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.  Army 8, Yale 0 – Wall Street Journal Op-ed
Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld a provision of a law which conditions federal funding for colleges and universities on their providing military recruiters the same access they grant to other employers. The decision was a complete rout of the other-worldly professors who had challenged the law.

2. S. Dakota Legislation to Ban Most Abortions – Associated Press
Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, a law he acknowledged would be tied up in court for years while the state challenges the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

3. Democrats Play Port Politics – Human Events
While the White House certainly underestimated the scope of the public’s reaction to the ports deal, it should take comfort in the fact that the congressional Republicans’ objections stem from their concern about national security matters, whereas Democratic opposition is simply indicative of their myopic hatred of President Bush.

4. Coming Up Short? – Charlie Cook
By the end of the week, candidate filing periods will have closed in 43 percent of all congressional districts, including key battlegrounds such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. There is little doubt that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has made recruiting a top priority. But it is also true that Democrats have missed a number of opportunities.

5. Judicious Double Standards – Washington Post Op-ed
The cry of "double standard" from critics of the President’s agreement to provide India with a civilian nuclear technology is a bit silly. It asks us not to recognize certain realities -- the difference between friends and enemies, or good and bad democracies. India is our friend and Iran, just to pick an example, is not.

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

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1. Army 8, Yale 0 – Wall Street Journal Op-ed

March 7, 2006; Page A12

Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld a provision of a law called the Solomon Amendment, which conditions federal funding for colleges and universities on their providing military recruiters the same access they grant to other employers. The decision was no Solomonic compromise but a complete rout of the other-worldly professors who had challenged the law.

Those professors, opponents of the Clinton-era law barring open homosexuals from military service, had claimed the Solomon Amendment violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them, as the Yale faculty put it in a friend-of-the-court brief, "to assist the military in telling some Yale Law students that they are not fit to serve in our country's armed forces because of their sexual orientation."

Chief Justice John Roberts, in an 8-0 decision (Justice Samuel Alito joined too late to participate), laughed the free-speech claim out of court: "Congress, for example, can prohibit employers from discriminating in hiring on the basis of race. The fact that this will require an employer to take down a sign reading 'White Applicants Only' hardly means that the law should be analyzed as one regulating the employer's speech rather than conduct.".

And of course anti-military professors, unlike racist employers, are completely free to speak their minds on the subject. Yale can even show its disagreement with mainstream America, as it recently did, by admitting as a student a former senior official of Afghanistan's Taliban, a regime that treated homosexuals far more harshly than the U.S. military ever has. 

The Solomon Amendment only denies federal funding to schools that discriminate against the military, but the High Court went one step further: It held that Congress, under its Constitutional authority to "provide for the common Defence," "to raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," could mandate that colleges and universities permit military recruiters on campus, whether they accept federal money or not.

We hope Congress does not do so. If those who run America's institutions of higher education really have principled objections to the military's presence, let them take a stand by declining taxpayer money. Then the rest of us can find out how much their principles are worth.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114170224821491140.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

2. S. Dakota Legislation to Ban Most Abortions – Associated Press

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, a law he acknowledged would be tied up in court for years while the state challenges the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

The governor issued a written statement saying he expected a lengthy legal battle over the law, which, he said, would not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.

The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.

The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge, Rounds has said. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Some other states are considering similar bans on abortion.

Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

Rounds noted that it was written to make sure existing restrictions would still be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses; after the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.

Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, said the organization has not yet decided whether to challenge the measure in court or to seek a statewide public vote in November. A referendum would either repeal the abortion ban or delay a court challenge to the legislation.

"Obviously, we're very disappointed that Governor Rounds has sided on the side of politics rather than on the side of the women of South Dakota to protect their health and safety," Looby said.

Planned Parenthood runs the state's single abortion clinic, which performs about 800 abortions each year.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060306/D8G6CE802.html

3. Democrats Play Port Politics – Human Events

by Michael Lewis
Posted Mar 06, 2006

The recent uproar and hysteria over the United Arab Emirates ports deal is not unwarranted. It is, in fact, intuitive inasmuch as the Congress is asking whether or not it is wise to do business with a Middle Eastern country when we are engaged in a conflict in the region.

While the White House certainly underestimated the scope of the public’s reaction to the ports deal, it should take comfort in the fact that the congressional Republicans’ objections stem from their concern about national security matters, whereas Democratic opposition is simply indicative of their myopic hatred of President Bush; Nancy Pelosi is challenged to finish a sentence without mentioning the words "Bush" and "this administration." Aside from the fact that she appears belligerent and ready to attack every time she gets in front of a camera, her obsession with sticking it to Bush is an obstacle to executing other tasks, such as formulating beliefs or winning elections.

Despite the seemingly legitimate "national security" concerns of Democrats, the facts of the ports deal prove that their concern is really about hating Bush. After all, this is a party that leaks national security secrets about wiretapping terrorists to the New York Times, again in an effort to stick it to Bush. In fact, in Sunday's Raleigh News & Observer, staff writer Rob Christensen reported that while Hillary has been masquerading as "tough on national security," Bill has been providing "unpaid informal advice to Dubai Ports World." Additionally, columnist Robert Novak reported that Clinton suggested Dubai hire his former press secretary, Joe Lockhart, as its Washington spokesman. Other liberals support the deal, claiming that it would be racist and insensitive not to. When in a war against terrorists, 100% of which are Arab, it makes sense to be cautiously against them.

In contradistinction, Republicans came out swinging against the Dubai ports deal, with Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.) sponsoring legislation to block the deal. Additionally, concern has resurfaced among conservatives over the sale of west coast ports to Communist China, again by Bill Clinton. While the Democrats desperately want to turn this into a winning election strategy, they can't jump on the "tough on security" bandwagon five years into the program; it becomes clearer everyday that the Democratic Congress is simply trying to dupe the public into thinking they give a damn.

Which brings us back to the original question of whether or not it is prudent for the United States to do business with Middle Eastern countries while engaged in conflict with the region. Quite simply, the answer is no. While the UAE has every right to lobby for port contracts and is now a loyal ally in the war on terror, its refusal to recognize Israel and its past ties with terrorism demands that the United States terminate their contract to run U.S. ports.

In 99.9% of cases, I trust Bush with our national security. While I will stand by him most of the time, I simply believe that this is a bad battle to fight. On the other hand, I never have and never will put my life or the nation's security in the hands of Democrats, because loose lips sink ships.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12956

4. Coming Up Short? – Charlie Cook

By the end of the week, candidate filing periods will have closed in 43 percent of all congressional districts, including key battlegrounds such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. So this is a good time to check in on the success both parties have had recruiting candidates.     

There is little doubt that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois has made recruiting a top priority. Republican incumbents like Reps. John Sweeney of New York and Deborah Pryce of Ohio find themselves facing serious challengers for the first time since they were elected.     

But it is also true that Democrats have missed a number of opportunities. Ohio, for example, has proved to be a mixed-bag for Democratic recruiters, even as the political climate in the state is downright toxic for Republicans. While they were able to get strong challengers to Pryce and Rep. Steve Chabot, other potentially vulnerable incumbents like Reps. Steven LaTourette and Pat Tiberi did not get serious opposition.

Other obvious targets, including freshmen Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Dave Reichert, R-Wash., are facing neophyte challengers.    

For months now, conventional wisdom has dictated that for Democrats to have any shot of taking back control of the House, they need to expand the narrow playing field of obviously vulnerable Republican seats, perhaps putting as many as 50 GOP seats in play. Of the 86 Republican-held districts that we consider to be the most potentially vulnerable, based on the district's Partisan Voting Index, there are 37 where Democrats have a candidate who meets at least a minimum standard of credibility. Still, we consider just 17 to be top-caliber challengers.     

In a non-wave election, it is doubtful that second-tier challengers would be able to beat well-funded and well-schooled Republican incumbents. But, in a wave election, many of the rules of political gravity go out the window and underfunded and inexperienced challengers win.     

With filing deadlines still open in many big states, like New York and Michigan, the question is whether Democrats will be able to fill in any of the gaps. There is much talk, for example, about Democrats finding a serious challenger to Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz.     

Republicans do have more open seats to defend than do Democrats -- 16 to eight -- but most of those open seats are in Republican-leaning districts. There is speculation swirling around the re-election prospects of Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.     

Should Boehlert retire, his upstate district would be a top target, though certainly not a slam-dunk for Democrats. President Bush carried the district with 53 percent of the vote and the district has a PVI of R+1, meaning that it voted one point more Republican than the nation as a whole in the last two presidential elections.     

Still, any other Republican retirement in a competitive district would be a surprise. Despite hopeful talk from some Democrats, there does not seem to be a stampede by nervous or dispirited Republican incumbents to leave the House.     

For their part, Republicans have been less successful at getting serious candidates to run against potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents such as Reps. Stephanie Hersethof South Dakota; Dennis Moore of Kansas; Jim Matheson of Utah; Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, and Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota. Democrats have kept their vulnerable open seats to a minimum. Just one seat is in serious jeopardy, thanks in large part to the boneheaded move of their highly touted candidate, state Sen. Charlie Wilson, in Ohio. Wilson's inability to get 50 valid signatures on his nominating petitions means he now must win his party's nomination as a write-in candidate this May.     

Republicans have had some small successes in places like South Carolina, where well-funded Republican state Rep. Ralph Norman is likely to put up a serious challenge to longtime Democratic Rep. John Spratt. And, in the open Vermont seat, Republicans have a candidate in former head of the state National Guard Martha Rainville, who, on paper at least, cuts an impressive profile.     

Where the parties should be competitive, Democrats have a decided advantage in those districts where a challenger had at least $150,000 in the bank at the end of December. Democrats have candidates with that much money in 21 districts held by the GOP. Republicans have challengers at that level in just 11 Democratic districts.     

At this point, Democratic recruiting has been hit or miss, while Republicans seem to have decided to hunker down and play defense and have few top challengers to point to. Even though the political environment suggests Democrats should have little trouble lining up top candidates, the fact that Democrats have lost seats in the last two election cycles has certainly diminished the optimism of some ambitious candidates. Plus, many state parties have essentially abandoned any effort to build a farm team of up-and-coming candidates.     

If this election ends up like the last two, where races are won on a case-by-case basis, it is likely Democrats will pick up seats, but won't have enough top-tier candidates in vulnerable GOP districts to get the 15 they need to win the majority.     

If, however, the political environment continues to tilt decidedly in their favor, Democrats have enough candidates, even ones we consider today to be mediocre, to make a 15-seat pick up possible.     

By Charlie Cook, with Amy Walter contributing 

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

5. Judicious Double Standards – Washington Post Op-ed

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 7, 2006; A17

Back behind my high school one day, we all assembled to watch a fistfight. To my immense pleasure, a bully was being bested by his victim. Then the bully's friend stepped in and ended matters with a swift kick to the other guy's midsection. It was an unfair ending to what was supposed to be a fair fight, but it taught me a valuable lesson: You treat your friends differently than you do your enemies.

This elemental principle of life, love and other matters seems utterly lost on so many critics of George Bush's agreement to provide India with civilian nuclear technology. In doing so, we are told, he has done something truly awful -- established a double standard. Well, duh -- yes. India is our friend and Iran, just to pick an example, is not.

The cry of "double standard" is a bit silly. It asks us not to recognize certain realities -- the difference between friends and enemies, for instance, or good and bad democracies, to give another example. In the case of the nuclear agreement, we are somehow supposed to believe that by favoring India, Bush has made it much harder to put pressure on Iran to abandon its apparent weapons program and become a "good guy" nation. This overlooks the fact that Iran is governed by a zealot who has pledged to eradicate Israel and who firmly believes in the inherent evil of the United States of America. As Bush once said about himself, the Iranians do not do nuance.

Reality imposes its own rules -- and they have nothing to do with double standards. North Korea probably already has a nuclear weapon. Iran is going that way, and it is going to happen no matter what the United States and its allies do. For Iran, going nuclear has been a national goal ever since the shah headed the government. Now this is even more the case, especially since the United States, which lumped Iran along with Iraq into the "axis of evil," invaded Iraq. It would hardly be the height of paranoia for Iran to think it is next.

The invocation of the term "double standard" is often applied where Israel is concerned. Israel is presumed to have a nuclear arsenal. Why should the United States look the other way at Israel's bomb and go nuts over Iran's effort to get one? The answer ought to be clear: Because Israel has not threatened to blow Iran off the map; because it is vastly outnumbered in a tough, belligerent neighborhood; and because it is the lone real democracy in a region run mostly by thugs.

The same accusation of a double standard is made with regard to the effort to discriminate between election outcomes. We are supposed to treat the victory of Hamas in Palestine as we would that of the Labor Party in Britain. But the outcome of one democratic election is not threatening and the other is, and we ought to be able to say so -- and do something about it. If, for instance, we are supposed to continue aiding a Palestinian government that has now fallen into the hands of religious fanatics and proponents of a virulent brand of anti-Semitism, then we have lost our minds. It will not matter to some poor Israeli that the terrorist who kills him represented a democratically elected government.

The "double standard" accusation has a schoolyard quality to it. Why a boycott of Cuba and not of China? Because you can with one and not with the other. Why attack Saddam Hussein and not all the other vile dictators? Because you do what you can. Why not ask why you leave your estate to your kids and not strangers? Because your kids are your kids. It is the ultimate double standard.

It is true, of course, that Bush has upended 30 years of American nuclear policy -- and there will be consequences. Maybe, as some of the critics say, he has made it easier for India to increase its nuclear arsenal. But India will make all the weapons it feels it needs -- no matter what the United States does. America is a superpower, but not even a superpower is all-powerful.

The Israeli bomb threatens nobody. An Iranian bomb does. India has transferred its nuclear technology to no one. Pakistan has. No one worries about India or Israel making the technology available to terrorists. Everyone worries about Iran doing that. These are distinctions with great differences. They are, as critics charge, double standards, but to apply a single standard to both friend and enemy, while it might be fair, would be singularly stupid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030601614.html

###