SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (1490)5/26/2003 10:06:27 PM
From: Bill Ulrich  Respond to of 793846
 
Phil Donahue tried that approach already. <g>

"Dennis Miller has absolutely no idea what's happening. None. Zip."



To: JohnM who wrote (1490)5/27/2003 12:44:56 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793846
 
Trust in the Military Heightens Among Baby Boomers' Children

By ROBIN TONER - NEW YORK TIMES

I can hear you now, John - :>)

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that war is not so bad
I learned about the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
And someday I might get my chance
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school


The topic in John Sunderdick's leadership class at Mount Hebron High School in Ellicott City, Md., was the military. The first task was word association.

"Just write down the first word that pops into your head" connected to the military, Mr. Sunderdick, 25, said.

The results would have gladdened the heart of any recruiter:

"Strong," "bravery," "proud to be an American," "service," "Bush," "really hard workouts" and "heroes."

A few students wrote negatives like "blood" and "imperialism." But by and large, the class of 18 sophomores and juniors voiced a striking degree of confidence in the military.

In fact, researchers and polling experts say, the class reflects a long-building trend that has intensified with the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and the successful military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Americans' trust and confidence in the military has soared, even as it has declined in other institutions like corporations, churches and Congress.

From 1975 to 2002, the percentage of Americans who expressed a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the people who ran organized religion fell, to 45 percent from 68. Those expressing a great deal or a lot of confidence in Congress declined, to 29 percent from 40, according to a Gallup Poll. But also in 2002, Americans who expressed a great deal or a lot of confidence in the military rose, to 79 percent from 58 in 1975.

The positive image is particularly striking among the children and grandchildren of baby boomers, said David C. King, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard and co-author of the new book "The Generation of Trust: How the U.S. Military Has Regained the Public's Confidence Since Vietnam" (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research).

Those generations have come to "trust the government, and especially the U.S. military, more deeply than their baby boomer parents ever have," Professor King said.

Neil Howe, a co-author of books about generations who has consulted with the military on recruiting, said: "The idea of nationality, being a nation, is important to people shaped by 9/11. This is a generation that knows nations really matter. They trust government."

They are also steeped in the values of cooperation, teamwork and service in the schools, Mr. Howe said, adding, "`All of these things argue in favor of trust, or support, of the military."

Opinion polls back that up. A poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics, based on interviews with 1,200 college undergraduates last month, found that 75 percent said they trusted the military "to do the right thing" either "all of the time" or "most of the time." Two-thirds of the students said they supported the Iraq war. Hawks outnumbered doves more than 2 to 1.

In contrast, in 1975, 20 percent of people ages 18 to 29 said they had a great deal of confidence in those who ran the military, a Harris Poll found.

Researchers argue that the trend in part reflects simple experience. Young people coming of age during quick and successful military actions, like the Persian Gulf war in 1991 ? "It looked and felt like a video game, and America won it decisively," Professor King said ? or the action in Iraq this year are quite likely to have very different attitudes from those who came of age during the Vietnam War.

"How the military is doing has a lot to do with it," a sophomore in Mr. Sunderdick's class, Jessi Dexheimer, 15, said. "Now that they've done so well in Iraq, people feel good about them. But people felt differently about Vietnam."

Todd Gitlin, a professor of sociology at Columbia and a scholar of the 1960's, said: "If you grew up in the 60's, the military is to some degree tainted. I won't say forever tainted. But it is tainted by its implication in the Vietnam War. And if you came of age in the last five or six years, the military looks a lot more like defense than aggression."

Professor King said his research showed that people born in 1952 reflected the lowest level of trust in the military. They were 16 in the year of the Tet offensive, the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a high water mark in the antiwar movement.

In Mr. Sunderdick's class, Vietnam seemed very distant history. Even the teacher was born after Saigon fell. Several students said they thought that the Iraq war was much more like World War II, a war with a clear rationale waged by a country intent on defending itself, reflecting the effectiveness of the Bush administration's case for going to war.

"We actually got attacked," a student, Jessica Cowman, said. "In Vietnam, it wasn't an attack on us. We got hit in World War II, at Pearl Harbor, and we got hit in New York and at the Pentagon. It wasn't like that with Vietnam."

Another student, Stephanie Isberg, said: "People are more personally affected, especially by 9/11. My uncle almost died. So I have a more positive viewpoint about going in and taking out terrorists than I probably would have if nothing had happened."

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Sunderdick said later, students in his government classes seemed far more engaged "in how things work, why we do what we do."

Another teacher, Angela Sugg, head of the social studies department at Mount Hebron, said she had noticed more students reciting the Pledge of Allegiance since Sept. 11, 2001.

"I even remember kids right after 9/11 saying, `I guess we better say it,' " Ms. Sugg said.

Peter D. Feaver, an associate professor of political science at Duke and an expert on relations between military and civilians, said the terrorist attacks brought home to Americans their "personal connection to the mission of the military."

"In the post-cold-war era," Professor Feaver said, "from when the walls fell down to when the towers fell down, Americans didn't have a lot of personal connection to the mission. It was what I called a voyeuristic connection to the military."

There are other factors. Professor King said the military had improved its performance and professionalism, symbolized by "a well-trained all-volunteer force." Added to that are years of advertising by the services and, even more important, popular culture. The dark movies about Vietnam gave way to more upbeat visions like "Top Gun" and "An Officer and a Gentleman."

Even so, the growing popularity does not, necessarily, translate into a surge in enlistments, experts say.

Spokesmen for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines said they were all hitting their recruiting goals even before the terrorist attacks and the ensuing military actions, and that they had been doing so for at least the last few years.

A spokesman for the Air Force Recruiting Service, First Lt. Jason McCree, said calls as well as visits to the Air Force Web site increased when the Iraq war began.

"As far as qualified applicants coming up to recruiters," Lieutenant McCree added, "we have not seen an increase. We've been doing really well as far as recruiting, and we've continued to do well."

In Mr. Sunderdick's class, all the students said they viewed the military positively and supported the troops; 7 of the 18 said they would consider the military as a potential career.
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (1490)5/27/2003 9:52:55 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793846
 
The Dems Who Fled - Inside Texas politics.

By David Guenthner
-David Guenthner is managing editor of The Lone Star Report, an Austin-based newsletter on Texas politics and government.

The source is NRO, John. But the author is MOR, and it is the first thing I have found that gives a good picture of what is going on.

AUSTIN, TEXAS - Politics has always been bizarre in Texas. Perhaps never more so than two weeks ago, when most of the Democrats in the Texas house fled to Ardmore, Okla., for four days to kill the congressional redistricting and some 200 other house bills.

Some background first: The Texas constitution has a two-thirds quorum requirement. Most of the time it's not an issue, but this also isn't the first time quorum has been intentionally broken to stop a controversial bill. In 1979, a group of 12 senate Democrats hid out in a West Austin garage apartment to block a bill that would have changed the date of the Texas presidential primary to benefit D-turned-R former Gov. John Connally. There have also been times when a group has walked out on the house for a few hours, but nothing on the magnitude of this most recent event.

ANATOMY OF A WALKOUT
Other news accounts in the Texas papers have focused on the logistics of how the Democrats pulled this off. I think the more telling question is why they did it. From my conversations with house members from a variety of factions, I gather there were three distinct groups with different motives coalescing around congressional redistricting and deciding to drop the legislative equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

The kamikazes: About eight to ten partisan liberals make up this group. They were key players in the last regime ? committee chairmen, appropriations members, etc. ? and at the center of every major issue. Whatever they wanted, passed. Whatever they opposed, died. Life was good for them. Then last November happened.

When Republicans won 16 seats and a solid majority in the house, the Old Regime ended. More galling still, the new speaker was Tom Craddick, the Republican primarily responsible for the regime's demise. It was clear the plum assignments would be distributed to others. Therefore ? from the moment Craddick announced sufficient support to become speaker ? the kamikazes determined to make his tenure as miserable (and, they hoped, as short) as possible.

Non-controversial matters, such as suspending the Texas constitution's regular order of business, now became the subject of floor debates. The art of slow-talking bills ("chubbing") was raised to include the introduction of dozens ? in some cases, hundreds ? of similar amendments which had no chance of passage. Last month's house budget debate ? which usually takes two to four hours ? took four days, thanks to 484 amendments which mostly involved transferring funds from a list of 16 disfavored programs to another list of 20 favored programs. Each hostile amendment was followed by a demand for a record vote. Points of order that were not called in the last couple of sessions are being raised again. And some of them have said that they were laying the groundwork for a walkout for about two months.

If the kamikazes were to lose, they wanted Republicans to win as little as possible and for Craddick to finish the session looking like the first U.S. House speaker after the Republicans took over in 1994: Newt Gingrich. Through the steady escalation of tactics over the session, so far they've accomplished both goals.

The red lights: Most of the Democrats (about 30 to 35) belong to this category. They represent safe Democratic districts and vote reliably with party leaders. These folks would object to any congressional plan that reduced the size of the Democratic delegation. However, they have also complained throughout the session about the "fundamental unfairness" of the process and the heavy-handed way the house has been run. Their efforts to amend bills have been defeated by a stable bloc of 80 to 90 votes. Some Republicans privately acknowledged that, though willing to support some amendments, they had also been directed by Craddick to toe the leadership line. One Democratic committee chairman told me that many Democrats had lost faith in their ability to influence the process, and viewed this maneuver as a "last rallying call" to prevent themselves from being completely steamrolled.

The trapped: These are about ten rural conservative members who represent swing districts. Given their druthers, they would have stayed in Austin. Most have voted with the Republicans on a number of issues this session ? including tort reform, which enraged the Democratic party's trial-lawyer sugar daddies.

There are rumors that the trial lawyers offered to absolve pro-tort-reform Democrats who went to Ardmore. If so, that gave these conscripts a choice. By staying in Austin, they would face token challenges next November but savage primaries in March. If they went to Ardmore, they would get a free pass in March but the state GOP would move heaven and earth to take them out in November ? with President Bush driving the turnout.

In the end, it probably came down to the redistricting map, in which their popular local congressmen got eviscerated and their rural areas would be attached to districts anchored in the suburbs. Their involvement put the effort over the top. But even so, these guys were watched like hawks by their colleagues to ensure they didn't bolt back to Austin.

Change either of the latter two circumstances and the walkout would not have occurred. The debates would have been long and vitriolic ? even by this session's standards ? but they would have happened, the votes would have been cast, and the Republicans would have won.

NOW AND LATER: WINNERS AND LOSERS
Over the short term, the issue appears to be helping the Democrats. Newspaper editorial boards have been critical of both Craddick and the redistricting proposal from the outset, and their pronouncements became still more withering during the walkout. The reporters are in feeding-frenzy mode over inappropriate use of law enforcement resources to track down the Democrats and the destruction of documents that would clarify who was responsible for those abuses.

The balance of power in the last few days of the regular session has shifted to the senate, where Democrats have somewhat more influence. Of the bills that died, the provisions that come back to life will do so either on senate bills or as amendments to house bills added in the senate. Additionally, the relative stability and positive public image of the senate and its leadership right now give it tremendous leverage in any conference-committee negotiations.

Longer-term, though, the walkout could work to the Republicans' advantage. The state is struggling to close a $9.9 billion budget shortfall and it will be touch-and-go whether the lawmakers can patch together enough revenue and budget savings to completely close it by next Monday. There are also sharp differences between the house and senate on medical liability, insurance regulation, and transportation.

Failure to reach agreement on any of those fronts could prompt Gov. Rick Perry to call a special session this summer, to which Perry would probably add redistricting to the agenda. This would hurt Democrats because they would have another issue to keep them in Austin, the Republicans would have time to get the redistricting process and plan right, and the Democrats would lose their biggest stopper ? the senate's two-thirds rule. In a regular session, two-thirds of the senate must agree to bring a bill to the floor, meaning that even if the Republicans all voted together, they would have to pick up at least two Democrats. In a special, that drops to a simple majority, which allows the Republicans to pass a plan even if they lose every Democrat ? and three Republicans.

Initial polling shows Texans reacting very negatively to the walkout. Add in some of the bills that died from the walkout ? tougher penalties on child pornographers, allowing students who are victims of violence to change schools, automatic expulsion of students who assault teachers, increasing the school property-tax exemption for the elderly and disabled, the creation of "Choose Life" license plates ? and all of a sudden Republican challengers to the rural Democrats have some hot-button campaign ads. With Bush atop the ticket, Republicans could bolster their majority by several seats ? and make future Democratic walkouts vastly more difficult to pull off.