[Mb-civic] Tide Turning

[Michael Butler]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Hawaiipolo at cs.com
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:35:36 EST

Is the tide finally turning? Is there hope that this cabal of unethical
idiots might be turned out of power? Pray , my friends , pray....MD
>
>Headline: GOP conspiracy theorizing: A side-effect of hubris?
>Byline: Dante Chinni
>Date: 03/29/2005
>
>(WASHINGTON)There are some basic rules in politics. When the public is
>with you, 
>claim a mandate by the will of the people. When the public is against
>you, claim a strong personal compass that isn't swayed by polls. And
>when you think your control and approval are slipping, talk about the
>conspiracy working against you.
>
>With those simple rules in mind, we turn our attention to the
>Republican leadership and House majority leader Tom DeLay.
>
>After facing several rebukes from the House ethics committee for a
>variety of offenses - everything from having an interest group pay for
>his travel to having federal aviation authorities help track down
>Democratic lawmakers in Texas - Mr. DeLay recently told a Christian
>conservative group that he had met the enemy and it was "a huge
>nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in." This
>"syndicate," DeLay said, was attacking the conservative movement by
>launching vicious personal attacks against its leaders.
>
>Ah, we know we're through the looking glass when DeLay turns to the
>words of Hillary Clinton for inspiration. It was Mrs. Clinton,
>remember, who was greeted with chortles when she decried the "vast
>right-wing conspiracy" out to destroy her and then-President Bill
>Clinton.
>
>Who knows? Maybe DeLay is right. Maybe there is a secret cabal
>somewhere, right now plotting against him and the conservative
>movement. But, if it exists, at the moment it's about as successful as
>the 2004 Kerry campaign. For all the efforts of the "syndicate,"
>DeLay's targeted party controls all three branches of the federal
>government. And maybe, just perhaps, DeLay has faced a series of ethics
>complaints because he has been dancing right on the edge of House rules.
>
>President Bush hasn't been so extreme when he talks of the image
>problems he faces. There's no "syndicate" in his way, only "the filter"
>that he says the media put on the news. But the more the president
>reaches around the so-called filter and speaks at neatly packaged
>events to sell his Social Security reform plan, the more people seem to
>be tuning him out. Polls show support for his plan for private accounts
>is waning. And as he finally starts to acknowledge that the proposal
>won't solve Social Security's long-term solvency problems, it's hard to
>imagine how support will grow.
>
>What's happening in Washington is that perception and spin are starting
>to run into real life and the dissonance between them is growing more
>obvious. There simply may not be a lot of support for the GOP's agenda
>right now or its methods.
>
>The president and his party emerged from last fall's elections with an
>extremely narrow win on paper that they tried to claim as a mandate.
>They reached for big, broad goals. That's their choice, of course, but
>it's a risky strategy, particularly in the US in 2005, which is much
>like the US of 2000: divided and not much interested in radical changes
>- especially partisan ones.
>
>The nation's reaction to the media's No. 1 topic of the past several
>weeks, the fate of Terri Schiavo, may signal an awakening to reality.
>Ms. Schiavo's situation and her family's battle over her life and death
>are terribly sad. But is anyone actually surprised that people are
>upset that Congress got involved in the case? One poll showed 82
>percent of Americans - even 68 percent of evangelical Christians -
>thought Congress's action was wrong. Is it a shock that Americans, who
>hold their independence and ability to make personal decisions sacred,
>would object to Congress intervening in the case of one person?
>
>That's not to say that politicians didn't vote their conscience in
>Congress or that Mr. Bush didn't deeply believe in signing the bill
>Congress passed. What it does say is this: The ruling party is so sure
>of itself, it stepped into the middle of a family dispute, even though
>doing so put the party at odds with what it has historically stood for
>- lack of government interference.
>
>Yes, people will argue that Democrats were involved in passing the
>legislation as well, and they were. But it was GOP leadership in the
>House and Senate that brought the issue to Washington. They decided
>they didn't like the rulings that came out of the Florida courts, so
>they'd supersede those courts in this one case - as if it was somehow
>different from thousands of other dilemmas they simply ignore.
>
>There are few electoral mandates ever big enough to support that kind
>of action. And if the Republicans don't soon do a quick mental
>accounting and acknowledge they're facing a divided and skeptical
>country (as the US often is), they may find that 2006 and 2008 are
>unhappy election years. Americans love confidence in their leaders, but
>they don't like hubris.
>
>* Dante Chinni is a senior associate with the Pew Project for
>Excellence in Journalism. He writes a twice-monthly political opinion
>column for the Monitor.
>
>
>
>
>
>(c) Copyright 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
>
>Click here to email this story to a friend:
>http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/send-story?2005/0329/p09s02-codc.txt
>
>The Christian Science Monitor-- an independent daily newspaper providing
>context and clarity on national and international news, peoples and
>cultures, and social trends. Online at http://www.csmonitor.com
>
>Click here to order a free sample copy of the print edition of the
>Monitor: 
>http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/sample_issue.html
>
>
>-- ADVERTISEMENT --
>
>Sign up to have the Monitor's headlines sent directly to your inbox.
>http://www.csmonitor.com/email
>


------ End of Forwarded Message