archived: 12 - 18 Feb, 2006         Back                 Next

                        SAME ‘OL SONG 

The four early February polls in February peg Bush’s approval ratings at virtually the same marks he received in January.  The following signifies two important points for Democrats.  First, Bush SOTU address did not improve his overall approval ratings.  Second, the average spread between those who approve and disapprove of Bush’s performance clearly remains in above 10% and has been above that threshold for six months.     

            A SLENDER REID  

Many rank and file Democrats are openly challenging Sen. Minority Leader Reid and other Senate Democrats who have reached an accord with Bush and the Republicans to renew the Patriot Act.  The New York Times makes the case that the “modifications” to the Patriot Act that some Senate Democrats are agreeing to simply do not address the major problems: 

The Patriot Act has been one of the few issues on which Congress has shown backbone lately. Last year, it refused to renew expiring parts of the act until greater civil liberties protections were added. But key members of the Senate have now caved, agreeing to renew these provisions in exchange for only minimal improvements. At a time when the public is growing increasingly concerned about the lawlessness of the Bush administration's domestic spying, the Senate should insist that any reauthorization agreement do more to protect Americans against improper secret searches.

When the Patriot Act was passed after Sept. 11, 2001, Congress made some of its most far-reaching provisions temporary so it would be able to reconsider them later on. Those provisions were set to expire last December, but Congress agreed to a very short extension so greater civil liberties protections could be added. This week, four key Republican senators — later backed by two Democrats — said that they had agreed to a deal with the White House. It is one that does little to protect Americans from government invasions of their privacy.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Patriot Act is the "gag order" imposed by Section 215, which prohibits anyone holding financial, medical and other private records of ordinary Americans from saying anything when the government issues a subpoena for those records. That means that a person whose records are being taken, and whose privacy is being invaded, has no way to know about the subpoena and no way to challenge it.

Rather than removing this gag order, the deal keeps it in place for a full year — too long for Americans to wait to learn that the government is spying on them. Even after a year, someone holding such records would have to meet an exceedingly high standard to get the gag order lifted. It is not clear that this change has much value at all.

The compromise also fails to address another problem with Section 215: it lets the government go on fishing expeditions, spying on Americans with no connection to terrorism or foreign powers. The act should require the government, in order to get a subpoena, to show that there is a connection between the information it is seeking and a terrorist or a spy.

But the deal would allow subpoenas in instances when there are reasonable grounds for simply believing that information is relevant to a terrorism investigation. That is an extremely low bar.

One of the most well-publicized objections to the Patriot Act is the fact that it allows the government to issue national security letters, an extremely broad investigative tool, to libraries, forcing them to turn over their patrons' Internet records. The wording of the compromise is unclear. If it actually says that national security letters cannot be used to get Internet records from libraries, that would be an improvement, but it is not clear that it does.

In late December, it looked as if there was bipartisan interest in the Senate for changing the worst Patriot Act provisions and standing up for Americans' privacy rights. Now the hope of making the needed improvements has faded considerably. 

Sen. Minority Leader Reid is one of the two Democrats who have abandoned the fight to ensure reasonable safe guards of constitutional democracy. 

The question is why would the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate abandon the fight?   

One part of the answer is that Sen. Reid is from Nevada, a State that trends Republican.  Sen. Reid’s ability to lead opposition against the radical Republicans is constrained by his need to garner some support of Republicans in his home state.   

TPJ, “A PREVIEW,” recently noted that the National Republican Committee ran advertisements in Nevada attacking Sen. Reid for his opposition to the Patriot Act.  A copy of the ads attacking Sen. Minority Leader Reid can be found at the link indicated.

The DNC has responded with an ad that attacks Bush on various policy failures, except the war on terrorism.  The DNC campaign is: 

discrediting President Bush's oft-repeated mantra: "We make a pledge. We keep our word."

The ad points out that 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since Bush became president, the federal budget deficit now stands at $337 billion and the "No Child Left Behind" Act remains underfunded. President Bush's image is prominently featured throughout the spot -- perhaps a hint of advertising to come for Democrats both nationally and locally.

Karen Finney, a DNC spokeswoman, said her committee's ad is a sign that Democrats won't let RNC allegations go unanswered. "We are here to fight," she said.   

By not directly countering the Republicans on the issue of the Patriot Act, the DNC left Sen. Reid exposed.  The Republican strategy has prevailed. 

Sen. Reid’s ability to lead Democrats also came to light during Justice Alito’s confirmation hearings.  Sen. Reid was unable or unwilling to lead a filibuster.  That duty ultimately fell upon the shoulders of Sens. Kerry and Kennedy, both from safe Democratic seats in Massachusetts.   

Democrats faced similar problems when Sen. Tom Daschle was leader of the Democrats in the Senate.  As the Senator from North Dakota, a Republican leaning State, Sen. Daschle had to temper his opposition to Bush administration policies in order to attract sufficient Republican support to gain reelection.  In the end, the strategy of appeasement failed Sen. Daschle.  The strategy may not serve Sen. Reid well.

Sen. Reid’s dilemma does not well serve the Democratic Party.  His inability to lead on critical issues of opposition is hindering the ability to the Democratic Party to fashion a much needed national image.    Democracy Corps recently asked the question of whether the respondent “Knows what they [Republicans or Democrats] stand for.”  The response should shock every Democrat as Republicans are seen as knowing what they stand for by a +21% margin over Democrats.

In the Democracy Corps polling, Democrats have positive comparative standing with the American public on every other concept polled except on terrorism and keeping Americans safe.   Democracy Corps found:

Karl Rove has played Sen. Reid’s political vulnerability in to a winning strategy. 

If Democrats wonder why our Party has not developed an effective opposition to the radical Republicans, we must first ask if our Party can be effectively led by such a “slender Reid.” 

NEXT- MICHAEL CARMICHAEL

Last Update: 03/23/2006