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 07, 2006

1.  Dangerous Stalemate in Iraq - Wall Street Journal
There are two crises in Iraq. One is the obvious crisis of sectarian violence, the other the less obvious one of government formation.

2. Recruiting Success for Guardsmen - Washington Times Op-ed
The Army National Guard is now signing new recruits in record numbers. On Friday, the Guard announced 6,583 new recruits in February, which brings the five-month total to 26,000 -- the Guard's best numbers in 13 years.

3. Feisty Dem Appears to Help W's Cause - New York Daily News
President Bush tried to steady his presidency yesterday by urging Americans to support the Iraq war for the long haul, but a bigger boost for a limping White House may have come from a rogue Democrat.

4. Prices U.S. Pays Hospitals, Doctors to be Publicized - Wall Street Journal
The Bush administration is expected today to announce plans to publicize the prices the government's health programs pay hospitals and physicians for common medical procedures. The effort is part of a Bush-administration push to inject more free-market principles into health care, in the hope that consumers will help rein in costs if they are armed with better information.

5. Primary Concerns: Dems Load, Point at Foot - Union Leader
In the latest effort to make themselves totally unelectable, national Democrats have taken another step toward having their Presidential candidate selected by voters who have never looked him in the eye, never shaken his hand, and never been exposed to more than a television soundbite of his thinking.

For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1. Dangerous Stalemate in Iraq - Wall Street Journal

By DONALD L. HOROWITZ
March 14, 2006; Page A18

There are two crises in Iraq. One is the obvious crisis of sectarian violence, the other the less obvious one of government formation. The two are related. The elections in December produced a more or less predictable result -- four major blocs of seats. Shiite parties in the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) received 128 seats out of 275, short of a majority to form a government. The principal Kurdish list came in second with 53; the main Sunni parties gained 44 and the intersectarian list of Ayad Allawi won only 25. Together the Shiite UIA and the Kurds would easily have a secure majority; and if they accommodated Sunni demands for constitutional changes, Sunni parties could join a government that spanned the major cleavages and undercut the insurgency.

Something peculiar happened on the way to such a happy outcome. The Shiites and Kurds, who had so completely dominated politics and constitution-making in post-invasion Iraq, fell out. By an intraparty majority of one vote, the Shiites chose as their candidate for prime minister the sitting occupant of that office, Ibrahim al-Jaafari -- the one man Kurdish president Jalal Talabani could not abide. For their part, the Kurds, who had profited handsomely from their close relationship with the Shiites, turned their back on that relationship and demanded a national unity government, including not only the Sunnis but Mr. Allawi's secular party, too. Moreover, they demanded that the interior and defense ministries, implicated in sectarian violence, be assigned to neutral figures and that a new "national security council" be created to check in some unspecified way the formal institutions created by the constitution. The Kurds and all their allies have 136 seats, short of a majority, just as the Shiites are. And so there is stalemate.

That stalemate feeds the insurgency, not only by freeing up politically affiliated militias to attack their sectarian enemies, but by creating an interregnum whose uncertainty is an ideal environment for intergroup violence. Reciprocally, the violence creates bitterness that makes it harder for political leaders to span the chasm that divides them. For the moment, even the deep disenchantment of Sunni leaders with the constitution has been shelved as the raw struggle over who will control Iraq takes center stage.

Why the Kurds defected from an alliance that had served them so well is a mystery. After all, the constitution they crafted with the Shiites suits their interest in going their own way with a Kurdish region in the north. What is very clear is that the alignment of nearly all Shiites on one side and nearly everyone else on the other is exceedingly unhealthy. The Shiites are a majority in a country long deprived of majoritarian institutions. Majorities want majority rule; a majority that sees itself as cheated of its rightful place in government is a dangerous organism.

Consider a single, obscure but important instance: the Punjab election of 1946 in British India. The Punjab was then divided among a Muslim majority, a Hindu minority and a Sikh minority. The Muslim League was overwhelmingly favored by Muslims but fell just short of a majority. A small Muslim splinter party joined Hindu and Sikh politicians, enabling them to form a government and cheating the vast majority of Muslims out of a government they saw as rightfully theirs. The result: horrendous violence that opened the door to the partition of India, with a death toll in the hundreds of thousands. There are examples of the phenomenon in other countries where majorities are shut out.

The same could easily happen in Iraq if an anti-UIA alignment secures enough seats to form a government. Some think a civil war is already under way, but an inclusive government stands at least some chance of averting the worst. It will not be easy to negotiate such a government. A coalition would be easier to form if the UIA abandoned its insistence on Mr. Jaafari as its prime ministerial choice and thought seriously about the negative effects of biased interior and defense ministries. Many informed Iraqis think Mr. Jaafari has been ineffective.

The UIA could also rethink its insistence on a less-than-fully inclusive government. It is true that ministerial positions and other perquisites of governing normally go to the best electoral performers. But these are not normal times in which a winner-take-all mentality should prevail: It is imperative that everyone who can dampen the violence find a place in government. That will also mean Shiite compromises on the constitution so disliked by Sunni, even if those negotiations take place over a more extended period than the four months contemplated for amendments to the current constitutional deal.

On the Kurdish-Sunni-secular side, it needs to be recognized that denying the Shiites plurality of a first-among-equals position in government is a very bad idea. It is not only of dubious democratic legitimacy: More importantly, an anti-UIA coalition risks explosive violence that will put Iraq on the road to disaster -- to years of strife, or secession and territorial partition, or even to internationalized Sunni-Shiite warfare that can embroil the whole region. Responsible people on both sides of this new divide have to step back from their maximum demands, lest pursuing them place every party and group in dire jeopardy. Likewise, if the U.S. entertains any notion that supporting an anti-UIA coalition provides a convenient way to exclude Iranian influence from Iraq, attractive though that notion may be, the costs of indulging such an idea will be far too high to contemplate.

Finally, thought should be given to the proportional representation (PR) electoral system that, in combination with the Kurdish defection, produced the impasse. List-system PR is the preferred electoral system of many international advisers helping in the creation of transitional institutions. In Iraq's first elections, it might have been hard, though not impossible, to choose another system; and other systems might also have produced inconclusive results in the recent elections. But some systems would have offered a chance of a more definitive electoral outcome, and might have been preferred. A protracted interregnum in which armed gangs go about their gory business while statesmanship is in hiding should not be anyone's idea of a reasonable transition to democracy.

Mr. Horowitz, professor of law and political science at Duke, is author of "The Deadly Ethnic Riot" (University of California, 2001).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114230051555097275.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep

2. Recruiting Success for Guardsmen - Washington Times Op-ed

Published March 14, 2006

After three years of troubling recruiting shortfalls, the Army National Guard is now signing new recruits in record numbers. On Friday, the Guard announced 6,583 new recruits in February, which brings the five-month total to 26,000 -- the Guard's best numbers in 13 years.

Fewer Iraq deployments are clearly one reason for the good news, as are a near-doubling of the recruiting force and a doubling of signing bonuses for people new to the military. But the Guard engineered much of this turnaround with an innovative program whose core features should be studied and widely emulated across the government, especially by people who want to "transform" the workforce.

The idea behind the Guard's "Recruiting Assistance Program" is borrowed from corporate America: Current employees make the best ambassadors -- especially when they're rewarded financially. The program has deputized 31,000 current Guardsmen as "recruiting assistants" -- that's nearly 10 percent of the entire force -- and it rewards them with $2,000 for each referred enlistee who reaches basic training or completes four months of service. Bonus referral programs have been around since the 1960s in the private sector, but they are rare in government. Here's an example why they shouldn't be.

It is far too early for any definitive study of the program, but anecdotally most of the recruits appear to be coworkers and family members of current Guardsmen. News accounts quote Guardsmen pointing to the financial incentives as they discuss the options with neighbors, friends and others they otherwise might not approach.

The program is currently operating in only 22 states, so further gains are likely as it expands. "The goal here is to get as many Americans as possible helping to recruit the Army," Lt. Col. Mike Jones, a top Guard recruiter, told the Army Times in January.

Other ideas borrowed from corporate America have met considerable resistance in the Pentagon. Notable is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's promising merit-based "pay banding" system, the virtues of which we've extolled on this page previously. It would radically alter the way Pentagon civilians are hired, paid and promoted in ways that emphasize accomplishment and de-emphasize seniority. It's clear enough that sclerotic unions fear those changes. They will do everything in their power to stymie them.

Referral bonuses should be a different story. Everyone should support this common-sense idea. In the National Guard's case, the program is at least partially responsible for a major turnaround in recruiting in what until recently was a highly problematic situation. The rest of the military should watch carefully as the story unfolds.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060313-094412-6899r.htm

3. Feisty Dem Appears to Help W's Cause - New York Daily News

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF and KENNETH R. BAZINET

WASHINGTON - President Bush tried to steady his presidency yesterday by urging Americans to support the Iraq war for the long haul, but a bigger boost for a limping White House may have come from a rogue Democrat.

As promised, Bush launched another political offensive aimed at resurrecting his slumping agenda and rebuilding support for an increasingly unpopular war.

The four-week strategy, which he previously tried with some temporary success in December, began with a speech aimed at linking the war on terrorism to Iraq - this time without Bush uttering unfounded optimism.

"I wish I could tell you that the violence is waning and that the road ahead will be smooth," Bush admitted. "It will not. There will be more tough fighting and more days of struggle, and we will see more images of chaos and carnage in the days and months to come."

Bush's job approval rating dropped for a fourth straight week in the CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll, sinking to 36% support.

With those numbers, Bush's tactic might have been seen as an act of desperation, but Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) pulled the political stunt of the day by asking the Senate to censure Bush over the National Security Agency's domestic spying.

After Feingold made his pitch on the Senate floor, Senate GOP leader Bill Frist of Tennessee called his bluff and urged a vote.

Fearing a backlash, Democrats instantly blocked the vote, worried they would give back political gains made from Bush's recent blunder on the Dubai ports deal. They later tried to say they didn't abandon Feingold.

"What you are seeing is Democrats of every stripe coming forward to point out the dangerous incompetence of the Bush administration's policies," said Rebecca Kirszner, spokeswoman for the Senate Democratic war room.

Republicans were tickled by Feingold's maneuver. "If he wants to change the subject to this, we'd be happy to talk about it," said a senior Bush official.

Another top Bush aide who had predicted Democrats would do something to take the heat off Bush was gleeful over Feingold's move. "The saving grace for us is just how inept they are," he said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/399472p-338462c.html

4. Prices U.S. Pays Hospitals, Doctors to be Publicized - Wall Street Journal

In the latest effort to make themselves totally unelectable, national Democrats have taken another step toward having their Presidential candidate selected by voters who have never looked him in the eye, never shaken his hand, and never been exposed to more than a television soundbite of his thinking.

Maybe the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which voted on Saturday to go forward with a plan to surround the New Hampshire primary with several additional primaries and caucuses, eviscerating New Hampshire's influence, is filled with Republican plants.

Or, alas, maybe the Democrats really are that out of touch.

If the Democrats go through with this cockamamie plan, consider how the different parties' candidates will be vetted in 2008.

The GOP candidates will first be tested in the trenches of Iowa and New Hampshire, where they will have to meet and answer questions directly from voters. They will have to spend months honing their messages in country stores, mom and pop restaurants, and town halls - not just in front of, but surrounded by randomly assembled (not hand-picked) groups of flesh-and-blood American voters.

The Democrats, by contrast, will fly in chartered planes from state to state to state and have themselves shuttled so rapidly between so many television stations, radio stations and newspaper offices that they will hardly have time to stop for a bite to eat, much less mingle with the rabble. They will have to cover six or seven states in as many days. The voters can forget about meaningfully interacting with the candidates; they will be lucky to catch a glimpse of them.

The last thing the Democratic Party needs is to further insulate itself from the American public, which is exactly what this new plan does. It's as if the Democratic Party is trying to commit political suicide. But then, that's what it seems best at doing.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Primary+concerns:+Dems+load,+point+at+foot&articleId=083f2bae-f9df-4274-922e-ba9466becd1b