Rescuing the Democrats

In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes argues that we have seen the birth of a Republican majority. In 1992, Barnes points out, Republicans held 176 House seats. Today, they hold 229. In 1992, the G.O.P. controlled 8 state legislatures; now it controls 21. In 1992, there were 18 Republican governors; now there are 27.

But the really eye-popping change is in party identification. In Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, 49 percent of voters said they were Democrats. But that number has been dropping ever since, and now roughly 32 percent of voters say they are. As Mark Penn, a former Clinton pollster, has observed, ”In terms of the percentage of voters who identify themselves as Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal.”

The (Finally) Emerging Republican Majority

…[U]nmistakable signs of realignment. But he won’t call it realignment. Whoa! says Bill McInturff, one of the smartest Republican strategists, let’s not be premature. Before anyone claims realignment has put Republicans in control nationally, McInturff says, the GOP must win the White House, Senate, and House in 2004 and maybe even hold Congress in 2006. Bush adviser Karl Rove agrees. He recently told a Republican group that the realignment question won’t be decided until 2004.

There’s really no reason to wait. Realignment is already here, and well advanced.

Both of these articles are worth reading, if only to put some fear into Democrats and independents. The Republicans believe they have taken power — and we know what that leads to. mjh

Bush calls for ‘final defeat’ of terrorism

”Today, our nations are challenged once again,” Bush said. ”We’re threatened by ruthless enemies unlike others we have faced. Terrorist groups hide in many countries. They emerge to kill the innocent. They seek weapons to kill on a massive scale.”

”We must fight terrorism on many fronts,” he added. ”We must stay on the offensive until the terrorist threat is fully and finally defeated. To win the war on terror, we must hunt a scattered and resourceful enemy in dark corners around the world.”

PCWorld.com – Patriot Act Amendments Offered

A bipartisan group of senators is introducing legislation designed to curb the sweeping government surveillance powers authorized by the USA Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Under the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (S. 1709), the Federal Bureau of Investigation will be subject to additional judicial oversight in its search procedures.

”I believe the SAFE Act is a measured, reasonable and appropriate response to concerns we have with the USA Patriot Act,” said Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) at its introduction. ”This legislation intends to ensure the liberties of law-abiding individuals are protected in our nation’s fight against terrorism, without in any way impeding that fight.” Craig and Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) are cosponsoring the bill.

Well, they at least got a good acronym: SAFE. mjh

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | ‘Bin Laden tape’ warns US

”I tell the American people we will continue fighting you and we will continue martyrdom operations inside and outside the United States until you stop your injustice, and you end your foolishness,” [bin Laden] said.

”We reserve the right to retaliate at the proper time and place against all countries that take part in this unjust war namely Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy.

”Islamic countries that take part will not be excluded. This applies particularly to the Gulf states, chiefly Kuwait, launchpad for the crusader forces.”

Fact-Free News

In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.

The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were “the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.” Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.

[And, from the other side:]

News for Nincompoops?

Meyerson’s critique relies entirely on this faulty syllogism: A lot of people have wrong ideas about the war with Iraq. A lot of people watch Fox News. Therefore, Fox News has given them wrong ideas. Absent a single example of Fox News’s promotion of the alleged misperceptions, the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own illogic. — John Moody, a senior vice president at Fox News.

The problem is in the study’s methodology for selecting errors to investigate. The errors selected for study all have one feature in common: The correct answer supports the anti-war position and an error supports the pro-war position. — Marvin S. Cohen, Arlington VA

Presidential Ecospeak

Mr. Bush himself may fairly be said to have become the master of the ostensibly ecofriendly sound bite, offering oversimplified solutions to complex environmental problems and wrapping them in tempting slogans that hide their generally pro-business tilt.

”Healthy Forests,” for instance, describes an initiative aimed mainly at benefiting the timber industry rather than the communities threatened by fire. ”Freedom Car” (to be powered by ”Freedom Fuel”) describes a program to develop a hydrogen-fueled car that, while beguiling in the long term, absolves automakers from making the near-term improvements in fuel economy necessary to reduce oil dependence and the threat of global warming. …[And] ”Clear Skies,” in the come-hither nomenclature favored by the White House. …

The only explanation for what amounts to a willing suspension of history and logic is that American industry, which for 30 years has cried wolf about the costs of major regulatory initiatives — the phaseout of lead in gasoline, catalytic converters on cars, controls on acid rain — has at last found a sympathetic ear in the White House.

It is this reality — the relationship between Mr. Bush and his corporate underwriters — that could give his frustrated critics an opening. …

One of the points they intend to focus on is the administration’s reflexive tendency to interpret the laws in ways that favor private claims over larger public interests. Our own modest hope is that they will also encourage more plain speaking.

The Sweet Spot By PAUL KRUGMAN

”What we have here is a form of looting.” So says George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics, of the Bush administration’s budget policies — and he’s right. With startling speed, we’ve blown right through the usual concerns about budget deficits — about their effects on interest rates and economic growth — and into a range where the very solvency of the federal government is at stake. Almost every expert not on the administration’s payroll now sees budget deficits equal to about a quarter of government spending for the next decade, and getting worse after that.

Yet the administration insists that there’s no problem, that economic growth will solve everything painlessly.