ahmadinejad. We do believe that, obviously, his government probably is under pressure as a result of what appears to be economic mismanagement. And obviously we and many others have talked to all of you, and I know Robert has talked to you and Mike has talked to you, about what appears to be Iranian concern about the impact of the sanctions. As the President made clear today, that the -- there’s a way for the government of Iran to alleviate the pressure of those sanctions, which is to suspend the illicit nuclear program and to live up to its responsibilities to the international community as it relates to that nuclear program. And we’re hopeful that it will do so.
Julianna.
Q Is the administration concerned at all that the legislation passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee today might increase frictions with China?
MR. McDONOUGH: I’m sorry, I haven’t been following the House debate. So is it -- was it --
Q That is -- let me --
MR. McDONOUGH: Is this the Ryan bill, I think -- has to do with --
Q -- the legislation to slap duties on --
Q A tariff.
Q -- countries that have undervalued currencies.
MR. McDONOUGH: I see. Well, I haven’t seen the bill, Julianna, and I’m not aware -- maybe it was -- I had seen a version of it. Maybe it was amended or something today, so I wouldn’t necessarily comment on the --
Q -- legislation that puts additional pressure on China to --
MR. McDONOUGH: What I would say on that is that obviously the President -- I think it was reported in all -- by several very valuable members of the American press corps and the White House press corps and your various newspapers today that the President had a productive conversation with Premier Wen yesterday. This was one of the issues that the President discussed with him. We’ve obviously seen some appreciation in the currency, and if that continues that would be significant.
Q Do you have any reaction to the Japanese officials released the Chinese fisherman who has captured off the Senkaku island?
MR. McDONOUGH: I don’t.
Q Back on Ahmadinejad. I don’t have a complete list of all the delegations that walked out yesterday or issued statements of denunciation, but it seems to be mostly European countries, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand. Are you at all disappointed there hasn’t been more of an outcry from other parts of the world, particularly the Arab world? Or have you heard things that we haven’t heard?
MR. McDONOUGH: You know, we’ve been in meetings off and on all day today, Warren, so I -- it could be that others have said things and I haven’t been aware of them.
I would say, as the President did today on BBC Persian, that what’s most striking about the hateful remarks is the extent to which they so fundamentally are at odds with the actions that the Iranian people took after -- the day after that heinous attack when there were candlelight vigils, public expressions of support for the United States, and against the hateful attacks that were undertaken that day.
So I think that’s the most striking contrast that I’ve seen as a result of what he had to say today -- yesterday.
Why don’t we take one more, then I got to go.
Q (Inaudible) -- just on Sudan, how do you think how U.S.A. administration will make sure the referendum will be -- will have credibility for both sides? And how do you -- what do you think about international community providing some assistance on the referendum?
MR. McDONOUGH: Well, as the President laid out and as both Vice President Taha and Vice President Kiir indicated, that they intend to carry out the referendum on time, peacefully, and in conjunction with the requirements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Those -- if it’s carried out in such a manner, that would obviously be in a way that would maximize its credibility.
And we and other members of the international community are working with both parties to ensure that they have what they need to ensure a credible outcome in that election. But we’re heartened by the fact that today both parties indicated, as did the 41 countries and international organizations that participated in the high-level meeting that the Secretary-General hosted today, that these referenda will take place on time, peacefully, and in a way that will reflect the will of the Sudanese people.
Okay.
MR. HAMMER: Terrific. Thank you very much.
MR. McDONOUGH: Thanks, everybody.
END 5:02 P.M. EDT
MR. HAMMER: Good afternoon, everybody. Denis McDonough, our National Security Council Chief of Staff, just came from the Sudan meeting and we thought it’d be useful for him to give you a brief readout and take some of your questions specifically on that topic.
Denis.
MR. McDONOUGH: Thanks a lot, Mike, and the meeting is obviously still going on, as I think many of you have seen. And I think you have just got a copy of the President’s remarks and I think many of you were able to watch him on the televisions here.
I would just say -- I want to just spend a couple of minutes on the communiqué that came out of the meeting today. We believe that the communiqué is a historic achievement. It’s an unprecedented show of global unity in which the world communicates loudly and firmly that the referenda called for in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement must be held on January 9th and the results must be and will be respected.
I think you heard from both the Vice Presidents who came from Sudan -- Vice President Kiir and Vice President Taha -- that they intend to meet that -- those target dates and to respect the outcome of those referenda whatever the outcomes are.
We believe it’s a strong and detailed communiqué that brings together the more than 40 countries and international organizations, the two CPA parties, the African Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, around commitments for the Sudanese to undertake. It makes it clear that the core objective of the international community and all stakeholders in Sudan is the peaceful coexistence of the people of Sudan -- democratic governance, accountability, equality, respect, justice, and the establish of conditions for the conflict-affected communities to build strong, sustainable livelihoods.
And it includes specific commitments as follows: To hold peaceful and credible referenda that reflect the will of the people on January 9th. It makes it clear that the CPA parties bear the primary responsibility to carry out those referenda and meeting the CPA commitments, and that those CPA commitments don’t end with the referendums -- with the referenda.
They commit, importantly, and you heard this from the Vice Presidents, to respect the outcome of the referenda, and that they will be carried out within the framework of the agreement; that they will resolve the most critical issues necessary to provide a peace -- a path of peace and prosperity to all Sudanese regardless of the outcome; underscores concern about the situation, the humanitarian situation in southern Sudan; and underscores the need to develop governance capabilities -- again, regardless of the outcome of the referenda; expresses, importantly, concern about the security situation in Darfur; supports ending the conflict in Darfur; protecting civilians and calls for a halt of the arms flow into the region; and, importantly, underscores the principles of compensation, justice, and reconciliation in Darfur.
And last thing on this, as it relates to Darfur, there was a very clear call -- again, echoed importantly by the two parties to the agreement, both the government of Southern Sudan and the government of Sudan -- to an end of impunity in Darfur.
So, again, we think it was a historic communiqué that addresses issues as it relates to the CPA, importantly making the commitment that the referenda will be held on time, and also addresses the issues of accountability and impunity around Darfur as well.
So I’ll leave it at that and open it up to your questions.
Q If in fact the referendum goes ahead on the 9th and you end up with what seems to be a credible election for a separate state, would the U.S. be prepared to recognize Southern Sudan as a separate state?
MR. MCDONOUGH: You know, what we’re prepared to say today, David, is that we are prepared to, as the parties themselves said today, recognize and honor the outcome of the referenda, that they should be held on time, peacefully, and that everybody -- the more than 40 parties here that were in the meeting today, and the meeting is still going on as I suggested -- intent to respect the outcome of it regardless of the outcome.
We’ve also been, obviously, aggressively working with the parties. Scott has been in the region 20 times. Secretary Clinton has been having meetings all this week. And the President obviously has been having discussions this week. And we’ve laid out a diplomatic plan -- obligations and responsibilities of both of the parties going forward. So I think they have a clear understand of what we hope to hear from them and what we intend to do if they meet those targets.
Q Denis, there may be a distinction, a difference that I’m not understanding, but if you’re going to honor the outcome of the referendum -- and the referendum obviously is to create a separate state -- isn’t that the equivalent of saying that you would recognize the state if that was the outcome?
MR. MCDONOUGH: What I’m saying right now is I don’t want to -- I don’t want to jump to any conclusions of what the outcome of the elections will be -- of the referendum would be. But I’m telling you that --
Q But you will honor it either way?
MR. MCDONOUGH: That’s exactly what the party said today and that’s exactly what we’ve said all along on this.
Q Denis, as I understand it, the preparations for the referendum are woefully behind. Aside from the declarations today, is there anything in the communiqué or anything was agreed at the meeting in terms of increased assistance to speed up the process?
MR. MCDONOUGH: I think it’s a -- yes, it’s a fair question, and I think that you heard in the President’s remarks today that obviously he recognized that there’s been important progress on the referenda, but that it is still behind. Both of the parties, both the vice presidents, just committed again to the date and to making the necessary steps to meet the date.
I would just say a couple of things as it relates to this, Warren. Before the President announced his participation in this meeting, we were running into a series of roadblocks to include the unwillingness or inability of the referendum commission to order the referendum materials to conduct the referendum. We obviously still -- that’s changed. Early last week, the referendum commission went out and ordered those documents and those materials. That’s an important step and one that had been long in coming and is now underway.
The referendum commission has also released a series of important budget support to conduct the referendum. We think that’s also a positive step directly an outcome of the high-level attention of the international community as a result of today’s meeting.
Those are two positive steps. We’re looking for more. Obviously, the CPA, for example, calls for a period of 90 days for registration for voters in the referendum. That’s going to be compressed now. But we’re continuing to work with the parties, with the U.N., with USAID, to make sure that this -- these referenda come off on time, peacefully, and in a way that recognizes the will of the people of southern Sudan.
Q How about a question on the Middle East?
MR. MCDONOUGH: You are welcome to ask whatever questions you want. I’ll see if I can answer them.
Q Can you give us a status of talks between the U.S. and Israeli and Palestinian officials ahead of the freeze this week?
MR. MCDONOUGH: What I would say is that, as the President outlined yesterday in his remarks, we obviously continue to work this very aggressively. I think, importantly, there is -- continues to be very productive discussions between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And obviously the United States is working on those. Secretary Clinton is leading the charge and working this very aggressively. But we don’t have any big announcements yet on that, Julianna, but we are continuing to work it very aggressively.
Q President Ahmadinejad said today that he believes that as early as next month there will be a resumption of talks with the P5-plus-1. Have you gotten through any channels any indications that in fact they’re really ready to set a date, they’re really ready to go back? And on what terms would the U.S. go back?
MR. McDONOUGH: You know, the EU foreign policy chief, Kathy Ashton, reached out to the Iranians earlier this year to underscore their -- our interest, and that is to say the P5-plus-1’s interest, in resuming those talks. She’s reached out and hasn’t heard back. So when we hear back and when she hears back, then we’ll know whether they’re serious or not.
Q And are we willing to talk just on the TRR or do you want this to be a broader --
MR. McDONOUGH: We’ve been very clear that we have, as the President made clear yesterday, that we have a range of concerns and he made clear this morning on BBC Persian that we have a range of concerns that focus on the illicit nuclear program. Obviously the TRR is an important step, but by no means addresses the main issue about which we have concern. And the President also outlined additional concerns today on BBC Persian to include support for terrorism, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and our ongoing concerns about human rights.
Q Do you see anything in the sort of histrionics of Ahmadinejad this week that reflect what might be increased sort of domestic political pressure on him, perhaps more impact from sanctions than they might have expected?
MR. McDONOUGH: Hard for me to draw anything from the hateful and -- the hateful comments from President Ahmadinejad. We do believe that, obviously, his government probably is under pressure as a result of what appears to be economic mismanagement. And obviously we and many others have talked to all of you, and I know Robert has talked to you and Mike has talked to you, about what appears to be Iranian concern about the impact of the sanctions. As the President made clear today, that the -- there’s a way for the government of Iran to alleviate the pressure of those sanctions, which is to suspend the illicit nuclear program and to live up to its responsibilities to the international community as it relates to that nuclear program. And we’re hopeful that it will do so.
Julianna.
Q Is the administration concerned at all that the legislation passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee today might increase frictions with China?
MR. McDONOUGH: I’m sorry, I haven’t been following the House debate. So is it -- was it --
Q That is -- let me --
MR. McDONOUGH: Is this the Ryan bill, I think -- has to do with --
Q -- the legislation to slap duties on --
Q A tariff.
Q -- countries that have undervalued currencies.
MR. McDONOUGH: I see. Well, I haven’t seen the bill, Julianna, and I’m not aware -- maybe it was -- I had seen a version of it. Maybe it was amended or something today, so I wouldn’t necessarily comment on the --
Q -- legislation that puts additional pressure on China to --
MR. McDONOUGH: What I would say on that is that obviously the President -- I think it was reported in all -- by several very valuable members of the American press corps and the White House press corps and your various newspapers today that the President had a productive conversation with Premier Wen yesterday. This was one of the issues that the President discussed with him. We’ve obviously seen some appreciation in the currency, and if that continues that would be significant.
Q Do you have any reaction to the Japanese officials released the Chinese fisherman who has captured off the Senkaku island?
MR. McDONOUGH: I don’t.
Q Back on Ahmadinejad. I don’t have a complete list of all the delegations that walked out yesterday or issued statements of denunciation, but it seems to be mostly European countries, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand. Are you at all disappointed there hasn’t been more of an outcry from other parts of the world, particularly the Arab world? Or have you heard things that we haven’t heard?
MR. McDONOUGH: You know, we’ve been in meetings off and on all day today, Warren, so I -- it could be that others have said things and I haven’t been aware of them.
I would say, as the President did today on BBC Persian, that what’s most striking about the hateful remarks is the extent to which they so fundamentally are at odds with the actions that the Iranian people took after -- the day after that heinous attack when there were candlelight vigils, public expressions of support for the United States, and against the hateful attacks that were undertaken that day.
So I think that’s the most striking contrast that I’ve seen as a result of what he had to say today -- yesterday.
Why don’t we take one more, then I got to go.
Q (Inaudible) -- just on Sudan, how do you think how U.S.A. administration will make sure the referendum will be -- will have credibility for both sides? And how do you -- what do you think about international community providing some assistance on the referendum?
MR. McDONOUGH: Well, as the President laid out and as both Vice President Taha and Vice President Kiir indicated, that they intend to carry out the referendum on time, peacefully, and in conjunction with the requirements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Those -- if it’s carried out in such a manner, that would obviously be in a way that would maximize its credibility.
And we and other members of the international community are working with both parties to ensure that they have what they need to ensure a credible outcome in that election. But we’re heartened by the fact that today both parties indicated, as did the 41 countries and international organizations that participated in the high-level meeting that the Secretary-General hosted today, that these referenda will take place on time, peacefully, and in a way that will reflect the will of the Sudanese people.
Okay.
MR. HAMMER: Terrific. Thank you very much.
MR. McDONOUGH: Thanks, everybody.
END 5:02 P.M. EDT
Chelsa Clinton Michelle Obama Sean Hannity Glenn Beck Rush Limbaugh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)