Printer Friendly
July
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 – Monday, July 10, 2006
1. Portman expects decrease in deficit - Washington Times
The economy and federal revenues are growing at such a rapid rate that the
deficit will shrink in the short term, President Bush's chief budget
official says, while adding that keeping the deficit in control will depend
on reducing spending and reform of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
2. A Conservative Statement for Immigration Reform - Wall Street Journal
An impressive list of conservative minds urge the House and Senate to work
out their differences and meet the demand of the American people that we act
on this critical issue in a comprehensive way.
3. Democrats' Fundraising Letter Is Bankrupt on Ideas - Los Angeles Times Op-ed
In their fundraising efforts, Democrats send potential contributors a reminder
that they stand for ... wait, let's see, where was that platform draft?
4. In YouTube Clips, a Political Edge - Washington Post
Company executives say politics is on the rise on YouTube.com, a
shoot-it-yourself Web site that has exploded in popularity over the past
year. If anyone can put up a video for or against a candidate, and persuade
other people to watch that video, the center of gravity could shift from the
mainstream media to masses of people with camcorders and passable computer
skills.
5. DeLay Redux? - TIME
A source close to the
ex-Congressman tells TIME that DeLay is planning an aggressive campaign to
retake the House seat he quit in June if an appeals court lets stand a
ruling by a federal judge last week that his name must stay on November's
ballot--even though he has moved to Virginia
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. Portman expects decrease in deficit -
Washington Times
By Stephen Dinan
Published July 10, 2006
The economy and federal revenues are growing at such a rapid rate that the
deficit will shrink in the short term, President Bush's chief budget
official says, while adding that keeping the deficit in control will depend
in the long run on reform of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Rob Portman, a former congressman and U.S. trade representative whom Mr.
Bush tapped two months ago to be director of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), said the president's economic policies have led to exceptional
economic growth, which has in turn led to bulging federal receipts.
Mr. Portman will deliver the annual mid-session budget review this week,
detailing progress on spending and revenues, and he told The Washington
Times in a recent interview that tax revenues are expected to show at least
double-digit growth in the year to date compared with fiscal year 2005.
The Congressional Budget Office on Friday said federal revenue is running
12.8 percent ahead of the figures at the same time last year. The
double-digit increase is the second-highest growth rate in the last 25
years, following only 2005's increase of 15 percent.
With federal spending up 8.6 percent to date compared with 2005, the deficit
should be at least $50 billion less than last year, though Mr. Portman said
that depends on keeping the spending side under control.
Mr. Bush has set a goal of halving the deficit by 2009 compared with 2004,
which finished with a $412 billion deficit. He and congressional Republicans
have made the nation's recent economic growth one of the twin pillars, along
with the war on terror, of their election-year campaign.
Mr. Portman said the revenue is so strong that if it were to continue, it
could play a major role in helping ease the budget deficit.
"You can grow out of it short-term; it's theoretically possible," Mr.
Portman said, though he cautioned that he's not predicting that will happen,
particularly with long-term challenges of Social Security and Medicare still
looming.
As the administration's new OMB director, Mr. Portman, who served 13 years
as a congressman from Ohio, said Republicans deserve more credit than they
are getting among voters for restraining spending.
"It's amazing. For the first time since 1997, last year Congress actually
reduced the growth of entitlement spending," he said.
Mr. Portman also said the deficit as a percentage of total economic output,
or the gross domestic product, is falling, both because of spending
restraint and economic growth, and said Republicans are not getting enough
credit for controlling spending.
"If you take out defense, if you take out homeland security, which increased
just above inflation, last year you actually had a slight cut and a little
bit of progress on entitlements," he said. "We're actually making some
progress on spending."
He blamed high-profile spending projects such as the "bridge to nowhere" for
making the public so pessimistic about spending, and said that's one reason
the president is pushing so hard for a legislative line-item veto.
"It encourages people to focus early on in the process on whether this
particular project or tax relief or spending is appropriate," Mr. Portman
said.
The House passed a version of the line-item veto last month, and the Senate
may debate it later this month.
Unlike the 1996 version, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional,
this version would not be an actual veto. Instead, after signing a spending
or tax bill, the president would send another bill back to Congress that
calls for specific items to be cut, and Congress would have a set period of
time to vote on the bill.
As a former congressman, Mr. Portman knows the key legislators and said he
has had some success convincing them the administration would use the
line-item veto carefully, and not as a club to bash Congress.
He also said some of the chairmen on the spending subcommittees realize the
line-item veto would help steel them against some spending requests.
"Instead of the chairman saying, 'I don't like your idea,' he can say,
'Look, if you put it in my bill it's going to get held up to public scrutiny
and The Washington Times is going to be writing about it. Do you want it on
the front page of The Washington Times?'" Mr. Portman said. "It's a tool
that some of them, I think, understand they can use to better legislate."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060710-123902-1077r.htm
2. A Conservative Statement for
Immigration Reform - Wall Street Journal
July 10, 2006; Page A11
At this critical moment in the immigration debate, conservatives need to
examine the role we are playing in this great national issue. In many
respects, the way we position ourselves on immigration will determine
whether we retain the mantle of majority leadership. What side of history do
conservatives want to be on? Will we remain a movement that governs -- that
offers practical solutions to the problems facing the country?
Conservatives have always prided themselves on acknowledging, in the words
of John Adams, that "Facts are stubborn things." Well, immigration -- both
the robust annual flow required to keep our economy growing and the 12
million illegal immigrants already in the country -- is a fact of life in
the U.S. today. And the only practical way to deal with these stubborn
realities is with a comprehensive solution, one that includes border
security, interior enforcement, a guest worker program and status for the
illegal immigrants already here.
Some counsel that Congress should start with tougher enforcement and border
security, but wait to create a guest worker program or address the illegal
population. Only that way, it is said, can we avoid the mistakes of the
failed 1986 immigration reform.
But in fact, the lesson of 1986 is that only a comprehensive solution will
fix our broken immigration system.
The 1986 legislation combined amnesty for three million illegal immigrants
with a promise of tougher enforcement, particularly in the workplace. But
the law did not recognize the need for future immigration to meet the
demands of a growing economy, and the new enforcement never materialized.
The result? Twenty years later, illegal immigration is unabated. Why?
Because while immigrants continue to be drawn to the jobs created by our
economy, they have no legal way to enter the country.
What this history teaches is that the only way to control immigration is
with a combination package -- securing the border, enforcing the law in the
workplace and creating legal channels for workers to enter the country.
Our past experience with guest worker programs bears this out. Illegal
immigration reached a peak in the mid-'50s, and more than a million people
were apprehended trying to cross the border in 1954. Then Congress expanded
the Bracero work-visa program, creating a way for 300,000 immigrants to
enter the U.S. legally each year.
The result? This new legal flow replaced the old illegal influx, and by
1964, INS apprehensions had dropped to fewer than 100,000. As the
Congressional Research Service noted in 1980, "Without question, the Bracero
program was . . . instrumental in ending the illegal alien problem of the
mid-1940s and 1950s." The Bracero program and the 1986 failure point in the
same direction: A comprehensive solution is the only real and lasting way to
address immigration.
The American people intuitively understand this, which is why, in poll after
poll, they choose a comprehensive approach over one that relies on
enforcement alone. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that
Americans prefer a comprehensive plan to an enforcement-only proposal by 50%
to 33%.
Of course, there are things in the Senate bill that need fixing -- and
conservatives must stand strong in favor of assimilation. New immigrants
need to learn English, U.S. history and the values that have made this
country great.
But let us remember the counsel of the great conservative standard-bearer,
Ronald Reagan, who was in favor of strong borders -- he once remarked that
"a nation without borders is not really a nation" -- but also constantly
reminded us that America must remain a "beacon" and a "shining city on a
hill" for immigrants who continually renew our great country with their
energy and add to the nation's economic growth and prosperity. Reagan was
right. We need to do both things -- secure the borders and allow for
sensible levels of safe, open, lawful immigration.
Americans and immigrants share the same values of work and opportunity.
There is no reason to fear the newcomers arriving on our shores today -- if
anything, they will energize what is best about our country.
The best way -- the only way -- to realize President Reagan's vision is
through comprehensive immigration reform legislation. We urge the House and
Senate to work out their differences and meet the demand of the American
people that we act on this critical issue in a comprehensive way.
Signed by: Jack Kemp (former congressman from New York); George P. Shultz
(distinguished fellow, Hoover Institution); Jeanne Kirkpatrick (former
ambassador to the U.N.); Tamar Jacoby (senior fellow, Manhattan Institute);
Cesar V. Conda (senior fellow, FreedomWorks); Ken Weinstein (CEO, Hudson
Institute); Grover Norquist (president, Americans for Tax Reform); Jeff Bell
(board of directors, American Conservative Union); Larry Cirignano
(president, Catholic Alliance); Bill Kristol (editor, The Weekly Standard);
Arthur B. Laffer (chairman, Laffer Investments); Linda Chavez (chairman,
Center for Equal Opportunity); Elaine Dezenski (former acting assistant
secretary for policy development, Department of Homeland Security); Lawrence
Kudlow (economics editor, National Review Online); John Podhoretz
(columnist, the New York Post); John McWhorter (senior fellow, Manhattan
Institute); Joseph Bottum (editor, First Things); Max Boot (senior fellow,
Council on Foreign Relations); Vin Weber (former congressman from
Minnesota); Richard Gilder (partner, Gilder Gagnon Howe & Co., LLC); Ed
Goeas (Republican strategist); Martin Anderson (senior fellow, Hoover
Institution); J.C. Watts (former congressman from Oklahoma); Ed Gillespie
(former chairman, Republican National Committee); C. Stewart Verdery, Jr.
(former assistant secretary for border and transportation security policy,
Department of Homeland Security); Diana Furchtgott-Roth (senior fellow,
Hudson Institute); Robert de Posada (president, the Latino Coalition); Clint
Bolick (president, Alliance for School Choice, and winner of 2006 Bradley
Prize); Steven Wagner (former director, human trafficking program,
Department of Health and Human Services); Steve Forbes (CEO, Forbes Inc.);
Gary Rosen (managing editor, Commentary); Michael Petrucelli (former acting
director, U.S. citizenship and immigration services, Department of Homeland
Security); and John C. Weicher (senior fellow, Hudson Institute).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115248762825501868.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
3. Democrats' Fundraising Letter Is
Bankrupt on Ideas - Los Angeles Times Op-ed
Steve Lopez
Points West
July 9, 2006
It's not often that I reach into my mailbox at home and find a letter from
Ted Kennedy, so I was eager to see what was on the mind of the
saber-rattling senator from the great state of Massachusetts.
The letter began "Dear Friend," which is a little impersonal, if you ask me.
When my friends at the Republican National Committee wrote to ask me to sign
President Bush's birthday card - and send along a few bucks - they began
their letter, "Dear Steve."
Kennedy, you'll be shocked to know, was also hitting me up for money, in
this case for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.
"Yes, Senator Kennedy," said the contribution form I was supposed to check
off and return, "I share your concern over the arrogance and incompetence of
the Bush Administration."
In anticipation of my generosity, Kennedy enclosed a complimentary bumper
sticker:
HAD ENOUGH? Vote Democrat in '06
As a matter of fact, I do share Kennedy's concern about the Bush
administration, and so I was eager to read the four-page letter and other
enclosed materials to find out more about the alternative vision being
offered up by the Democratic Party.
Page 1, however, contained no such clues. It just fired more bazooka shots
at the president and his "extreme right-wing allies," so I figured the fresh
ideas from the Dems had to be on Page 2.
Wrong again. Page 2 was nothing but groveling for money for contested races
in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Minnesota. ("It's
urgent for each of us to do as much as possible as soon as possible!")
Page 3 suggested the Republicans will burn in hell for sins against humanity
("They've poisoned our air and water"), and Page 4 warned, "They'll never
stop unless we stop them. They're shameless!"
That's quite a cavalry call, but it seems to me the Democrats are once again
rushing to the front lines with empty muskets.
I'm not asking for the Democratic equivalent of a 10-point Contract With
America, having lowered my expectations while on the campaign trail with Al
Gore and bearing witness to his nationally televised identity crisis.
I'd settle for a five-point "Contract With Western Blue States." Heck, I'd
be happy with a warmed-over crumb of an idea or two.
Instead all we get from the Democrats is the reminder that they stand for
... wait, let's see, where was that platform draft?
Oh, yeah. They're anti-Iraq war, or at least they are now that it's turned
out so miserably.
And they're passionately ... hold on a second. What else was there?
Anti-Republican. That's it.
Write a check today because "They're shameless!"
Craig Smith, a former speechwriter for Gerald Ford and the first President
Bush, said the Kennedy letter is a direct response to polls that show
declining support for the war in Iraq and for the president.
But he finds it astounding that the Democratic Party still can't move beyond
its attack strategy and figure out how to define and sell itself with a
specific, alternative agenda.
Smith, who teaches campaign persuasion at Cal State Long Beach, has a simple
piece of advice for his political rivals:
Go back to your roots.
"They have not been the loyal opposition," said Smith, who believes
Democrats sold their souls under the influence of the Democratic Leadership
Council, which pushed the party toward the center after Walter Mondale was
blown out by Ronald Reagan.
There's an intellectual distinction to be made in the essence of what it
means to be a Republican or a Democrat, Smith said, and Democrats ought to
embrace the difference.
"For me, it always goes back to this: If you put a gun to a Republican's
head and say, 'Choose between individuality or equality,' they'll pick
individual freedom. A good liberal will pick equality over individual
freedom."
Democrats, he said, need to get back to the social agenda. They ought to put
healthcare reform back at the top of their to-do list, and not cut and run
the way Bill Clinton did.
They ought to be screaming about wages that keep millions in abject poverty,
and they ought to put up or shut up on education, doing something more than
attacking Bush's "no child left behind" program.
It's a sad day in America when a Republican can deliver a more coherent
agenda in a single paragraph than Ted Kennedy can in a four-page screed.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that instead of writing a check to
Mr. Kennedy, I tossed his letter - along with the bumper sticker - into the
can.
My decision was endorsed by Ken Khachigian, the GOP consultant who worked
with Reagan. He recalled Kennedy's speech at the 1980 Democratic National
Convention, referring to it as the speech "left-wingers" love to quote:
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
shall never die."
"So," Khachigian said, "regarding this letter, these are my questions for
Ted: What work goes on; which cause endures; where does hope live; and, by
the way, what IS the dream?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-lopez9jul09,1,1826194,full.column?coll=la-news-columns
4. In YouTube Clips, a Political Edge -
Washington Post
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 10, 2006; C01
It starts off like a typical negative ad, with swelling music and pictures
of John McCain: "Flip-Flopper? Yes. Waffler? Yes."
But then the Internet spot takes a strange turn: "Eh, whatever. He should
still be president," the graphics say. "John McCain 2008. He's Not Hillary."
This is one of the 60,000 videos added each day to YouTube.com, a
shoot-it-yourself Web site that has exploded in popularity over the past
year. And while many of the most widely viewed videos are merely intended to
entertain or titillate -- rants, parodies, pet tricks, soccer brawls,
singing, dancing and booty shaking -- company executives say politics is on
the rise.
The site's sixth most popular group -- as measured by the number of people
who click to subscribe -- is titled "Bush Sucks," with 2,018 members and 741
videos. Also near the top is "Nedheads," with 841 members signing on to a
group created by activists backing Ned Lamont in his Democratic primary race
against Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut.
While bloggers played a role in the last presidential election, most
advertising and message delivery still comes from campaigns, political
parties and interest groups with enough money to bankroll a television
blitz. But the YouTube revolution -- which includes dozens of sites such as
Google Video, Revver.com and Metacafe.com -- could turn that on its head.
If any teenager can put up a video for or against a candidate, and persuade
other people to watch that video, the center of gravity could shift to
masses of people with camcorders and passable computer skills. And if people
increasingly distrust the mainstream media, they might be more receptive to
messages created by ordinary folks.
"YouTube is a campaign game-changer, shifting the dynamics of how to reach
voters and build intimate relationships," says Julie Supan, senior marketing
director for the small, California-based firm, which by one measure now runs
the 39th most popular Web site. "YouTube levels the playing field, allowing
well-backed and less-known candidates to reach the same audience and share
the same stage."
Even the seemingly simple act of posting footage of a politician's interview
on "Meet the Press" or "The Daily Show" has a viral quality, because it can
be seen by far more people than watched during a single broadcast.
The 18-month-old site, which makes its revenue from banner ads, is free for
viewers and contributors. The company says 80 million videos are viewed
every day. Each video, group or page is placed in easily searchable
categories, and those who subscribe to the groups are automatically notified
of new content.
The networks are just starting to awaken to the power of these citizen video
sites. After feuding with YouTube for illegally showing a clip from
"Saturday Night Live" earlier this year, NBC realized the power of such
online promotion and recently struck a deal with the site to publicize its
fall lineup. Hollywood studios are interested as well.
Contributors to YouTube seem to lean to the left. There are videos of verbal
stumbles labeled "Stupid Bush" and "Bush Screwups," along with "President
Bush Drunk," a bit on CBS's "Late Late Show" that slowed down a tape of the
president so it appeared as if he were slurring his words. Another shows
Bush, in his Texas days, extending his middle finger. (One positive video
features a group called the Right Brothers singing "Bush Was Right.")
Any registered user can form a group, and the site includes one called
"Support George Bush," which says, "Don't be afraid of your beliefs -- most
campuses nationwide have a liberal bias anyway . . . as does the media." But
it doesn't crack the top 100 in terms of membership, unlike "Bush Sucks,"
which is designed "for everyone who hates Bush and all his Republican
cronies."
A video about Virginia's junior senator is titled "George Allen (R-Exxon)."
It turns out to be an old commercial slamming Allen's votes on energy by
Democrat Harris Miller, who lost a primary bid to oppose Allen.
Not everything is serious business. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is razzed
with a song parody called "Gay Wedding Bell Blues," to the tune of an old
Fifth Dimension song: "I've heard your rants, I wish you'd quit / Just
listen to you and hear your passion against gays / (Oh, but you're never
gonna take my wedding day)."
And Rudy Giuliani would probably not choose to appear in drag, being nuzzled
by Donald Trump, as he does in the video of a six-year-old press roast.
Democrats don't get a free ride on YouTube. While one supporter put up
footage from "Imus in the Morning" on MSNBC with the title, "John Kerry goes
on the offensive against the right wing smear machine," other videos were
titled "Kerry's Lost Again" and "Senator 2 Face Kerry." And several people
posted anti-Kerry commercials from the 2004 campaign by the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth.
Former senator John Edwards has his own page, or "channel," but elsewhere on
the site, someone has posted footage of Edwards in the makeup chair, titled
"Pretty Boy John Edwards / Watch as the ambulance chaser pretties up for the
camera."
Hillary Rodham Clinton gets skewered in such videos as "The Scariest
Monster," "Hillary Clinton's Campaign Frauds," "Hillary's Plantation,"
"Hillary Goes Nuts" and "Ken Mehlman on Hillary's Anger!," reprising an ABC
interview with the Republican Party chairman. A video by a draft-Clinton
group -- which flips through images of previous presidents and ends with the
former first lady -- has been seen just 351 times, compared with 5,404 views
for a draft-McCain video.
Politicians are increasingly joining the party. Former Virginia governor
Mark Warner, a Democrat who is weighing a White House bid, has posted a
two-minute video, which has been viewed 426 times. House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi has a channel featuring C-SPAN clips of various Democrats.
(Readers can offer comments; one called her "the biggest windbag in the
House.") Krissy Keefer, a Green Party candidate challenging Pelosi, also has
a channel, which includes a taped endorsement by a San Francisco street poet
named Diamond Dave.
YouTube does not verify the identities of the posters. Supan says political
campaigns often put up their ads and speeches under unknown screen names but
have begun doing so more openly. (Of course, little-known operatives can
also post videos mocking opposing candidates.) Television networks have the
right to demand that their clips be deleted when posted by people who have
no rights to the material, but Supan says such complaints are declining as
the major broadcast and cable networks -- all of which have held talks with
YouTube -- have recognized the importance of not alienating their viewers.
While the site's amateur contributions range from nasty to uplifting to
downright silly, they also restore a measure of fun to politics -- precisely
what might appeal to younger people turned off by traditional speeches, ads
and rhetoric. Supan says the modest viewing levels for politicians' pages
reflect the pedestrian content of standard speeches and ads -- and will
likely remain that way until they come up with behind-the-scenes footage or
other eye-catching fare.
"At the end of the day," she says, "it's all about entertaining."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900895.html
5. DeLay Redux? - TIME
By MIKE ALLEN, HILARY HYLTON
Could Tom DeLay be headed back to the House? A source close to the
ex-Congressman tells TIME that DeLay is planning an aggressive campaign to
retake the House seat he quit in June if an appeals court lets stand a
ruling by a federal judge last week that his name must stay on November's
ballot--even though he has moved to Virginia.
"If it isn't overturned, Katy bar the door!" says a G.O.P. official. "Guess
he'll have to fire up the engines on the campaign and let 'er rip." DeLay,
awaiting trial for money laundering, never intended to fade away. He plans
to give paid speeches and has signed a deal to have his bio penned by
best-selling author Stephen Mansfield.
But to run, DeLay would have to raise money fast: his campaign fund has well
under $1 million left. At least he knows his would-be opponent well:
ex-Congressman Nick Lampson's original district was eliminated in a
redistricting engineered by DeLay.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211574,00.html
### |
