Printer Friendly

March 9, 2006

September:   Sept. 29, 2006   Sept. 28, 2006   Sept. 27, 2006   Sept. 26, 2006   Sept. 21, 2006   Sept. 20, 2006   Sept. 19, 2006   Sept. 14, 2006   Sept. 13, 2006   Sept. 12, 2006   Sept. 07, 2006   Sept. 06, 2006 JULY:   Jul. 28, 2006   Jul. 27, 2006   Jul. 26, 2006   Jul. 25, 2006   Jul. 24, 2006   Jul. 20, 2006   Jul. 19, 2006   Jul. 18, 2006   Jul. 17, 2006   Jul. 13, 2006   Jul. 12, 2006   Jul. 11, 2006   Jul. 10, 2006 JUNE:   Jun. 29, 2006   Jun. 28, 2006   Jun. 27, 2006   Jun. 26, 2006   Jun. 22, 2006   Jun. 21, 2006   Jun. 20, 2006   Jun. 19, 2006   Jun. 16, 2006   Jun. 15, 2006   Jun. 14, 2006   Jun. 13, 2006   Jun. 12, 2006   Jun. 9, 2006   Jun. 8, 2006   Jun. 7, 2006   Jun. 6, 2006 MAY:   May 25, 2006   May 24, 2006   May 23, 2006   May 22, 2006   May 19, 2006   May 18, 2006   May 17, 2006   May 11, 2006   May 10, 2006   May 4, 2006   May 3, 2006   May 2, 2006 APRIL:   Apr. 27, 2006   Apr. 26, 2006   Apr. 25, 2006   Apr. 6, 2006   Apr. 5, 2006   Apr. 4, 2006 MARCH:   Mar. 30, 2006   Mar. 29, 2006   Mar. 28, 2006   Mar. 16, 2006   Mar. 15, 2006   Mar. 14, 2006   Mar. 9, 2006   Mar. 8, 2006   Mar. 7, 2006   Mar. 2, 2006   Mar. 1, 2006 FEBRUARY:   Feb. 28, 2006   Feb. 16, 2006   Feb. 15, 2006   Feb. 14, 2006   Feb. 8, 2006   Feb. 1, 2006 JANUARY:   Jan. 31, 2006 DECEMBER:   Dec. 16, 2005   Dec. 15, 2005   Dec. 14, 2005   Dec. 13, 2005   Dec. 8, 2005   Dec. 7, 2005   Dec. 6, 2005 Archives

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 - Thursday, March 09, 2006

1.  House Panel Votes No on Ports – Washington Times
The committee voted 62-2 to scuttle the transfer of management of operations at some U.S. ports to the state-run DP World. The panel passed the proposal as an amendment to the president's emergency spending request for hurricane relief and the war on terror.

2. Threats Rattle at Nuclear Meeting on Iran – New York Times
On Wednesday, the chief Iranian delegate to the IAEA, said "The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain," Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, told reporters at the end of the meeting. "But it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll."

3. Misread Electorate – Washington Times Op-ed
Misinterpreting political conditions, and making the wrong tactical choices, is always a risk. The Democrats' decision to put all their chips on the slogan "culture of corruption" is such a misread.

4. The Other Texas Primary – Wall Street Journal
While party leaders and activists want to treat pro-growth Democrats like a crazy aunt in the attic, these political misfits somehow remain popular with many voters.  Rep. Henry Cuellar’s moderate stances earned him the wrath of the Democratic leadership, the AFL-CIO and activists on the Internet who backed his opponent in Tuesday’s primary.

5. Black Eyes For Buckeyes – Congress Daily AM
Josh Kraushaar writes in "House Race Hotline Extra" that several months ago, Ohio offered a prime opportunity for Democrats to score major gains in the midterm elections. Democrats, however, have not taken full advantage of the situation on the ground.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1. House Panel Votes No on Ports – Washington Times

By Amy Fagan and Stephen Dinan
March 9, 2006

The House Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly yesterday to break with President Bush and block the deal to transfer management of operations at six key U.S. ports to a Dubai-owned company.
   

Lawmakers said the vote was designed to be a wake-up call for the administration about the strength of opposition to the deal, both among voters and among members of Congress who are up for re-election in November.
    

"We want a little more appreciation from the White House that this is a great concern to many of us and to our constituents," said Rep. Anne M. Northup, Kentucky Republican. "It's not as though Congress has a lot of ways to get the president's attention."
    

The committee voted 62-2 to scuttle the transfer of management of operations at some U.S. ports to the state-run DP World. The panel passed the proposal as an amendment to the president's emergency spending request for hurricane relief and the war on terror, making it hard for President Bush to carry out his veto threat against that bill.
    

"It's very important to protect our ports from this kind of foreign involvement right now," said committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, California Republican. "I've heard, from many of my constituents, pretty strong views."
    

Voting against the amendment were Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia Democrat, and Rep. Jim Kolbe, Arizona Republican.
    

Mr. Moran called the vote "premature," given a pending 45-day investigation into the deal, and Mr. Kolbe said the focus should be on port security, not this transaction.
    

But the committee defeated, on a 35-30 vote, a Democratic amendment that would reform the interagency panel responsible for approving such foreign deals. Some members supported the idea, but said it was a matter best left to other committees.
    

The White House remains publicly committed to the ports deal, and although administration officials said yesterday that the veto threat stands, they emphasized that they are willing to listen to Congress.
    

The administration has asked that lawmakers wait until after a 45-day investigation into the deal, and spokeswoman Dana Perino said it is asking members of Congress and state and local officials what questions the investigation should answer.
    

But the White House opposed yesterday's amendment, arguing that it could hurt administration priorities.
    

"We're concerned that attempts to address this issue in pending supplementals could slow down passage of legislation required to equip our troops with what they need to win in Iraq and the global war on terror and provide critical funds to rebuild the Gulf Coast and help those affected by last year's hurricanes," Mrs. Perino said.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060309-123242-7653r.htm

2. Threats Rattle at Nuclear Meeting on Iran – New York Times

By ELAINE SCIOLINO

VIENNA, March 8 — Negotiating over Iran's nuclear program has come to resemble an endless session of global poker. In the latest round, played Wednesday in the boardroom of the international nuclear agency here, distrust beat diplomacy.

The Iranian side upped the ante by blaming the United States for Iran's predicament — consideration of its nuclear activities in the United Nations Security Council next week — and threatened retaliation.

"The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain," Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, told reporters at the end of the meeting. "But it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll."

The threat did not seem to be an off-hand remark. The threat was contained, in almost the same wording and with the same mixed metaphor, in Iran's speech to the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency and in a separate formal statement. In Iran meanwhile, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that those who wanted to "violate the rights of the Iranian nation will quickly regret their actions."

But underscoring the fluid nature of Iran's policy making, even Iran's envoy in Vienna dodged when asked what letting the ball roll meant — perhaps using oil as a weapon or destabilizing the region, for example. Ali Asghar Soltainyeh, Iran's ambassador to the agency, said the matter would be "carefully" studied back home.

Wednesday's meeting was Iran's last chance to promise to curb its nuclear activities and avoid judgment by the Security Council.

Last month, the agency voted by an overwhelming majority to report Iran's case for judgment to the Security Council, but gave Iran a grace period of one final month to take remedial steps before the Security Council would take action.

Instead of giving in, Iran held firm to its position that it had the sovereign right to continue to make small amounts of nuclear fuel for research purposes at its vast uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

Consideration of the Iran case by the agency on Wednesday was a diplomatic ritual. It came toward the end of the regularly scheduled quarterly session of the board, in which several nuclear issues were discussed. A number of board members, as well as Iran, delivered speeches on Iran's nuclear crisis, but no formal resolution was introduced.

Iran's oil minister, Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh, delivered a very different message in Tehran. He assured an edgy oil market that Iran would continue to export crude even if economic sanctions were imposed. His remarks underscored the fluid nature of Iran's policy making.

Noting that sanctions "could affect" the oil market and raise prices, "it will not affect our decision to continue our supply," he told reporters on the fringes of a meeting of OPEC oil ministers. "Oil flow is continuing. The exports will not be stopped."

But the Bush administration was quick to focus on Iran's threats. "Provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said in New Orleans.

Iran's threats came a day after Vice President Dick Cheney declared, without any specifics, that the Security Council would "impose meaningful consequences" on Iran if it proceeded with uranium enrichment activities. He did not indicate how he was able to predict the outcome of Security Council deliberations before the body even met.

The Bush administration's envoy to the nuclear agency, Gregory L. Schulte, kept up the fierce tone on Wednesday, telling reporters, "The leadership in Tehran has thus far chosen a course of flagrant threats and phony negotiations."

Uncertainty about Iran's intentions, coupled with persistent threats from Washington about punitive measures against Iran, prompted pleas for caution and a return to negotiations.

"Everybody is looking forward to a political settlement," Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency's director and the most recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, told reporters Wednesday in Vienna at the end of the meeting on Iran. He added: "What we need at this stage is cool-headed approaches. We need for people to lower the rhetoric."

Dr. ElBaradei called on Iran to resolve outstanding issues of concern and restore the world's confidence "to get out of the hole that we're in today."

He underscored that in the long term, the United States held the key to building Iran's trust with the world. Stressing that it was a personal view, he said that once security issues began to be discussed with Iran, "the U.S. should be engaged into a dialogue."

In Washington, R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, said action against Iran in the Security Council would start early next week.

The first step will be a "strong statement" about Iran, which means a statement by the Council president that lacks the force of a formal resolution. But Mr. Burns said that if the Iranian government did not "accede to the wishes of the international community, then of course we would have to look at possible targeted sanctions, which a number of countries are already beginning to explore."

The sanctions "will be specifically targeted to pressure the regime and Iran's nuclear and missile programs, rather than hurting the great majority of innocent Iranians," he said.

The outcome of Wednesday's meeting was a setback for Russia, which is opposed to using the Security Council as a vehicle to punish Iran. In recent days, Russia floated — then withdrew under American pressure — a face-saving proposal to restart negotiations that would have allowed Iran to conduct some small-scale uranium enrichment eventually.

In his speech to the board on Wednesday, Russia's ambassador, Grigory V. Berdennikov, called on Iran to "fully cooperate" with the nuclear agency "without delay" so that its case could be dealt with in a "normal, routine" way inside the I.A.E.A.

The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said Wednesday after meeting with the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, that "I don't think sanctions as a means to solve a crisis has ever achieved a goal in the recent history."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/international/middleeast/09iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

3. Misread Electorate – Washington Times Op-ed

By Gary J. Andres
March 9, 2006

The old saying, "close only counts inhorseshoesandhand grenades," is clearly a misnomer. Take politics, for instance. A closely divided electorate counts a lot, especially in terms of the behavior of political parties and their leaders' tactics in Washington.
    

Misinterpreting political conditions, and making the wrong tactical choices, is always a risk. The Democrats' decision to put all their chips on the slogan "culture of corruption" is such a misread. Retrospective analyses of the 2006 elections will show this tactic cut both ways, hurting Democrats as much as it helped.
    

Close divisions in the American political terrain create sharp partisan edges in Congress. Small electoral changes in November could result in big shifts in partisan control. A net gain of 15 House seats or six Senate contests means America gets Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Majority Leader Harry Reid.
    

But political climatology, like Washington weather, has its seasons. The last decade has not been kind to congressional Democrats — "always winter but never Christmas," in the words of C.S. Lewis. Except for a brief period in 2001-02, when control of the Senate flipped due to James Jeffords of Vermont switching parties, Republicans have managed a small but unified majority since 1994 on both sides of the Capitol.
    

Some seasons of American politics witness one-party domination of Congress, and minority tactics matter less. During the late 19th century, for example, Republicans held a firm grip on the reins of power in the House. In the 54th Congress (1895-97), Republicans controlled the House by more than 140 seats (246-104). In the 67th Congress (1921-23), Republicans again boosted their majority to record numbers (300-132). Democrats needed a cataclysmic event — like a major economic collapse — to be called "chairmen" again in those days. The political climate of the Great Depression gave them just that. For the next 40 years Democrats held the House, and at one point in the 75th Congress wielded a 155-seat majority, controlling the chamber 333-89. During these lopsided times, the minority just tries to "go along by getting along."
    

Yet there are other seasons of American politics, more akin to today's, when closely divided partisan control produces unpredictable partisan weather. It is in this climate that tactics matter more. Some believe, for example, that the Senate Democrats' tactics obstructing President Bush's judicial nominations helped Republicans retake a closely divided Senate in 2002 and boost their majority to its current 55-45 following the 2004 election.
    

The point of this brief history lesson is this: During periods of lopsided partisan control, minority tactical gambles mean less in the big-casino politics. But when margins shrink, strategic bets can either yield large payoffs or big busts. Democrats hope the "culture of corruption" gambit helps them hit the electoral jackpot in November, but a raft of survey evidence suggests it's not working.
    

Last week, two veteran pollsters, Republican Ed Goeas and Democrat Celinda Lake, released their well-respected "Battleground Poll." In his "Republican Strategic Analysis," Mr. Goeas confirms what many public and private polls, including my own, have found over the past year. He writes, "the mood of the electorate is not an anti-incumbent mood, an anti-Democratic or anti-Republican mood, but an anti-Washington mood."
    

So the refrain, "culture of corruption" doesn't automatically translate to anti-Republican sentiment, as Democrats bet it will. Instead, it splashes mud on both parties, reminding voters that it's the political class in Washington — not any particular party — that deserves their ire.
    

But how does stoking anger toward Washington affect turnout in an off-year election? The answer is unclear. Some argue it depresses enthusiasm in red and blue states. Polling data certainly suggests that might be the case. But since Democrats are slinging the mud, could it be like whacking a Republican hornet's nest, exciting and motivating the Republican base? Both scenarios are possible in a closely divided electorate.
    

The stakes are high and the margins close this November. Democratic tactical decisions would have less significance in a more lopsided environment. But harping on the corruption theme, without any positive agenda, only reminds voters why they dislike both sides in Washington and has an unknown impact on activists on both sides. Voters want to know what you intend to do for them, not what you intend to do to your political opponents.
    

Without a positive issue platform, the Democrats' narrative suggests they are self-interested and seek power above all else, captives of the "culture of narcissism" rather than a society of solutions.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060308-092041-9424r.htm

4. The Other Texas Primary – Wall Street Journal

March 9, 2006; Page A14

While party leaders and activists want to treat pro-growth Democrats like a crazy aunt in the attic, these political misfits somehow remain popular with many voters. Consider what took place in Texas on Tuesday.

Political junkies were focused on the Houston suburbs, where embattled former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay faced three Republican primary challengers yet won easily (to the media's disappointment). However, the more consequential contest played out in the 28th District of South Texas including Laredo, where freshman Representative Henry Cuellar beat back a strong Democratic primary challenge by Ciro Rodriguez, the former Congressman whom Mr. Cuellar defeated by just 58 votes (out of 49,000 cast) two years ago.

Mr. Cuellar was already known as a moderate Democrat; prior to winning his Congressional seat he'd been appointed secretary of state by Texas GOP Governor Rick Perry. But in his brief tenure on the Hill, Mr. Cuellar has also managed to distinguish himself as a Democrat who favors lower taxes and school choice. Even more significantly, Mr. Cuellar was one of only 15 Democrats to support the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Such positions earned Mr. Cuellar endorsements from the Club for Growth and National Rifle Association. But it also earned him the wrath of the Democratic leadership, the AFL-CIO and activists on the Internet who backed Mr. Rodriguez and threw everything they had at the incumbent (including a photo of the Congressman and President Bush embracing at this year's State of the Union address). Democrats like to advertise their "rainbow coalition," but its colors apparently don't include Mexican-American candidates who support free trade.

Mr. Cuellar won a decisive 53% of the vote, versus 41% for Mr. Rodriguez. And without a GOP general election opponent, Mr. Cuellar will keep his seat in November. This outcome no doubt disturbs the angry left, but it's good to know House Democratic ranks will include at least one pro-growth Member in the John F. Kennedy mold.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114187666693593427.html

5. Black Eyes For Buckeyes – Congress Daily AM

Several months ago, Ohio offered a prime opportunity for Democrats to score major gains in the midterm elections.
     

Republican Gov. Bob Taft, tainted by scandal, had -- and still has -- rock-bottom approval ratings.
     

Major employers like GM and Ford have laid off many employees in blue-collar parts of the state. And GOP Rep. Bob Ney was embroiled in the Jack Abramoff scandal, and still might be indicted.
     

Democrats, however, have not taken full advantage of the situation on the ground. In fact, not only is it questionable whether they will make big gains in the state, there is a chance the party might lose ground.
     

In two of the state's most competitive seats, the Democrats have made major missteps.
     

One of their top candidates to replace Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland, who is running for governor, failed to get the 50 -- that is not a misprint -- signatures to qualify for the Democratic primary.
     

And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was unable to recruit a politically savvy candidate to take on Ney, leaving two untested candidates with the challenge.
     

Democratic state Sen. Charlie Wilson's tale is perhaps the most infuriating for Democrats, who viewed his candidacy favorably early on.
     

In a small-market district on the state's southeastern border, he banked over $435,000 in cash on hand by the end of December.
     

The Democratic leadership also focused early on this open seat race: House Minority Whip Hoyer's PAC donated $5,000, while Minority Leader Pelosi's PAC pitched in $2,000 last fall.
     

Wilson's ideological profile also fits the culturally conservative district. He told House Race Hotline in December that he opposed abortion rights, supported an amendment to Ohio's Constitution banning gay marriage and strongly advocated for gun owners' rights. His brand of economic populism -- he opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central America Free Trade Agreement -- and vocal criticism of the administration's handling of the Iraq war made him a strong nominee, at least on paper.
     

So no one expected Wilson to fail to get on the ballot.
     

Wilson is now running a write-in primary campaign against two obscure candidates, and the DCCC has sent staffers to Ohio to bolster his campaign.
     

In recent history, there is little precedent for write-in victories, though former Rep. Linda Smith won a 1994 GOP primary in Washington that way.
     

But even if Wilson wins the nomination, this whole episode will drain financial resources that might have been saved for the general election. It will take an infusion of money to quickly boost the vote for the May 2 primary, which the DCCC was not expecting to spend.
     

This was one of the few Democratic competitive open seats this cycle, and if Wilson fails to make the ballot, it will nearly certainly allow the Republicans to pick up a seat.
    

Ney's neighboring 18th District also provided a prime opportunity for Democrats. Ney's entanglement in the Abramoff affair led many to view him as damaged goods. And whether he is indicted or not, Ney faces an uphill battle convincing voters of his innocence.
     

Yet the two leading Democrats vying to challenge him have limited political experience. Chillicothe Mayor Joe Sulzer looked to be the leading candidate, but posted mediocre fundraising numbers last cycle -- he loaned his own campaign $100,000.
     

Democrats are sizing up Zack Space, who is making the rounds in Washington this week, but his most recent fundraising numbers are also unimpressive. Of course, sometimes an incumbent is so weak, the challenger hardly matters. But that is a heck of a thing to count on.
     

Despite these setbacks, there are two promising Democratic candidates running in Cincinnati- and Columbus-based districts, and in a Democratic wave, might unseat the incumbents.
     

The DCCC views Cincinnati Councilman John Cranley favorably, especially after he raised more money than GOP Rep. Steve Chabot in the fourth quarter of last year.
     

DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois visited the district in January to help Cranley raise money. Cranley has faced Chabot before: In 2000, the then-26-year-old Cranley won 45 percent of the vote against him.
     

Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy, a Democrat, is another candidate who might thrive if Ohio's political landscape continues to be bleak for Republicans.
     

Kilroy is running against Republican Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce, who has won at least 60 percent of the vote since her first term in 1992; President Bush won the district in 2004 by a mere 2,236 votes.
     

Still, there are other Ohio GOP districts that narrowly voted for Bush in 2004 where the Democrats failed to field first-tier challengers. Republican Reps. Pat Tiberi and Steven LaTourette will head into November without top Democratic opponents.
     

Ohio is full of the Republican-leaning seats that Democrats need to pick up if they want to win control of the House.
     

If there's one state where a nationalized theme of ethical misconduct might work, it is the Buckeye State.
     

But the Democrats needed more top recruits and error-free candidacies to run the table. So far their record is not promising and their missteps might make this the Democrats' "Blackeye" state.

http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/congressdaily/

###