Friday, June 1, 2007 Got a question? Get an answer. Send an e-mail to Dear Mr. Mullings Dear Mr. Mullings: When Hillary Clinton said in the CNN debate that she voted for the Iraq resolution because all it did was to give the President the authority to send in inspectors was she telling the truth? Rich No. She was, um, mistaken. Note the title and the text from the official summary of the resolution (H.J.Res. 114) from the Library of Congress: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions. Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution. You Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution. Dear Mr. Mullings: With Super Duper Tuesday coming up next year ... That would sure spice things up to start the first day of the national convention without a clear cut winner! Dave Given the subject of today's MULLINGS and the CNN debates this week and all, let's examine that. It is possible - likely, even - that one candidate will come out of February 5th with an absolute majority of delegates. On the Dem side it's a little more complicated because of the Super-Delegates - state and national party office holders who are delegates by virtue of having been elected to their offices, not having been elected a delegate based upon whom they support for the nomination. Let's take the Republican side which is easier to dissect. It is possible - likely even - that NO candidate will come out of February 5th with the absolute majority. I know I wrote just the opposite just above, but that makes my point that no one has any idea what is going to happen. Let's assume that - for the purposes of this discussion only - Romney, Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani each comes out of Feb. 5 with 20% of the delegates. Huckabee and the others split up the remaining 20%. Were that to happen we would have a fistfight all the way down to the last vote in Minneapolis which woudl be fun to watch but pretty much guarantee a Democratic President on January 20, 2009. Another scenario is that one candidate - you pick - ends up with 45% of the delegates on February 5 and makes a deal with one or more of the trailers to get him over the top. Deal done. Yippee. The State Senate of Texas has decided to go all in on the notion that no one will be close to having a majority after February 5th but Texas could put someone over the top and therefore its primary on February 12 will be the big deal in 2008. Any one of these scenarios are possible. As are any other combination of winners and losers you can concoct while you are waiting for burgers to cook this summer. Dear Mr. Mullings: How are the White House correspondents for news outlets chosen? Does the White House have veto power over them? Does the U.S. Government pay for their travel when they go on trips with the President? John Mobile, Alabama There are press galleries in the House, the Senate, and the White House. The members of the galleries make the rules as to who can belong. You have to make, as I remember, at least half your income from doing press stuff and none of the other half of your income can come from working for any organization which has an interest in the outcome of legislation. In the House and Senate there is a Daily Press gallery; a Periodical gallery, a Radio-TV gallery and a Photography gallery. Generally speaking, if you can get accepted to one of the Congressional Galleries that is the gold standard and you can claim admittance to just about any event which is open to the press in Washington. The White House gallery has an additional requirement - you have to pass Secret Service muster. Assuming you are not wanted on some open felony rap (or running from the CDC with a rare form of TB) the Service will allow you on the grounds to do your job. Neither the majority nor the minority in the House or the Senate can have an otherwise qualified reporter thrown out of their gallery. The White House, likewise, has no control (absent a Secret Service objection) over who a news outlet can assign. As to who pays for travel the answer is: the media. Reporters who fly on Air Force One or, if it is a big trip, the press plane, pay for their own travel. When they get on the ground they pay their share of food, buses, room rental for filing centers and any other expenses. Also they pay for their own hotel rooms. Travelling with the President (or with a Presidential campaign) is a very expensive proposition for the media. Dear Mr. Mullings: A week or so ago you wrote that Nancy Pelosi had announced she would vote against the Iraq funding bill. I thought the Speaker traditionally didn�t vote� has something changed or am I mistaken? Brad You are correct. The Speaker of the House does not, as a matter of tradition, vote on every bill. However, unlike the Vice President - who as President of the Senate is permitted to vote in the case of a tie - there is no prohibition against the Speaker voting. Speakers dovote if the vote is symbolic or extremely close. Or, if there is someone in the Speaker's Office they are trying to duck. Last one Dear Mr. Mullings: What is your take on the NSPD-51 directive that President Bush put into place in early May? Bob Madison, WI Quit showing off. If you really care about National Security Presidential Directive - 51 you can read all about it here. As for me, I'm trying to figure out where to buy three ounce tubes of shaving cream so I can take them through security at the airport. See you next week. Rich Got a question? Get an answer. Send an e-mail to Dear Mr. Mullings                                     Click here to return to the Secret Decoder Ring page Copyright © 2007 Barrington Worldwide, LLC