July26, 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 –  Wednesday, July 26, 2006

1. Bush: New Plan to Help End Iraq Violence - Associated Press
President Bush said Tuesday a new plan to increase U.S. and Iraqi forces in the besieged capital of Baghdad will help quell rising violence that is threatening Iraq's transformation to a self-sustaining democracy.

2. Comprehensive immigration - Washington Times Op-ed
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Rep. Mike Pence are putting forth a proposal on immigration they hope can be used as the basis for new discussions. They describe their plan as tough on border security, but recognizing the need for a temporary-worker program that operates without amnesty and without growing into a huge new government bureaucracy.

3. The Enemy of My Enemy Is Still My Enemy - New York Times Op-ed
The rise of Hezbollah makes it all the more likely that Al Qaeda will soon seek to reassert itself through increased attacks on Shiites in Iraq and on Westerners all over the world - whatever it needs to do in order to regain the title of true defender of Islam.

4. A midterm analysis - Washington Times Op-ed
The odds that Democrats will achieve majority status in at least one chamber of Congress have improved, according to the nonpartisan analysis provided by the Cook Political Report. If congressional Democrats acquire subpoena power in either the House or the Senate, the last two years of the Bush administration will be a nightmare for the White House.

5. A Winning Strategy for the Democrats: Barter for Free Trade
To understand why Democrats can't win elections, all you had to do was attend yesterday's symposium at the Brookings Institution put on by the Hamilton Project, an effort by the (Bill) Clinton economic braintrust to generate new ideas and a Democratic election agenda.

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

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1. Bush: New Plan to Help End Iraq Violence - Associated Press

By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Tuesday a new plan to increase U.S. and Iraqi forces in the besieged capital of Baghdad will help quell rising violence that is threatening Iraq's transformation to a self-sustaining democracy.

"Obviously the violence in Baghdad is still terrible and therefore there needs to be more troops," Bush said in a White House news conference with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Al-Maliki, on his first trip to the United States since becoming prime minister two months ago, said he and Bush agreed that training and better arming Iraqi forces as quickly as possible, particularly in the capital city, was central to efforts to stabilize the country.

"And, God willing, there will be no civil war in Iraq," al-Maliki said, speaking through a translator.

The two leaders disagreed openly on how to end hostilities between the Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon and Israel, with al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim leader, reiterating his support for an immediate cease-fire and Bush sticking by the administration opposition to one.

A group of House Democrats called on GOP leaders to cancel al-Maliki's address to Congress on Wednesday. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he doubted he would attend and that there were a "large number of people (in Congress) who were uncomfortable" with al-Maliki's condemnation of Israel's attacks in Lebanon and apparent support for Hezbollah

Bush said that al-Maliki had asked for more military equipment from the United States and had recommended increasing U.S. and Iraqi forces patrolling Baghdad neighborhoods. "And we're going to do that," Bush said.

The president said U.S. forces would be moved in from other parts of Iraq. He did not say how many, but Pentagon officials have suggested several thousands troops would be moved to Baghdad, including some now based in Kuwait.

There are roughly 127,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The administration is under increasing pressure from Democrats and some Republicans to bring a substantial number home by the end of this year.

Asked if the tense situation in Baghdad would alter the equation for an eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, Bush said troop level decisions will still be based on recommendations from military commanders in the field.

"Conditions change inside a country," Bush said. "Will we be able to deal with the circumstances on the ground? And the answer is, yes, we will."

The president and the prime minister met privately before the news conference to discuss strategy, then continued talks over lunch with a larger group that included Cabinet members and aides.

At the East Room news conference, Bush said al-Maliki was very clear in stating that "he does not want American troops to leave his country until his government can protect the Iraqi people. And I assured him that America will not abandon the Iraqi people."

It was not clear how many U.S. troops will be in Baghdad as a result of the new plan. About two weeks ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that the number of Iraqi and U.S. troops in Baghdad had recently grown from 40,000 to 55,000.

Bush and al-Maliki met alone with only a translator in the room for about 70 minutes before others joined the talks, Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters.

Under the plan to beef up security in Baghdad, forces would comb different neighborhoods to establish a police presence, "giving some reassurance to the population there that, in a way, the sheriff has arrived," Hadley said.

Bush complimented the beleaguered leader for his courage and perseverance in the face of sectarian violence. Recent attacks have sapped political support for the more than three-year-old war in Iraq, in both the United States and Iraq.

On Lebanon, the administration insists that Hezbollah must first return two captured Israeli soldiers and stop firing missiles into Israel before any cease-fire.

"I told him (al-Maliki) I support a sustainable cease-fire that will bring about an end to violence," Bush said.

Al-Maliki sidestepped a question at the White House news conference about his position on Hezbollah.

"Here, actually, we're talking about the suffering of a people in a country. And we are not in the process of reviewing one issue or another, or any government position," al-Maliki said.

Democrats criticized al-Maliki's comments. "Prime Minister Maliki missed an important opportunity to state his position on Hezbollah, and instead left the impression that he does not oppose this terrorist organization's outrageous attacks on Israel," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Kerry called on Maliki to strongly condemn the use of terror anywhere - including by Hezbollah against Israel - in his speech to Congress on Thursday.

Responding to the Democratic criticism, Hadley said "there's an opportunity here I hope we don't miss," and he urged lawmakers to take advantage of the fact that a democratically elected Iraqi leader was about to address Congress. "It's been an issue for Republicans and Democrats, how to get Iraq right," the White House adviser said.

After al-Maliki's speech to Congress on Wednesday, Bush was taking him to nearby Fort Belvoir, Va., for a meeting with U.S. troops and their families. Both leaders will "thank them for their courage and their sacrifice," Bush said.

The president said improved military conditions outside Baghdad will make it possible to move U.S. military police and other forces to the capital, where an estimated 100 people a day are being killed. The crimes, blamed largely on sectarian death squads, usually go unsolved.

Al-Maliki said the most important element of a new security program "is to curb the religious violence."

Iraq's government must have a policy that "there is no killing and discrimination against anyone," al-Maliki said.

U.S. officials believe control of Baghdad - the political, cultural and economic hub of the country - will determine the future of Iraq.

U.S. and Iraqi soldiers captured six members of an alleged death squad in Baghdad on Tuesday, while attacks elsewhere in Iraq left more than two dozen dead.

Al-Maliki met Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon for about an hour. "He is very focused clearly on the Baghdad situation and he recognizes that it is not a military problem as such, it is a combination of political and military and economic," Rumsfeld said.

According to Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff, no final decision has been made on exactly how many U.S. forces will be shifted to Baghdad, but that there will be a range of forces that include both U.S. and Iraqi troops.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_IRAQ?SITE=WILAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 

2. Comprehensive immigration - Washington Times Op-ed

By Kay Bailey Hutchison and Mike Pence
Published July 26, 2006

In the years we have served in our respective houses of Congress, there has never been an issue on which our colleagues have been so engaged and yet so far apart as illegal immigration and border security. The bills on this issue which passed in each house are miles apart.

We believe it is imperative that Congress find a responsible solution and enact comprehensive reform. To achieve this, many small groups are meeting in an effort to jump-start the negotiations between the House and the Senate. The president is engaged, as are House and Senate members. Rightfully so. Congress cannot walk away from a problem that so affects our country's future.

We are putting forth a proposal that we hope can be used as the basis for new discussions. Our plan is tough on border security, but it recognizes the need for a temporary-worker program that operates without amnesty and without growing into a huge new government bureaucracy.

Our plan begins with border reinforcement. The millions who come to our country seeking jobs to support their families are not a security threat to our nation, but the weaknesses in the nearly 7,000 miles of international border and 95,000 miles of shoreline have given terrorists, drug dealers and human traffickers an opening that is being exploited; this is a risk we cannot allow to continue. Part two of our plan is a temporary-worker program that is essential in order to fill jobs in our economy that are in high demand. This program would commence only after the borders are fixed. Here's how our plan works:

First: Secure our borders

Before any new temporary-worker program can begin, our plan requires the president to certify that all mandated border-security measures are completed. The Hutchison-Pence proposal embraces the tough border-security measures of the House and Senate bills. It would add border patrol agents, drug enforcement agents and port-of-entry inspectors; end catch and release; add security fences and other physical barriers at critical points; and employ American technology, such as unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles.

Second: The Good Neighbor SAFE Visa and Ellis Island Centers

When the border has been declared secure, the Good Neighbor SAFE (Secure Authorized Foreign Employee) Visa will begin. This program offers noncitizens opportunities to fill jobs that employers attest to not being able to fill with Americans at market wage.

Under our plan, the estimated 12 million people currently residing illegally in America can come out of the shadows and earn a fair living by returning to their home countries to apply for a Good Neighbor SAFE Visa. This does not give amnesty to those currently in our country illegally.

Our plan would accomplish this by setting up a system of private employment placement agencies outside the United States (called "Ellis Island Centers"), licensed by the federal government, to match willing temporary workers with jobs that employers cannot fill with American workers. The private agencies would also perform health screenings, fingerprint the guest workers and provide that information for federal background checks.

Successful applicants for the Good Neighbor SAFE Visa could enter America legally provided they meet the visa requirements.

We call it a "Good Neighbor" SAFE Visa because the program would be limited to countries that currently enjoy a positive trade relationship with the United States in our hemisphere. Only residents of NAFTA and CAFTA-DR countries will be eligible to participate in this program. Good Neighbor SAFE Visas will be issued for two years, with the option to renew them in two-year increments for up to 12 years.

Good Neighbor SAFE Visa participants are not eligible for welfare, Social Security or Medicare. All paycheck deductions will be made as for American citizens. Workers' Medicare contributions will go into a fund to compensate hospitals for emergency medical expenses incurred while treating foreign workers. Worker Social Security deductions will be returned when a participant exits the program and returns to his or her home country. Employer Social Security contributions will remain in our country's system.

At the end of the visa period, visa holders who have been gainfully employed with no violations may return to their country of origin or apply for a new X-Change Visa with an employer sponsor and continue working in the United States under the same conditions with no further renewals required. There is no automatic path to citizenship in the Hutchison-Pence plan. After five more years, the X-Change Visa holder would have the option of continuing to hold an X-Change Visa, returning home or applying for permanent adjustment of status.

Third: Verification and enforcement

For the system to be effective, it is necessary to implement a nationwide electronic employment verification system through which employers confirm the legality of each employee. Those who continue to hire unverifiable employees will be subject to stiff fines.

Two years after the date of enactment, employers will be required to verify the eligibility of all new employees, including temporary workers. After six years, verification will apply to all employees. While this may be unsettling to some, and there may be better ways to do it, we will never have complete knowledge of everyone who is in our country and their legal status without some capability for verification.

Good Neighbor SAFE Visas will provide businesses seeking to hire foreign workers with a secure method of confirming their legal status. If a temporary worker is fired, convicted of a crime or just disappears, the card will be canceled, preventing someone else from hiring the worker.

We have a historic opportunity to repair our immigration system. Our proposal is meant to be one set of ideas; there are many others. But there can be no disagreement on this: Congress owes it to the American people to solve this crisis. We are attempting to protect our national security while providing benefits to our country for generations to come. We urge our colleagues in Congress to come back to the table and produce a workable system. The future of our country depends on it.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is a Texas Republican and Rep. Mike Pence is an Indiana Republican.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060725-092629-3249r.htm

3. The Enemy of My Enemy Is Still My Enemy - New York Times Op-ed

By BERNARD HAYKEL

WITH Israel at war with Hezbollah, where, you might wonder, is Al Qaeda? From all appearances on the Web sites frequented by its sympathizers, which I frequently monitor, Al Qaeda is sitting, unhappily and uneasily, on the sidelines, watching a movement antithetical to its philosophy steal its thunder. That might sound like good news. But it is more likely an ominous sign.

Al Qaeda's Sunni ideology regards Shiites as heretics and profoundly distrusts Shiite groups like Hezbollah. It was Al Qaeda that is reported to have given Sunni extremists in Iraq the green light to attack Shiite civilians and holy sites. A Qaeda recruiter I met in Yemen described the Shiites as "dogs and a thorn in the throat of Islam from the beginning of time."

But now Hezbollah has taken the lead on the most incendiary issue for jihadis of all stripes: the fight against Israel.

Many Sunnis are therefore rallying to Hezbollah's side, including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan. The Saudi cleric Salman al-Awda has defied his government's anti-Hezbollah position, writing on his Web site that "this is not the time to express our differences with the Shiites because we are all confronted by our greater enemy, the criminal Jews and Zionists."

For Al Qaeda, it is a time of panic. The group's Web sites are abuzz with messages and questions about how to respond to Hezbollah's success. One sympathizer asks whether, even knowing that the Shiites are traitors and the accomplices of the infidel Americans in Iraq, it is permissible to say a prayer for Hezbollah. He is told to curse Hezbollah along with Islam's other enemies.

Several of Al Qaeda's ideologues have issued official statements explaining Hezbollah's actions and telling followers how to respond to them. The gist of their argument is that the Shiites are conspiring to destroy Islam and to resuscitate Persian imperial rule over the Middle East and ultimately the world. The ideologues label this effort the "Sassanian-Safavid conspiracy," in reference to the Sassanians, a pre-Islamic Iranian dynasty, and to the Safavids, a Shiite dynasty that ruled Iran and parts of Iraq from 1501 till 1736.

They go on to argue that thanks to the United States (the leader of the Zionist-Crusader conspiracy), Iraq has been handed over to the Shiites, who are now wantonly massacring the country's Sunnis. Syria is already led by a Shiite heretic, President Bashar al-Assad, whose policies harm the country's Sunni majority.

Hezbollah, according to these analyses, seeks to dupe ordinary Muslims into believing that the Shiites are defending Islam's holiest cause, Palestine, in order to cover for the wholesale Shiite alliance with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ultimately, this theory goes, the Shiites will fail in their efforts because the Israelis and Americans will destroy them once their role in the broader Zionist-Crusader conspiracy is accomplished. And then God will assure the success of the Sunni Muslims and the defeat of the Zionists and Crusaders.

In the meantime, no Muslim should be fooled by Hezbollah, whose members have never fought the infidel on any of the real battlefronts, like Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya or Kashmir. The proper attitude for Muslims to adopt is to dissociate themselves completely from the Shiites.

This analysis - conspiratorial, bizarre and uncompelling, except to the most diehard radicals - signals an important defeat for Al Qaeda's public relations campaign. The truth is that Al Qaeda has met a formidable challenge in Hezbollah and its charismatic leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, who have made canny choices that appeal to Al Qaeda's Sunni followers. Al Qaeda's improbable conspiracy theory does little to counter these advantages.

First, although Sheik Nasrallah wears the black turban and carries the title of "sayyid," both of which identify him as a Shiite descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, he preaches a nonsectarian ideology and does not highlight his group's Shiite identity. Hezbollah has even established an effective alliance with Hamas, a Sunni and Muslim Brotherhood organization.

Second, Hezbollah's statements focus on the politics of resistance to occupation and invoke shared Islamic principles about the right to self-defense. Sheik Nasrallah is extremely careful to hew closely to the dictates of Islamic law in his military attacks. These include such principles as advance notice, discrimination in selecting targets and proportionality.

Finally, only Hezbollah has effectively defeated Israel (in Lebanon in 2000) and is now taking it on again, hitting Haifa and other places with large numbers of rockets - a feat that no Arab or Muslim power has accomplished since Israel's founding in 1948.

These are already serious selling points. And Hezbollah will score a major propaganda victory in the Muslim world if it simply remains standing in Lebanon after the present bout of warfare is over and maintains the relationships it is forging with Hamas and other Sunni Islamist organizations.

What will such a victory mean? Perhaps Hezbollah's ascendancy among Sunnis will make it possible for Shiites and Sunnis to stop the bloodletting in Iraq - and to focus instead on their "real" enemies, namely the United States and Israel. Rumblings against Israeli actions in Lebanon from both Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq already suggest such an outcome.

That may be good news for Iraqis, but it marks a dangerous turn for the West. And there are darker implications still. Al Qaeda, after all, is unlikely to take a loss of status lying down. Indeed, the rise of Hezbollah makes it all the more likely that Al Qaeda will soon seek to reassert itself through increased attacks on Shiites in Iraq and on Westerners all over the world - whatever it needs to do in order to regain the title of true defender of Islam.

Bernard Haykel, an associate professor of Islamic Studies at New York University, is the author of "Revival and Reform in Islam."


http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/26haykel.html

4. A midterm analysis - Washington Times Op-ed

Published July 26, 2006

If congressional Democrats acquire subpoena power by capturing a majority in either the House or the Senate in this fall's elections, the last two years of the Bush administration will be a nightmare for the White House. The odds that Democrats will achieve majority status in at least one chamber of Congress have improved, according to the nonpartisan analysis provided by the Cook Political Report.

Today we look at the House, where Democrats must gain 15 seats in November. That would enable them to install Nancy Pelosi as speaker; Alcee Hastings (an impeached, convicted and ousted federal judge) as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Henry Waxman as chairman of the Government Reform Committee; and John Conyers, who is running for re-election in his Detroit district on an "impeach the president" platform, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Cook's latest analysis (July 19) categorizes 361 of the 435 House seats as solidly held by the party now representing them. In ascending order of competitiveness, he classifies the remaining 74 seats as either "likely" Democratic or Republican (seats that are "not considered competitive at this point but have the potential to become engaged"); "lean" Democratic or Republican (seats that are "considered competitive races but one party has an advantage"); or Democratic or Republican "toss ups" (seats that are "the most competitive; either party has a good chance of winning"). No House seat is currently classified as solidly held, leaning or likely to move into the camp of the other party.

Comparing Mr. Cook's rankings from July 2005 with his latest assessment illustrates how the Republican position has deteriorated over the last 12 months. A year ago, only three Republican seats were toss-ups; today 15 are. A year ago, 24 Republican-held seats were ranked as either leaning Republican (15) or likely Republican (nine). Today, those numbers are 21 and 18, respectively. In other words, the number of non-solid Republican seats has doubled to 54. By comparison, while five Democratic seats were ranked as toss-ups a year ago, today none are. Moreover, the July 2005 Republican-to-Democratic ratio of likely, leaning and toss-up seats was 27 to 22; today's ratio is 54 to 20.

In the six postwar midterm elections that resulted in "a sharply negative nationwide referendum on the party in power" (1946, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1982 and 1994), Thomas E. Mann of the Brookings Institution recently observed that "[t]he party losing ground found itself besieged in districts previously thought to be safe, where the average swing [in the vote] was double or more the national swing" of 5 percentage points or more. He noted that the number of House seats lost by the party in power during those six midterm elections ranged from 26 to 56, all comfortably above the 15 seats Democrats need in November.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060725-092626-9446r.htm

5. A Winning Strategy for the Democrats: Barter for Free Trade

By Steven Pearlstein
Wednesday, July 26, 2006; D01

To understand why Democrats can't win elections, all you had to do was attend yesterday's symposium at the Brookings Institution put on by the Hamilton Project, an effort by the (Bill) Clinton economic braintrust to generate new ideas and a Democratic election agenda.

The main topic was globalization, which had a certain urgency about it the day after the latest round of global trade talks collapsed.

Because this was the free-trade wing of the Democratic Party, the event featured all the usual arguments about how globalization has helped the U.S. economy, boosting growth and productivity through scale economies, specialization and increased innovation.

And because these were Democrats, there were the requisite acknowledgements that, while trade is an overall plus for the economy, it has had some unpleasant side effects: insecurity about job losses, downward pressure on wages, widening inequality, and an unsustainable trade deficit.

There was even a general consensus on what needs to be done to ameliorate those effects. The prescriptions included some old ideas about balancing the federal budget, investing more in education and repealing the Bush tax cuts, and some newer ones such as universal access to health insurance, portable pensions and wage insurance. Protect people, not jobs, was the headline message in the Hamilton Project briefing paper that rejected the protectionist policies of the union left as well as the "you're-on-your-own" economics of the laissez-faire right.

Policy-wise, this is exactly where the Democratic Party as a whole needs to be in terms of trade and globalization. But the problem is that, when you scratch the surface, the free-trade members of the Democratic establishment turn out to be more committed to Part A of the formula, more globalization, than they are to Part B, making sure the benefits from globalization are widely shared. For them, it's really not a package deal. And if push comes to shove, which it always does in trade politics, they'd welcome more globalization even without the compensatory social policies.

How do I know this? Because they said so.

At the conference's closing session, I asked former Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers and former deputy Treasury secretary Roger Altman if any of them would be willing to support the idea of a "time out" on new free-trade initiatives until there was some tangible progress toward greater economic security for U.S. workers. To a man, they recoiled at the idea.

They explained to me that globalization is such a widespread and powerful phenomenon that it would hardly be affected by trade agreements.

Then, without missing a beat, they turned around and argued how crucial those agreements are, running through the usual list of horrors that would befall the country if the United States were to put its free-trade agenda on hold:

That the United States would give up its role as the leading force for internationalism.

That such a move would send a terrible signal from the world's superpower about its isolationist instincts.

And, oh yes, my personal favorite -- that if we stopped negotiating trade treaties, other countries would rush around and sign bilateral agreements without us.

All of these arguments, of course, are beside the point. This is about the politics of trade, not the policies. And its a perfect example of how the Democrats have lost the instinct for the political jugular and the ability to use policy disputes to political advantage.

The idea here isn't to kill free trade. It's to take it hostage. Right now, the defection of formerly free-trade Democrats has made it impossible to get any trade treaty or trade-negotiating authority through Congress. That's a big problem for the business community, particularly big corporations such as Lucent, AIG and General Electric. Democrats now have a perfect opportunity to deliver what the business community wants -- and to demand in exchange programs designed to provide workers more economic security. But such negotiations will never succeed if influential Democrats give away the store in advance by signaling they support all trade liberalization, unconditionally.

No guarantees of health care, pensions, expanded unemployment insurance -- no more trade deals. It's a simple message even chief executives can understand. Voters, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072501616.html

###