By Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Producer  

Posted Jan. 29, 2007 – President Bush’s State of the Union sounded like the state of disaster to Black lawmakers whose only praise of the speech was it was his last.

The Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) released a statement saying, “While Americans wait with bated breath for relief from an impending recession; relief from the sub-prime mortgage crisis; relief from skyrocketing healthcare costs; and light at the end of the tunnel in the Iraq War, this President addressed us with the rhetoric of a failed legacy. The past seven years have set this country back by decades.”

Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Chairman wasn’t alone, here’s what other Black members of Congress had to say about the speech when it came to issues important to African-Americans:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.)

“I’m pleased with the first steps we’ve made this year to reach agreement with the President on an economic stimulus package….Unfortunately; the President has been reluctant to work hand in hand with Democrats on other important issues affecting our nation such as national security.  It is imperative that President Bush undo the indefinite mandate he has unfairly thrust upon our brave troops fighting to defend our freedoms abroad.  His policies have led to an alarming weakness in troop readiness among our Armed Forces.”
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)

“Once again, the President is asking the American people to sacrifice without reigning in the expansion of the federal government and the cost of war.  He announced tonight that he will again encourage budget cuts of 151 federal programs, cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, cuts to federal provisions that help children, help the sick, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor.

Yet he has not mentioned controls on the most bloated areas of the budget.  Why should those who struggle the most sacrifice all they have, while others with more resources enjoy the benefits of tax breaks?  In this challenging economic environment, it would be fiscally irresponsible to allow the tax cuts for the rich to become permanent.”

Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.)

“Job growth under President Bush is the worst under any president since Herbert Hoover ushered in the Great Depression.  The unemployment rate is rising while real household income is declining.  While the rich are afforded tax break after tax break for the last 8 years, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by a staggering 4.9 million.  The middle class continues to be squeezed as energy costs, health care costs and education costs continue to climb.”
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio)

“While I am pleased that the President is finally paying attention the issue of our lagging economy through his support of the recently proposed economic stimulus package, I’m afraid that it will be too little too late. Additionally, we continue to spend billions of dollars every month in Iraq, while our deficit continues to grow. Ohioans need more than just the same old song, they need real, long term action that will help them get back on their feet.”

The President also called for more of the same in Iraq and offered no hope for a change of direction in Iraq.”

 Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)

“Even more incomprehensible, President Bush has flat-lined funding for the Minority AIDS Initiative and our domestic HIV/AIDS programs, even as data shows communities of color are increasingly bearing the brunt of the disease. Over 188,000 African-Americans were living with AIDS at the end of 2005, representing 44 percent of all cases in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Although I am pleased the President mentioned the global HIV/AIDS pandemic - as one of the original co-authors of the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief legislation - I am disappointed he did not use this opportunity to announce a more significant commitment to the crisis.”

Rep. William Jefferson (D-Lo.)

“I am pleased that the President mentioned the recovery of New Orleans and has pledged to have the North American Summit in the city this year. But I would have liked more detail and specifics as to what his commitment to the Gulf Coast means. His mere mention of a promise is not enough to give our citizens the assurance they need that the commitment of our federal government matches their day to day commitment to our recovery. 
 
 I am concerned that some of the economic stimulus proposals are the same as proposals previously included in the Gulf Coast Go-Zone legislation and may have the effect of drawing investment away from the Go-Zone to other areas of our country. While we must spur our economy, it is important that we do not water down the competitive edge allowed the Gulf Coast to recover.”
 

By Pamela Gentry, Senior Polticial Producer 

 Posted Dec. 18, 2007 –   Black ministers who have quietly met with the Bush administration at the White House regarding faith-based incentive dollars may now find politics from the pulpit risky business.  Their names and visits will now become part of the public record.
     A federal judge’s ruling Monday was a blow to the Bush administration, which had hoped to keep records private showing visits by prominent conservative religious leaders.

     The judge rejected the White House’s argument and ordered the information be turned over to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the liberal watchdog group that made the request.
     Early in the Bush administration, senior adviser to the president, Karl Rove, arranged several meetings with Bush and religious leaders to develop a “buy-in strategy” for Bush’s new faith-based incentives.
     Some folks agreed to meet because the meetings were behind closed doors and  their attendance and the topics discussed were not available for public consumption.
     Several well-known African-American pastors were included in one of the first such meetings in March 2001.  After the meeting, Bush told reporters, the ministers are “very crucial for helping change” their communities.
      “Many of those preachers are bishops over churches that have got great programs and change people’s hearts and provide hope in neighborhoods where there is no hope,” Bush said at the time. “So I view them not as agents of politics; I view them as agents of change.”
     Claude Allen, Bush’s former domestic policy adviser, along with Rove, arranged meetings with Black ministers, including the Rev. T. D. Jakes, of Dallas; the Rev. Kirby John Caldwell of Houston; and Bishop Eddie Long, of Atlanta.
     Some Black pastors were more public about their support: Caldwell delivered the prayer at Bush’s inaugural in 2005. But others were more low key and had hoped to keep their attendance at these pow-wows, hush-hush.
     That’s why Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wanted to know who was meeting with the administration. They went to court to get the Secret Service to turn over visitor logs about nine conservative religious commentators, including James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Jerry Falwell, with whom the president met.
     Anne L. Weismann, the watchdog group’s chief counsel, told The Associate Press.  “The judge saw their arguments for what they were.”
     It will be interesting to see exactly which Black religious leaders met with the Bush administration over the last six years.

By Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Reporter  

How much do you think has changed since Hurricans Katrina and Rita? 

Posted Oct. 24, 2007 – For four days now, wildfires have raced through Southern California, burning up everything in their path from Los Angeles to San Diego. So far, San Diego County officials estimate, the angry blazes have caused more than $1 billion in damage, forcing thousands to flee their homes and find shelter elsewhere.

The devastation, sense of helplessness and overall social trauma bring to mind another recent example of Mother Nature’s wrath: Hurricane Katrina.

But there are some noticeable differences this time around.

For example, unlike in August and September of 2005, the federal government was well prepared for the worse. On Tuesday – one day after the flames moved into residential areas – President Bush held a cabinet meeting to coordinate and maximize federal relief efforts. By Tuesday afternoon, he had dispatched his disaster relief chief, Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff, to the West Coast to oversee operations, and he immediately declared a state of emergency in California.

This morning, Bush left Washington to see firsthand the destruction on the ground.
“Americans all across this land care deeply about them. We’re concerned about their safety. We’re concerned about their property,” the president said, stressing the urgency of the crisis.

Contrast that to two years ago.
Bush was in Washington relying on hurricane updates from Chertoff and Michael Brown, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It took him five days before he actually arrived in devastated Gulf region to witness the devastation for himself.

When Bush got word that the levees were breached, he was in the midst of a photo-op with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for his birthday in Ariz., and later that day he flew to California, to deliver a speech on Medicare.

Two days after floodwaters engulfed the Gulf Coast – which of course was two days late – the National Guard finally arrived. That was the same day FEMA Director Michael Brown said he learned that people were trapped at the New Orleans Super Dome.

That was also the same day that Bush checked out the destruction from the window of Air Force One, as he was returning home from the West Coast.
 
Things have changed, and the folks in California are first to put the feds to the test. 
The wildfires have burned about 410,000 acres; the damage is staggering by all accounts.
 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Congress would consider sending more aid to her home state.

 “So far, [state officials] have been able to avail themselves of whatever is available from the federal government. We may have to expand on that as the fires continue to rage,” she said from the House floor. 
  
Today the president will visit a San Diego neighborhood, hold a news conference and have lunch with first responders during a five-hour visit.
 
Lessons learned from Katrina, I think so.
 
If Katrina were to happen today, would the federal response be different?  I think so; the embarrassment shamed the administration into doing better, and it paid off for the folks in California.
What do you think?   

Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Reporter

Posted Oct. 12, 2007 – Georgia Congressman John Lewis, a longtime friend and loyal supporter of the first Clinton Administration, announced today he’s endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.). In doing so, he denies Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), a fellow member of the Congressional Black Caucus, the honor.

It’s been suspected he would, and now it’s official.  Lewis pushed back when I asked him earlier this year if he’d had decided whom to support, which feed hopes Obama might get his endorsement.

No such luck. 
  
“I have looked at all the candidates, and I believe that Hillary Clinton is the best prepared to lead this country at a time when we are in desperate need of strong leadership,”  Lewis said.
“I am proud and deeply honored to have the support of John Lewis, a great American hero.  John helped transform this nation, and his vital role in establishing civil rights for all Americans will never be forgotten,” Clinton said.

This comes at a bad time for Obama.  Clinton is leading in national polls by double digits. In recent months,she surged ahead in fundraising, and they are only separated by a few points in Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

It’s not clear how Obama will play in the south so adding Lewis to fellow Black Georgia congressmen Sanford Bishop and freshman Hank Johnson wouldn’t have hurt.

Now that Lewis has signed on with Clinton, the “big get” will be House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D- S.C.).   He’s one of the most powerful men in Congress, and he’s from the first southern state with a primary.  He may opt to stay neutral until the pack of candidates is smaller.  

Lewis joins the list of lawmakers,  Rep. Charles Rangel(D-N.Y.), and the newest member, Laura Richardson (D-Calif.).  Obama has secured his home state members of the Congressional Black Caucus and now has about a dozen Black lawmakers in his camp.  

 With 43 members in the Black caucus, the number of undecided lawmakers is shrinking.

Do you think friendship or poltical loyalty should determine who lawmakers support?

Posted Oct. 4, 2007 – President Bush kept his word to Congress and the American people when he shot down a bill Tuesday that would have renewed and expanded health insurance for poor children. 

The veto was no surprise, but the political fallout might be. The White House sent a tsunami of e-mails explaining how bad it would be if this bill were signed into law and the state-federal partnership insurance program was expanded to cover more children.

In a statement from the White House, Bush said, “The policies of the government ought to be help poor children and to focus on poor children.  And the policies of the government ought to help people find private insurance, not federal coverage.”

Bush maintains the expansion that would include up to 10 million children (the cost of which is equivalent to what the United States spends in for 41 days in Iraq) and take the nation’s health care system in the wrong direction. 

 “I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system,” Bush said.   He wants Congress to come back with something covering fewer children and costing less. 

The reaction from Sen. Edward Kenney’s (D-Mass.) was forceful.   “Today we learned that the same president who is willing to throw away a half trillion dollars in Iraq is unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to bring health care to American children,” Kennedy said.
 
The Senate has the two-thirds votes it needs to override Bush’s veto. But it’s not clear whether the U.S. House of Representatives has the  votes it needs. But House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) remains hopeful. “I call on my colleagues in Congress to join the broad bipartisan consensus of senators, representatives, governors and advocacy groups who want to improve the quality of health care that America’s children receive and override the president’s veto,” he said.

The Democrats postponed the vote to override the veto until Oct. 18, which may give members time to take the pulse of folks in their respective districts.  Republicans are worried the veto is a kitchen-table discussion item that could hurt them at the polls in 2008.

 But the real pain may be felt by the 10 million children and their families who will be without health care.

By Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Producer

Posted Aug. 27, 2007 – Another close friend and trusted confidant of the presidents is calling it quits.  Attorney General Roberta Gonzales announced today he’s stepping down just days after the president’s senior advisor Karl Rove.

Gonzales and Rove are two of the president’s closest friends in his inner circle of confidants.  

 Gonzales has weathered the storm surrounding his roll in firing of U. S. Attorneys under scrutiny.  The firings appeared to be politicaly motivated by the White House and carried out by the Justice Department.  President Bush has shown unwavering support for Gonzales staying on the job, but today announced he had reluctantly accepted his resignation.

“It’s sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons,” Bush said.

So why is Gonzales leaving now? 

Gonzales resignation comes as he finds himself faced with the possibility of purgery charges steaming from his testimony before Congress.   He could also hope to draw less negative attention during the Bush administration’s final months in office.  Regardless of the reason; Democrats were glad to hear the news.

Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers, (D-Mich.) said in a statement, “It is a sad day when the Attorney General of the United States resigns amid a cloud of suspicion that the system of justice has been manipulated for political purposes.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Chairman of the Judiciary Committee said, “The troubling evidence revealed about this massive breach is a lesson to those in the future who hold these high offices, so that law enforcement is never subverted in this way again.”

But question could still be in Gonzales’ future. Leahy said he still wants some answers.  “I hope the Attorney General’s decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House,” he said. 

A harsher tone came from the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job.  He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove,” Reid said.

Now with Rove and Gonzales  gone, Reid said, “Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House.”

Posted Aug. 14, 2007 – The departure of Karl Rove from the White House is the best news many Black lawmakers say they’ve heard in a long time. 

“Karl Rove is moving on down the road,” President Bush announced Monday just before departing for his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and it didn’t take long for the cheers to start echoing through the Black community.

“Karl Rove was an architect of a political strategy that has left the country more divided, the special interests more powerful, and the American people more shut out from their government than any time in memory,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill,) said Monday.

Maryland Democratic Congressman Elijah Cumming’s had a similar reaction. “On the heels of the announced resignation of Karl Rove, I am hopeful for the future of our country,” said the former head of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Mr. Rove has been a major influence on what have often been negative, polarizing, impulsive and disparaging policy decisions by the Bush administration.”

Many of those American people “shut out” by Rove where Black folks.  He’s credited as the driving force behind the charge to disfranchise Black voters in two presidential elections.   He was also the gatekeeper during BET News’ repeated unsuccessful attempts to interview the president.  After the umpteenth request, a White House aid finally told me that Rove would never approve it.    

The president said Monday that he’s “been talking to Karl for a while about his desire to spend more time with Darby and Andrew.  This is a family that has made enormous sacrifices, not only for our beloved state of Texas, but for a country we both love.”

In their 34-year friendship, Bush has kept Rove by his side.  Rove served him in his political campaigns and while Bush was governor of Texas before joining the president’s team as deputy chief of staff and senior adviser.

As most Washington insiders know, when someone steps down to spend more time with his/her family, it’s the code word for getting “fired” or being “asked to resign.”  But Rove said he’s been thinking about leaving since last summer. “It always seemed there was a better time to leave somewhere out there in the future.  But now is the time,” he said.

Democrats felt the brunt of policies and strategies masterminded by Rove when the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate.  Armed with only a high school diploma, Rove may have outsmarted some of the best political minds in Washington.  A self-proclaimed history buff, his role in the Bush legacy will be analyzed by scholars for years to come.

The president’s chief of staff, John Bolton, isn’t letting on if Rove will be replaced – so we’ll just have to wait and see. You can bet that Black lawmakers in particular will be paying close attention to who might step into Rove’s shoes.

Posted July 25, 2007 – If you’re planning to visit the White House, make sure you show up in appropriate attire. Otherwise, you’ll be asked to come another day.

I noticed there are new signs posted, alerting visitors to the West Wing that the following attire has been outlawed: jeans, tank tops, mini-skirts and flip-flops. 

Perhaps, the fact that four members of the 2006 Northwestern University’s women’s championship lacrosse team posed with the president at the White House in flip-flops and sandals caused the “clothing police” to kick into high gear. 

 This new dress requirement will be an effective way to limit the number of visitors.  I rarely see folks during the summer taking snap shots outside the Pennsylvanian Avenue address who don’t have on at least one of the newly banned items.  No one comes to Washington dressed for success anymore. 

April Ryan, White House correspondent for National Urban Network, and I discussed our sandals in reaction to the new requirements.  “They (colleagues) tried to call these flip-flop’s,” she told me, pointing to a fashionable black sandal.  Considering I too had on shoes with out a back strap, we agreed our footwear did NOT belong in the flip-flop category. 

I imagine that if one person wore all of the prohibited items at the same time, he/she would look like he/she were ready to cut the lawn, or attend a cookout or baseball game.

Before folks get their halters in a knot, this isn’t the first White House to set guidelines for staff and or visitors.  First Lady Nancy Reagan didn’t approve of women wearing pants, so skirts were the order of the ’80s White House. 

For me, no flip-flops is fine. I’m a shoe-lover and while I do own my share of flip-flops, the other 200-plus pairs of shoes in my closet aren’t. 
 

Do you think the congressman crossed the line or do are people over-reacting? Read and post your comments.

 Posted July 20, 2007 – About two weeks ago, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) was speaking to a group of atheists at a forum in Minneapolis when he reflected on the attacks of 9/11 as the turning point that opened the door for the U.S. government to enact laws that it otherwise wouldn’t have been able to do.

Addressing a group of atheists is, by itself, enough to evoke public outrage in a nation where “God-fearing” is the label of choice. But Ellison – already the target of skepticism and mistrust by those who find it absurd that a Muslim could be elected to Congress in this post-9/11 era – did nothing to win over his critics when he alluded to the “N”-word in describing the Bush administration’s war in Iraq.

No, the other “N”-word. “Nazis.”

“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that – after the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted,” Ellison told the 300 or so members of Atheists for Human Rights.

Ellison was referring to the Reichstag German Parliament building that burned in 1933, an event that Hitler used to justify suspending the German people’s civil liberties. The run-up to the passage of the Patriots Act is a lot like that historic event, said Ellison, a steady critic of the administration.

The ensuing public outrage was prompt and powerful.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League, immediately called for Ellison to retract his comments and to apologize to the American people. He issued the following statement:

“Congressman Keith Ellison’s comments, comparing the rise of Nazism in the aftermath of the burning of the Reichstag to the War on Terror in the aftermath of 9/11, is outrageous and offensive to all Americans. Whatever his views may be on the administration’s response to 9/11 and the conduct of the War on Terrorism, likening it to Hitler’s rise to power and Nazism is odious and demeans the victims of 9/11 and the brave American men and women engaged in the War on Terror. Furthermore, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the horrors that Hitler and his Nazi regime perpetrated.”

Seeking to mitigate the political backlash from his remarks, Ellison wrote in a July 13 editorial in The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune that, “I spoke to constituents about religious tolerance and the erosion of civil liberties in a post 9/11 America. It is precisely in the aftermath of a tragedy like 9/11 that we must be most vigilant about our precious civil liberties. Unfortunately, some have tried to misconstrue my remarks.”

A spokesman in Ellison’s office told me he wasn’t comparing Bush to Hitler and, in an interview with The Associated Press, the congressman said, “In hindsight, I wouldn’t have used that reference point.”

But he didn’t back down on his assessment of the administration’s policy blunders. “Bush and his team seem intent on enlarging his authority and defying those who would challenge him or his administration,” he said.

Posted July 12, 2007 – It appears that nothing is going to budge President Bush off his present course on Iraq. Bush, who sees the glass half full, told reporters that it’s too early to draw conclusions from his early report, which he presented Thursday.

In May, Congress ordered the White House to submit a report on progress in
Iraq by September. Amid a growing congressional movement to withdraw U.S. troops from the rising tide of violence and civil war in Iraq, Bush presented a preliminary, or interim, report ahead of the September update.

“Today, my administration has submitted to Congress an interim report that requires us to assess … whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks [in Iraq] is or is not being achieved,” the president told the American people Thursday. “Those who believe that the battle in
Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism.”

To pack up and leave now would send the wrong message, Bush said Withdrawal “would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It means risking mass killings on a horrific scale” and would “allow terrorists to establish a safe haven.”

But the president’s “interim” report landed on Capitol Hill with a “thud” as members of Congress assessed his analysis. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Today’s report from the president confirms what many had suspected – the war in Iraq is headed in a dangerous direction. The Iraqi government has not met the key political benchmarks it has set for itself, and Iraqi security forces continue to lag well behind expectations.”

The Congress had set 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and the first report only gives the troubled leadership a “satisfactory” grade on eight of them. While the Democrats are not happy with the report’s results, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) requested the report from the White House as part of the last supplemental funding bill.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) wasted no time in blasting the administration. “Don’t tell us we’re making progress in Iraq when the last three months have been some of the deadliest since this war began for our brave troops who have sacrificed so much,” he said. “And don’t tell us it’s progress when the Iraqi leadership has done nothing – nothing – to take the political steps necessary to end their civil war.”

It’s clear from the 25-page report that the Iraqi government remains weak, while al-Qaeda is rebuilding and reorganizing in the region. Meanwhile, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says he isn’t surprised the terrorist network is rebuilding. He warned that the absence of attacks in the U.S. doesn’t mean we should let our guard down. “We can never rest on our laurels – the enemy is continuing to change and adapt,” he said.

Posted from Capitol Hill by Pamela Gentry