Printer Friendly
June
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, June 7, 2006
1. Republican Wins Bellwether California Election - Washington Post
The California Congressional seat vacated by jailed former representative
Randy "Duke" Cunningham will remain in Republican hands after a special
election Tuesday. Results elsewhere on Tuesday yielded no significant
surprises.
2. The attacks that didn't happen - Chicago Tribune Op-ed
The lack of any significant North American attack since Sept. 11, 2001, has
lulled many Americans into thinking that preparedness, vigilance and resolve
are yesterday's necessities. This Canadian case demonstrates the constant
nature of the threat facing the U.S. and its allies--and the constant effort
needed to preempt it.
3. 'Lawfare' Over Haditha - Wall Street Journal Op-ed
The unfolding investigation of last November's events in Haditha reveals much
more about the Bush Administration's critics than it does about the U.S.
armed forces.
4. Public, Bush split on illegals - Washington Times
President Bush has been making a strong push for illegal aliens to
assimilate as he stumps for passage of a plan to legalize most of them, but
a new poll shows that voters actually want less immigration and more
security.
5. Key GOP Enclave Sending Message in Backing Tancredo - Denver Post
Rep. Tom Tancredo's calls
to strengthen the southern border are resonating loudly near the northern
one, where a straw poll of Republicans in Macomb County, Michigan named him
as their top choice for U.S. president.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. Republican Wins Bellwether
California Election - Washington Post
By Debbi Wilgoren and Jonathan Weisman
Wednesday, June 7, 2006; 7:24 AM
The California Congressional seat vacated by jailed former representative
Randy "Duke" Cunningham will remain in Republican hands after a special
election Tuesday in which a lobbyist narrowly defeated a Democratic school
board member.
Republican Brian Bilbray beat Democrat Francine Busby after an combative and
expensive race that centered on issues of government corruption and illegal
immigration. With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Bilbray had 56,016
votes or 49.5 percent, the Associated Press reported, and Busby trailed with
51,202 votes or 45 percent.
"I think that we're going back to Washington," Bilbray,a former lawmaker
from a neighborhing Congressional district, told a cheering crowd of
supporters, according to wire service reports.
The 50th Congressional District, which covers affluent San Diego County,
leans heavily Republican, and the race to succeed Cunningham was considered
a bellwether to see if corruption scandals and President George Bush's
sinking approval ratings would open the door for a Democratic resurgence.
Cunningham resigned in late 2005, when he pleaded guilty to evading taxes
and conspiring to accept $2.4 million in bribes. He is serving an eight-year
prison sentence.
The race to replace him--one of dozens of election contests yesterday in
eight states--had been viewed by Democrats as an opportunity to capture a
solidly Republican district and build momentum in their quest to capture
control of the House in nationwide elections this fall.
A Busby victory in a district where Bush won 55 percent of the vote two
years ago would have been a clear sign of the headwinds confronting
Republicans this fall as they try to keep their 12-year control of the
House. At stake was the chance to hold Cunningham's seat until the end of
the year, and win the party's nomination on the fall ballot. Primary
contests elsewhere also were considered potential indicators of whether the
Democrats can gain ground in Congress this fall.
But the much-talked about potential upset in the 50th District did not
materialize.
Fearing a damaging, high-profile setback, the National Republican
Congressional Committee pumped more than $4.5 million into the California
race to help Bilbray, much of it in recent weeks. First Lady Laura Bush made
automated phone calls urging voters to support Bilbray, who also received
fundraising help from Vice President Dick Cheney and money and support from
allies of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Busby, who criticized Bilbray's work as a Washington lobbyist, hurt her own
cause with a verbal blunder last week when she told a largely Latino
audience, "You don't need papers for voting."
The former school board member quickly followed that slip by saying, "You
don't need to be a registered voter to help" the campaign, but conservative
talk show hosts burned up Southern California airwaves this week with
charges that Busby was encouraging illegal immigrants to vote.
GOP strategists hoped that would bolster Republican turnout, which may have
been depressed by the demoralizing spectacle of their longtime congressman,
a decorated Vietnam War pilot, going to prison for bribery. At the very
least, Democrats conceded, the gaffe halted Busby's momentum at a critical
moment and put her on the defensive.
"She needed a flawless finish to pull this off," said one Democratic Party
official in Washington last night, speaking on the condition of anonymity
because the results of the election were hours away.
Results elsewhere on Tuesday yielded no significant surprises.
In New Jersey, a famous political name -- Tom Kean Jr., the son of a popular
former governor -- won a Republican primary for the right to challenge
recently appointed Sen. Robert Menendez (D). Also in the Garden State,
former New Jersey Assembly speaker Albio Sires cruised to a primary victory
over Assemblyman Joseph Vas in the 13th Congressional District, all but
assuring him a seat in Congress because of the heavily Democratic tilt of
the district.
In Iowa's Democratic gubernatorial primary, Secretary of State Chet Culver
eked out a narrow win over economic development official Mike Blouin and
state Rep. Ed Fallon Jr.
Culver -- the son of former senator John Culver -- has said he has the best
chance of defeating Rep. Jim Nussle (R) in the fall.
The race for the Congressional seat Nussle will vacate -- in Iowa's 1st
Congressional District -- where Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) won 53 percent
of the vote in 2004 -- is widely seen as one of the Democrats' best chances
at a Republican seat.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had backed trial lawyer
Bruce Braley against former state legislator Rick Dickinson. With 92 percent
of precincts reporting, Dickinson held a 156-vote lead. But the Associated
Press reported this morning that Braley had prevailed.
In the contest for the Republican nominationt, Heart of America Restaurants
& Inns founder Mike Whalen had a commanding lead over state Rep. Bill Dix
and lawyer Brian Kennedy.
The Democrats' chances to seize control of the Senate are considered more
remote than a turnover in the House. But one of their top targets is Sen.
Conrad Burns (R-Montana), who has been mired in allegations of ties to
disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In Montana's Democratic primary, farmer
and state Sen. Jon Tester trounced Auditor John Morrison, the onetime
favorite who was leveled by revelations of an extramarital affair and of an
investigation his office had conducted into a company with ties to his
onetime paramour.
And in California, the DCCC has been boosting Navy veteran and United
Airlines pilot Steve Filson as the kind of moderate-to-conservative Democrat
who can beat House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo, a
high-profile target. But in early returns, Filson was losing to Jerry
McNerney, a more established face in the district's Democratic politics but
a candidate who Democratic strategists on Capitol Hill fear cannot win
enough votes in the conservative San Joaquin Valley.
Pombo was running well ahead of Pete McCloskey, a former representative who
emerged from retirement after being angered by what he said was corruption
in his own political party.
___
In other election results, the Associated Press reported:
California :
Governor: State Treasurer Phil Angelides beat Controller Steve Westly in the
Democratic primary for the right to challenge Republican Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger in November.
Attorney General: Former Gov. Jerry Brown won the race for the Democratic
nomination.
Preschool: A $2.4 billion proposal to offer universal preschool by taxing
the wealthy was rejected. The initiative was best known for its most avid
supporter, Hollywood director Rob Reiner.
Alabama:
Governor: Republican Gov. Bob Riley defeated former Alabama Chief Justice
Roy Moore, who was ousted after he defied a federal court order to remove a
Ten Commandments monument from the state courthouse. On the Democratic side,
Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley beat former Gov. Don Siegelman, who is on trial in
federal court on bribery charges.
Lieutenant Governor: George C. Wallace Jr., son of the former Alabama
governor, was headed to a runoff to decide the GOP primary for lieutenant
governor.
Chief Justice: Tom Parker, an associate justice who said state courts can
ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedents, lost his bid for chief justice against
the man who was appointed to fill Moore's post. Three other Supreme Court
candidates who held similar views on the precedent issue lost their
challenges to GOP incumbents.
Gay Marriage: Voters overwhelmingly approved a ban on gay marriage.
South Dakota:
Governor: Democrat Jack Billion won the nomination to challenge Republican
Gov. Mike Rounds in the fall. Rounds is heavily favored to win another term.
Mississippi:
Congress: State lawmaker Chuck Espy lost his bid to unseat six-term
Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson. Espy's uncle, Mike Espy, was elected to the
seat in 1986, becoming Mississippi's first black congressman since
Reconstruction. Mike Espy left the House in 1993 to become President
Clinton's secretary of agriculture.
New Mexico:
Senate: Republican Allen McCulloch was nominated to challenge Democratic
Sen. Jeff Bingaman in the fall.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700357.html
2. The attacks that didn't happen -
Chicago Tribune Op-ed
Published June 7, 2006
There's no bright-line test to distinguish nonchalance from oblivion. So the
sluggish reaction of many Americans to the news of terror planning in the
Canadian province of Ontario may qualify as both lame and foolhardy.
Tuesday's allegation that one suspect was plotting to storm Canada's
parliament and behead officials--including the prime minister--is but one
more sensational twist on a troubling drama.
If you've missed the story: Authorities have arrested 17 males--five of them
teenagers--and say that an international search for allied terror suspects
is very much ongoing. The 17 suspects, evidently inspired by Al Qaeda but
not formally tied to that group, allegedly planned a series of explosive
attacks on the parliament in Ottawa and on other high-profile targets,
likely in Toronto.
Although the details still are unfolding, officials say the men plotted to
use three tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to fashion massive bombs.
That's roughly triple the amount Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols used in 1995
to collapse much of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Imagine the destruction if a series of similar blasts occurred today.
Imagine the public mourning and recriminations. Instead, these appear to be
the attacks that didn't happen.
Canadian authorities reportedly had been tracking the group through e-mail,
Internet chat rooms and telephone conversations. The Associated Press quoted
an unnamed U.S. official as saying investigators are looking for connections
between the detainees and suspected Islamic militants held in the U.S.,
Britain, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Denmark and Sweden.
How close were any attacks? "It came to a point where our concern for the
safety and security of the public far outweighed our appetite for collecting
evidence," said Mike McDonell, deputy commissioner for the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police.
Add it up and this case has the potential to encompass a perfect confluence
of issues--fanatical terror plots, electronic eavesdropping, the presence of
enemies within, data mining--related to the war against terrorism now being
waged by the U.S. and many other governments.
The lack of any significant North American attack since Sept. 11, 2001, has
lulled many Americans into thinking that preparedness, vigilance and resolve
are yesterday's necessities. This Canadian case demonstrates the constant
nature of the threat facing the U.S. and its allies--and the constant effort
needed to preempt it.
Ready as many of us are to condemn government agencies that fumble terror
investigations, we tend to fall silent when investigators do foil deadly
plots.
If Canadian officials are correct, and if the FBI is right in saying two
Georgia men met with some of the Canadians to assess bombing targets, then
this takedown is a superb coup.
The lesson in this case for Americans: Yes, it's tempting to yearn for the
doe-eyed simplicity of Sept. 10, 2001. Provided we accept the fact that it
isn't coming back.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0606070174jun07,0,3872160.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed
3. 'Lawfare' Over Haditha - Wall Street
Journal Op-ed
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY
June 7, 2006; Page A14
The unfolding investigation of last November's events in Haditha reveals
much more about the Bush administration's critics than it does about the
U.S. armed forces. Although the inquiry is ongoing, it appears that 24
unarmed Iraqi civilians were deliberately murdered, allegedly by American
Marines seeking revenge for a fallen comrade. If true, the episode was a war
crime, something that must be -- and no doubt will be -- severely punished.
However, the administration's critics are already cynically leveraging the
Haditha killings as a means of undercutting the president, heedless of the
effect this may have on American national interests.
Here is an outline of the emerging anti-Bush thesis: Haditha was the fault
not of a handful of Marines, but of an administration that has refused to
honor international law. As support, critics point to the administration's
refusal to grant Geneva Convention rights to al Qaeda or the Taliban, to the
use of aggressive interrogation techniques to obtain intelligence from
terrorist detainees, and to a determination not to treat these individuals
as ordinary criminal defendants. All of this is claimed despite the fact
that the most fundamental aspects of administration policy -- that the U.S.
is at war, that individuals captured in this war can be held without trial
as "enemy combatants" or tried by a military commission -- have been
vindicated so far by the courts.
Nevertheless, the killings at Haditha and a handful of other incidents in
which U.S. troops have violated the laws of war (and are in the process of
being punished) are already being cited as evidence of a systematic problem
with American forces abroad and American leadership at home. In fact,
although scores of atrocities have been alleged in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
vast majority have been false claims. Most recently, for example, charges
that U.S. forces executed civilians during a March 15 night-time raid on an
al Qaeda safe house in Ishaqi proved to be groundless.
To put things in perspective, it is worth noting that abuses and violations
of the laws of war have occurred in every armed conflict in human history,
regardless of how well-led or disciplined were the troops involved. Indeed,
by the standards of past conflicts, U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have
behaved in exemplary fashion, using force in combat with unprecedented
precision, minimizing collateral damage and civilian deaths -- often at risk
to themselves and to their mission. In Iraq, this has been the case even
though American forces are fighting in the toughest possible urban
insurgency environment.
Overall, all U.S. forces, including the Marines, have used deadly force in a
proportionate and discriminate manner, fully in accord with the laws and
customs of war. By contrast, our enemies engage in war crimes on a daily
basis as a matter of policy. For them, targeting civilians is not the
exception but the rule -- it is the essence of the "asymmetrical" warfare
they practice.
Throughout history, irregular forces have used the surrounding civilian
population in two distinct ways. First, guerrilla fighters do not wear
uniforms or carry their arms openly -- critical elements of lawful warfare
-- so as to hide among the civilian population. In effect, they use
civilians as shields. Second, like the insurgents in Iraq, they seek to goad
opponents into mistakenly, or deliberately, attacking civilians -- as a
means of mobilizing the population against the regulars. The killings at
Haditha show how this strategy can work.
However, the advent of modern media coverage -- coupled with a growing and
valid concern among democracies about humanitarian norms during warfare --
has provided a new tactical innovation, increasingly known as "lawfare." Al
Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents thus routinely claim that American forces
systematically violate the laws of war by targeting civilians and abusing
prisoners. These claims are not targeted at the Iraqi people (although
similar claims regarding insults to Islamic believers are so directed) but
at public and, especially, elite opinion in the U.S. and other democracies.
With Vietnam as its model, the Iraqi insurgency well understands that it can
win only by undermining America's political will to win, and the center of
gravity in this conflict lies in Washington, not Baghdad or the Sunni
Triangle.
These lawfare tactics have several other important consequences. If the
Pentagon's investigation of Haditha was delayed, it was most likely because
similar massacre allegations are made virtually every time American forces
take to the field. The fact that, in Iraq, IED explosions are so often
followed by insurgent attacks launched from civilian structures also clearly
gave credence to the initial -- and evidently incorrect -- reports from
Haditha. When civilian buildings are used in insurgent operations, civilians
often are killed in the crossfire, and so the report that a number of
civilians had been killed by small arms in Haditha would not have appeared
exceptional to the U.S. commanders.
Ultimately, the Haditha incident must remind American policy makers -- and
the American people -- of the challenges of modern warfare. Although the
individual actions of U.S. forces on that day may have been exceptional, the
surrounding circumstances are not -- and our enemies will look more and more
to such irregular tactics. The Pentagon's emphasis on exhaustively training
American troops in the laws of war is a good first step. U.S. forces already
are the best equipped and trained in history, and it is only through a
constant emphasis on duty, discipline and American values that our armed
forces will prevail in Iraq and similar conflicts.
At the same time, should the Haditha incident mature into a full-fledged war
crimes drama prompting a premature U.S. withdrawal, the damage would not be
limited to Iraq. If the U.S. cannot fight and win against a brutal urban
insurgency in Iraq today, its ability to defeat any determined foe willing
to sacrifice the civilian population in irregular warfare will be in
question. This can only benefit the most vicious regimes and movements. The
Bush administration's critics should pause a moment, and reflect, on whether
this would really be worth it.
Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, lawyers in Washington, served in the Justice
Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114963936130373238.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
4. Public, Bush split on illegals -
Washington Times
By Stephen Dinan
Published June 7, 2006
ARTESIA, N.M. -- President Bush has been making a strong push for illegal
aliens to assimilate as he stumps for passage of a plan to legalize most of
them, but a new poll shows that voters actually want less immigration and
more security.
And even Mr. Bush's own pollster, in another recent poll, failed to ask
about a pathway to citizenship, instead focusing on temporary legal status
for illegal aliens -- a concept Mr. Bush no longer endorses.
About half of those surveyed in the new poll by MWR Strategies said the
immigration problem facing the U.S. is "too much immigration," while just 29
percent identified the problem as "not enough assimilation."
Michael McKenna, who conducted the poll of 1,000 registered voters, said it
suggests that Mr. Bush is moving in the wrong direction by embracing a path
to citizenship.
"The practical import of it is, all this yak-yak about path to citizenship
-- more than half the population looks at it and says there's just too much.
We need less of it," he said.
"If you think the problem is just too much immigration, you don't care about
path to citizenship or any of that other stuff."
When asked the best way to address immigration, 36 percent said penalize
businesses for hiring illegal aliens, while 35 percent said create a path to
citizenship and 17 percent said build a wall.
The Bush administration has been trying to convince skeptical Republicans in
Congress that voters prefer a comprehensive solution to immigration and back
Mr. Bush, who yesterday said a consensus is building in Congress for the
major elements of his immigration proposal, including a path to citizenship.
A recent memo by Matthew Dowd, Mr. Bush's pollster and a senior adviser to
the Republican National Committee (RNC), argues that "the comprehensive
approach that emphasizes both security and compassion is unifying, not
polarizing -- it is supported by Republicans, independents, and Democrats."
But Mr. Dowd didn't ask about a path to citizenship, which opponents call
"amnesty," in his most recent survey, taken after Mr. Bush made his Oval
Office address to the nation arguing for that proposal. Instead, Mr. Dowd
asked about temporary workers, who would return home.
Mr. Dowd is advising Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign in
California and was unavailable, according to the RNC. But a party official,
who asked not to be named, said they simply didn't ask about that part of
Mr. Bush's plan.
"The survey clearly asks about a comprehensive approach to immigration. We
did not ask support questions regarding path to citizenship in this
particular poll," the official said.
Mr. McKenna criticized Mr. Dowd's memo, saying it's "not inaccurate as far
as it goes, but it's sure misleading."
"The questions themselves are clearly skewed, don't come to the heart of the
issue in any important kind of way and are clearly biased in favor of one
side," he said. "The weight of the numbers and the weight of the evidence
suggests that people's main concern is border security and they view most of
these proposals as amnesty."
Those who support a middle-ground route of giving illegal aliens temporary
status but not a path to citizenship said Mr. Dowd's polling actually
supports their plan.
"What is clear from this poll is that a work-and-return program, a bill that
has not passed the Senate, can receive significant support," said Don
Stewart, spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who supports a
temporary program but opposes a path to citizenship. "That's the third way
in this whole debate."
Dan Bartlett, senior counselor to the president, says the public is behind
Mr. Bush.
In a memo Monday, Mr. Bartlett said proposals to allow long-time illegal
aliens a path to citizenship scored 79 percent in a CNN poll taken right
after Mr. Bush's speech last month and 77 percent in a CBS News poll.
"The president is leading the country and the Republican Party in a
direction he thinks is right, and opinion polls show Americans strongly
support a comprehensive approach," he said.
Those who support a path to citizenship have made some headway in public
opinion on how voters see the people who are the subject of the debate.
When Mr. McKenna polled in 2004, after Mr. Bush made his first major
immigration speech detailing a guest-worker program, 73 percent saw the
noncitizens as "illegal aliens," while 25 percent saw them as "undocumented
workers." In his new poll, 62 percent said they are "illegal aliens" and 30
percent said they are "undocumented workers."
Sergio Bendixen, considered one of the top pollsters of Hispanic voters and
immigration issues, said the difference between asking about "illegal
immigrant" and "undocumented worker" can mean a swing of 20 percentage
points in the answers.
Mr. Bendixen said Mr. Bush still has a chance to influence the debate but
said he's having only a slight impact on the debate.
"I think the president is very weak right now politically. I don't think
he's got a lot of credibility," he said.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060607-122636-9789r.htm
5. Key GOP Enclave Sending Message in
Backing Tancredo - Denver Post
Rep. Tom Tancredo's calls to strengthen the southern border are resonating
loudly near the northern one, where some Republicans have named him as their
top choice for U.S. president.
Tancredo, R-Colo., won a straw poll of Republicans in Macomb County, Mich.,
on the 2008 presidential race.
Tancredo won 60 of the 327 GOP delegates, about 18 percent, in the key
Republican county, a suburb of Detroit, beating 13 others, including Sen.
John McCain of Arizona, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and even
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, son of former Michigan Gov. George Romney.
The win did not signify an earnest drive to put Tancredo in the Oval Office,
however.
"The participants that voted for him in the poll stated they were doing so
to show their displeasure with the immigration policy that's being discussed
in Washington," said Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan GOP.
"It was less a vote for who they wanted for president and more of a protest
vote."
Immigration is a major issue for Republican voters, Anuzis said. They are
outraged about the bill passed in the Senate that would allow many illegal
immigrants to eventually apply for citizenship, he said.
"This is an issue that moves Republican voters," said Jennifer Duffy, who
analyzes political races for the Cook Political Report. "This is an issue
where they break with the president."
Tancredo has said in the past that he would consider running for president
to push his get-tough approach on
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3907081
### |
