Printer Friendly February 8, 2006 Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary THE MORNING MURMUR – Wednesday, February 8, 2006 1. Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities – New York Times 2. Carter: Still No Clue – New York Post Editorial 3. Eminent-domain resisters offered a deal – Associated Press 4. It's Bush's Duty to Spy on Terrorists – Human Events Op-ed 5. A Funny Time to Get Sensitive – New York Post Columnist For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov 1. Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities – New York Times February 8, 2006 WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — Democrats are heading into this year's elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities. In interviews, senior Democrats said they were optimistic about significant gains in Congressional elections this fall, calling this the best political environment they have faced since President Bush took office. But Democrats described a growing sense that they had failed to take full advantage of the troubles that have plagued Mr. Bush and his party since the middle of last year, driving down the president's approval ratings, opening divisions among Republicans in Congress over policy and potentially putting control of the House and Senate into play in November. Asked to describe the health of the Democratic Party, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said: "A lot worse than it should be. This has not been a very good two months." "We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about," Mr. Dodd said. Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House's long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy — should they settle on one — were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall. As a result, some Democrats said, their party could lose its chance to do to Republicans this year what the Republicans did to them in 1994: make the midterm election, normally dominated by regional and local concerns, a national referendum on the party in power. "I think that two-thirds of the American people think the country is going in the wrong direction," " said Senator Barack Obama, the first-term Illinois Democrat who is widely viewed as one of the party's promising stars. "They're not sure yet whether Democrats can move it in the right direction." Mr. Obama said the Democratic Party had not seized the moment, adding: "We have been in a reactive posture for too long. I think we have been very good at saying no, but not good enough at saying yes." Some Democrats said they favored remaining largely on the sidelines while Republicans struggled under the glare of a corruption inquiry. And some said there was still time for the party to get its act together. But many others said the party needed to move quickly to offer a comprehensive governing agenda, even as they expressed concern about who could make the case. Their concern was aggravated by the image of high-profile Democrats, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, challenging the legality of Mr. Bush's secret surveillance program this week at a time when the White House has sought to portray Democrats as weak on security. "We're selling our party short; you've got to stand for a lot more than just blasting the other side," said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. "The country is wide open to hear some alternatives, but I don't think it's wide open to all these criticisms. I am sitting here and getting all my e-mail about the things we are supposed to say about the president's speech, but it's extremely light on ideas. It's like, 'We're for jobs and we're for America.' " To a certain extent, the frustrations afflicting Democrats are typical for a party out of power. In Congress, the Democrats have become largely marginalized by the Republican majority, depriving them of a ready platform either to make attacks or offer their own ideas. Presidential campaigns typically produce prominent party leaders, followed around the country by a cluster of reporters and television crews, but that is at least two years away. Yet in many ways, the Democratic Party's problems seem particularly tangled today, a source of frustration to Democratic leaders as they have watched opinion polls indicating that the public is souring on the Republican Party and receptive to Democratic leadership. And the problems are besetting Democrats at a pivotal moment, as they struggle to adapt to a shifting American political landscape, and a concerted effort by this White House to make permanent inroads among once traditional Democratic voters. Since Mr. Bush's re-election, Democrats have been divided over whether to take on the Republicans in a more confrontational manner, ideologically and politically, or to move more forcefully to stake out the center on social and national security issues. They are being pushed, from the left wing of the party, to stand for what they say are the party's historical liberal values. But among more establishment Democrats, there is concern that many of the party's most visible leaders — among them, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Senator John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate; Mr. Kennedy; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader; and Al Gore, who has assumed a higher profile as the party heads toward the 2008 presidential primaries — may be flawed messengers. In this view, the most visible Democrats are vulnerable to Republican attacks portraying them as out of the mainstream on issues including security and budget-cutting. Mr. Kerry said the party's authority had been diluted because of the absence of one or two obvious leaders, though he expressed confidence that would change. In a speech last week in Washington and in an interview, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who is considering a run for president in 2008, sharply criticized fellow Democrats who were arguing that the party should focus only on domestic issues and turn away from national security, since that has been the strong suit for this White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. "I think the Republicans are ripe for the taking on this issue," Mr. Bayh said in the interview, "but not until we rehabilitate our own image. I think there's a certain element of denial about how we are viewed, perhaps incorrectly but viewed nonetheless, by many Americans as being deficient on national security." In his speech, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Bayh said: "As Democrats, we have a patriotic duty and political imperative to lay out our ideas for protecting America. Frankly, our fellow citizens have doubts about us. We have work to do." Some Democrats argued that the party had time to put up its ideas, and that it would be smarter to wait until later, when voters would be paying attention. But former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the party's 2004 vice-presidential nominee and a prospective presidential candidate for 2008, said he thought Americans were eager to hear the contrasting case. "What the American people are hungry to hear from us is, what is the difference?" Mr. Edwards said in an interview. "What will we do? How will we deal with the corruption issue in Washington? How will we deal with the huge moral issues that we have at home? This is a huge opportunity for our party to show what we are made of." Historically at least, Democrats should be in a strong position. The out-of-power party typically gains seats in the midterm elections of a president's second term. And Democrats said they had a particularly compelling case for voting out the party in power this year because of investigations centered on the White House and Congress, including the influence-peddling case involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff. "We're going to keep hammering this," said Mr. Dean, the party chairman, referring to the scandals. "One thing the Republicans have taught us is that values and character matter." Yet some Democrats warned that it would be a mistake to talk only about ethics. "It's absolutely required that the party talk about things in addition to the Abramoff scandal," said Martin Frost, former leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "I think the climate is absolutely right to take back the House or the Senate or both. But you can't do it without a program." And Mr. Bayh said, "I don't believe we will win by just not being them." Ms. Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, did not dispute that argument. But, pointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush's Social Security proposal last year, she said there was no rush. "People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year. "I feel very confident about where we are." And Senator Barbara Boxer, also a California Democrat, said: "We have a strategy. First is to convince the American people that what's happening in Washington is not working. We have achieved that. Now we have to, at this stage, convince people that we are the ones to bring positive change." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08dems.html 2. Carter: Still No Clue – New York Post Editorial February 8, 2006 Jimmy Carter may or may not have been the worst president of the 20th century — history will have the final word on that — but his disgraceful performance yesterday at Coretta Scott King's funeral marks him as the most shameless. Maybe of all time. There is, after all, a time and place for everything — but not for Carter. In a reprehensible (albeit typical) display of tone-deafness, the former president used the funeral of Dr. Martin Luther King's widow to score cheap points against President Bush. (He wasn't alone in that regard, more of which in a bit.) Carter warmed up by conjuring the outlandish conspiracy theories that still linger from Hurricane Katrina: "We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi who are most devastated by Katrina to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans." Then he segued on to the Bush administration. In what could only be taken as a direct attack on Bush's electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists — a program Carter has repeatedly denounced as "illegal" — the ex-prez said of Mrs. King and her slain husband, Martin Luther King, "they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance." True enough — though Carter couldn't quite bring himself to note that the wire-tapping was conducted under Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and was originally ordered by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, all Democrats. And, frankly, had Carter made better use of electronic surveillance back in his day, 52 Americans might have been spared 444 days of Iranian captivity. (Indeed, the world might well have been spared the Iranian revolution — and the current nuclear crisis — had Carter been up to the job.) There was a time when former presidents did not publicly attack their successors, but that respect long ago went by the wayside as far as Carter, America's national scold, is concerned. But to level such attacks at Mrs. King's funeral demeaned the occasion as well as the woman who was being honored by four presidents. Sadly, Carter wasn't alone in mistaking Mrs. King's funeral for a Democratic pep rally. Rev. Joseph Lowery, who once upon a time was a figure of some note among Dr. King's colleagues, was even more pointed in his hectoring. "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," he said. "But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor." To be sure, Mrs. King probably would have agreed with the sentiments — though she was far too gracious to openly insult a president of the United States to his face. No clue. Some things never change. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/63150.htm 3. Eminent-domain resisters offered a deal – Associated Press Published February 8, 2006 NEW LONDON, Conn. (AP) -- The mayor of New London, where a fight over government seizure of property led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, is proposing a compromise for a group of homeowners. Under a plan presented to the City Council on Monday night, four persons whose homes were seized for a private development would be allowed to stay. The city would own their properties, and the residents would have to pay the city to live there. Two other homeowners were excluded from Mayor Beth Sabilia's plan. One doesn't live in the home and the other moved in after the court battle began. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June that the quasi-public New London Development Corp. could take homes in the Fort Trumbull area for private economic development. The 94-acre project, proposed in 1998, calls for a hotel, office space and upscale housing. The court also said states are free to ban property seizure under eminent domain for such projects, prompting many states to consider such bans. One of the property owners who sued over the Fort Trumbull seizures, Susette Kelo, said the mayor's proposal shows that the houses and the private development can coexist. But she and another plaintiff, Michael Cristofaro, said they aren't interested in paying rent for homes they owned. "The ongoing battle of the last eight years has not been to allow us to live in our homes and pay rent to the city of New London until we die," Mrs. Kelo said. The City Council voted Monday to collect rent from the homeowners while city Law Director Thomas Londregan studies the mayor's proposal. Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development Corp., said the agency would defer to the council's decision. The government offered what it said was fair value for the Fort Trumbull homes. Most residents took the money and left, but those remaining either say the money isn't enough or their homes aren't for sale at all. Money for the houses still standing has been set aside for the homeowners. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060207-103311-6392r.htm 4. It's Bush's Duty to Spy on Terrorists – Human Events Op-ed By Rabbi Aryeh Spero The Founding Fathers and the Constitution had an additional title for the President of the United States: it was Commander-in-Chief. In other words, he is the general over all generals. So as to defend the country from enemies, the Founders gave the President of the United States powers beyond even generals in the battlefield. We would never question a general on the battlefield using reconnaissance -- spying -- to find out what enemy captains are communicating to privates elsewhere on the battlefield. In fact, that is the general’s job; anything else is dereliction of duty. Field commanders must gather intelligence. Well, in the Jihadist Era in which we live, the entire world is the battlefield. And it is up to our generals to find out what the captains in al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad are telling their privates in sleeper cells here across America. It is the President's duty, the general of all generals during war, to find out what the enemy is planning against us. Where is he storing his ammunition? Perhaps in a mosque in New Jersey. Where are the meeting places of those agents dedicated to our destruction? Perhaps in an Islamic storefront in Michigan. For the President not to delegate this reconnaissance to our agencies responsible for protecting us would be a dereliction of duty, it would show a President un-serious, unfocused, irresponsible. Four years ago liberals accused the President of not fully using our domestic and international intelligence agencies to gather advance information of the impending attack of Sept. 11. We let ourselves be caught off guard, they said. Now that the President is doing exactly what everyone demanded after 9/11, i.e., using our surveillance to catch the enemy before he attacks, liberals cry foul. The newly-hatched rights of terrorists bent on destroying Americans seem more important to liberals than the right of Americans and their children to live. Who should be impeached? A President who doesn't make it his business to find out what the enemy has planned against the citizens of the United States. The foremost duty of a U.S. President is to protect us from enemies wishing to harm us. George Bush is right. I’m encouraged that he’s willing to take the heat. History shows that on many matters relating to terrorism Clinton and Gore would not take the heat and that Kerry would first need the approval of the UN, EU, the Hague, and the ACLU before doing what is in the best interest of Americans. Bush’s critics are fanatics. A fanatic is someone so tied to an idea that he sees nothing of value beyond that idea. Not even the saving of innocent life. Some simply want to show how morally superior they are than the rest of us -- they care even for the privacy and comfort of murderers -- but deep down are counting on those “mean-spirited” Republicans to disregard the liberal platitudes and playthings and protect the country, and them. The picture the mainstream media are painting is of a George Bush sitting upstairs in the White House with headphones attached listening to phone calls between innocent ladies somewhere in Columbus, Ohio talking about … John Kerry and Tipper Gore. The real picture is simply a President delegating authority to those Feds whose job it is to find out what the bad guys have in store for us, the good guys. Though some liberals do not believe we are the good guys. What you should fear more than a President eager to protect you is an al Qaeda agent on the loose with a President who is too afraid, too politically correct and thus unwilling to protect you. Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, a pulpit rabbi, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at www.caucusforamerica.com. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12216 5. A Funny Time to Get Sensitive – New York Post Columnist By Eric Fettmann SAY this for the rampaging mobs of Muslims now spreading death and destruction across Europe, Asia and the Middle East over those Danish "Mohammed" cartoons: They've managed to instill some sensitivity toward religious feelings in the U.S. press. Well, toward Islamic feelings, anyway. Chances are pretty good that if Jews and Christians find themselves outraged by something in the newspapers, they'll still be admonished for censorship and told to stop imposing their religious values on everyone else. And not just religious groups, either. Last week, journalists widely ridiculed the Joint Chiefs of Staff for protesting a Washington Post cartoon that showed an armless and legless soldier callously being diagnosed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as "battle-hardened." The Joint Chiefs called it "beyond tasteless." But Post editors defended the cartoon. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to find U.S. news media outlets that have published any of the Danish caricatures of the prophet Mohammed that have so inflamed Islamic opinion. The New York Times won't do it; an editorial yesterday suggested the cartoons were "gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today have likewise declined. The Associated Press, which distributes news worldwide, refuses even to make the images available to their clients so that each can decide whether to publish them. According to the AP, "the cartoons did not meet our long-held standards for not moving offensive content." Garry Trudeau, the no-holds-barred "Doonesbury" cartoonist, said he would never have used images of Mohammed, adding that he'd "defend [editors'] right and responsibility to delete material that they feel is inappropriate for their readership." (The New York Post has not published the cartoons, but did run an editorial criticizing the Bush administration for "pandering to the rule of the mob" by refusing to issue a ringing endorsement of "respect for freedom of the press.") You can debate whether U.S. publications should have instinctively joined many of their European counterparts in republishing the cartoons simply as a defense of freedom of the press. But, in the event, all media instincts went the other way. CBS announced on the air that it wouldn't show the Mohammmed cartoons. So did CNN, "out of respect for Islam." NBC showed a partial image of one cartoon; ABC showed a brief image of another. But what, AP was asked by the San Francisco Chronicle, about those grisly 2004 photos of civilian contractors burned to death in Fallujah? "Those were very different," replied AP's executive editor. (You knew they would be, didn't you?) "The murder of these men who were not military soldiers was an indication of a significant turn in the story." Huh? The cartoons are a major news story, too — Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen yesterday rightly called it "a growing global crisis." So AP's refusal to show the images behind that story is mind-boggling. After all, were the Catholic League complaining about a cartoon that depicted Jesus in a mocking way, journalists and editors across the board would be tripping over each other to see who'd be the first to warn about a "chilling effect" on the press. Indeed, many have complained for years that the news media should show greater sensitivity to the feelings of religious people. When the Brooklyn Academy of Music displayed artwork showing an image of the Virgin Mary made out of elephant dung, neither TV nor newspaper editors showed any qualms about showing the controversial piece — which outraged Christians as blasphemous. Many Jews have been offended by the constant use of Nazi imagery to attack Israel. During the original Palestinian intifada, for example, one newspaper cartoon showed Israeli soldiers breaking into a Palestinian home, only to find Anne Frank writing her diary. Those who objected to those and similar images were curtly dismissed. Frankly, the images that prompted the current riots are pretty tame compared to the anti-Jewish material that's regularly featured in Arab media. Garry Trudeau isn't wrong when he says that "just because a society has almost unlimited freedom of expression doesn't mean we should ever stop thinking about its consequences in the real world." But journalists who start making such choices face a slippery slope ahead: Inevitably, they'll end up accomodating the sensitivities of one group while ignoring those of another. Right now, U.S. journalists should be showing some backbone. Showing sudden sensitivity in the face of the murderous mobs — and sympathy and understanding for their motives — is to effectively endorse violent intimidation of the press. That stance can only come back to haunt journalists the next time they find themselves under siege closer to home. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/63133.htm ###
|