SUNDAY, APRIL 11, 2010
KLMNO
Sunday OPINION
DANA MILBANK
Conservatives come to their census
have reason to draw the Tea Party as a paper tiger.
T
At least if the Great Census Panic of 2010 is
any indication. Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and others in the Tea Party’s starting lineup have warned Americans about the evils of the census, and many activists have called for a boy- cott. This prompted fears among Republicans that they would lose seats in Congress if conser- vatives refused to be counted, and Karl Rove took to the airwaves this week to urge compli- ance. He could have saved his breath. There’s evi- dence that this Tea Party rebellion is a bust. That’s how it looks based on a Washington
Post analysis of census data. I asked The Post’s database guru, Dan Keating, to break down the census response rates so far this year and to de- termine whether Republican counties were lag- ging in their census returns. He found that, as of Thursday, counties that went for John McCain in 2008 were returning census forms at a slightly higher rate than coun- ties that went for Barack Obama: 62.4 percent to 62.0 percent. Heavily Republican counties were responding at a higher rate than heavily Democratic counties (61.0 to 58.0 percent), and moderately Republican counties were com- plying a bit more than moderately Democratic counties (64.7 percent to 64.4 percent). The proportions are roughly the same as they were in the 2000 census; if anything, Repub- lican response rates are better than last time. The Post analy- sis isn’t the last word — there’s plenty of count- ing to go, and other cultural
The numbers on who’s filling out their forms suggest that the Tea Party movement is less than it seems.
and socioeconomic factors are at play — but there’s no sign of a mass conservative boycott. There are other indications, too, that the con-
servative Tea Party movement is louder than it is big. Remember the Tea Party rally on the Cap- itol grounds the day of the House health-care vote? There was a pro-immigration rally on the Mall that day that attracted far more people. But the Tea Party got much greater attention, in part because Republican lawmakers joined the pro- test from the House balcony. In addition, most Tea Party-backed candidates have had little electoral success. As the Wall Street Journal re- ported, 18 Republican House members faced primary challenges last month in Texas, but all incumbents won easily. Post polling director Jon Cohen notes that 28 percent of Americans viewed the Tea Party movement favorably in a Wall Street Journal/ NBC poll this year (nearly half of the 28 percent said they got their TV news from Fox). But that doesn’t mean they’re all out waving yellow flags. A CNN poll found that 2 percent of Americans said they gave money to Tea Party causes and 5 percent said they attended an event. This isn’t to say Tea Party conservatives won’t be an important force this year, or that Demo- crats will have anything but a grim midterm election. But this reality may have less to do with a new conservative revolution than with old-fashioned economic concerns. Republican pollster David Winston found
that a plurality of Tea Party “members” said the economy and jobs are their top concerns, ahead of the deficit and spending issues that are the Tea Party signature. Tea Party loyalists, by two to one, favored reducing unemployment over balancing the budget. Maybe that’s why the anti-government words of the Tea Party leaders don’t show up in con- crete actions such as filling out and returning census forms. Bachmann warned that census taking could lead to “internment camps.” Fox News’s Beck warned that census’s race ques- tions were an attempt “to increase slavery.” Paul, popular in the movement despite some squabbles, said “the invasive nature of the cur- rent census raises serious questions.” At first, it appeared these voices were being heard. The Houston Chronicle reported that the Texas census response was low and cited “anti- government conservatives who may not fill out their forms to protest against ‘Big Brother.’ ” Republicans were alarmed. “Early census re- turns are showing that conservatives have been measurably less likely than liberals to return their census forms,” Rep. Patrick McHenry (N.C.). wrote on RedState.com, blaming “blatant misinformation coming from otherwise well- meaning conservatives.” McHenry gave the demagogues too much credit. On further review, the response pattern in Texas, as in the rest of the nation, looks pretty much as it did a decade ago — when Beck worked at a Tampa radio station, Bachmann was running for the Minnesota state Senate, Paul was a little-known congressman, and a tea party involved Darjeeling.
danamilbank@washpost.com
he 19th-century cartoonist Thomas Nast, who made the Republican Party an elephant and the Democratic Party a donkey, would, if he were alive today,
settlements and resumes the peace process in ear- nest may finally garner Arab support for dealing with Iran’s nuclear menace. Although pressuring Israel to restrain its settlements may be a sensible means of gaining constructive Arab participation in the peace talks, it is unlikely to affect the re- gion’s passive approach to Iran. Indeed, should Tehran perceive fissures and divisions in U.S.- Israeli alliance, it is likely to further harden its nu- clear stance. The notion that the incumbent Arab regimes are reluctant to collaborate with the United States on Iran because of the prevailing impasse in the peace process is a misreading of regional realities. The Arab states, particularly the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, have an odd policy toward Iran. In pri- vate, as any visiting American dignitary can attest, they decry Iran’s ambitions, fear its accelerating nuclear program and even hint at the advisability of using military force against its atomic installa- tions. Yet they are loath to be part of an aggressive strategy, which they would see as unduly antago- nizing the Islamic Republic. The Arab states will gladly purchase U.S. arms and enhance their de- fenses, but they would be reluctant to participate in coercing Iran. Arab leaders would prefer that someone else take care of the Iran problem with- out their active complicity. Absent such a solution,
I
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (D-PA.)
Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
In his 34 years on the Supreme Court, Justice
John Paul Stevens has been pivotal to maintaining balance on the interpretation of constitutional law as the court has moved decisively to the right. His scholarly 2004 opinion in Rasul v. Bush, tracing the development of habeas corpus since the Mag- na Carta provided the basis for the court’s land- mark 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush lim- iting the president’s detention power. His dissents
in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United rank with the
classic dissenting opinions of Justices Oliver Wen- dell Holmes and Louis Brandeis that later became the law of the land. His successor will need the intellect, skill and te-
nacity in the intimate Supreme Court conference room to stop the further expansion of the presi- dent’s executive authority as commander in chief and the erosion of congressional power to legislate under the Constitution’s commerce clause and civ- il rights amendments. He will be hard to replace, but that is what the
court needs. It is my hope that President Obama will appoint someone other than an appeals circuit judge (the other eight are sufficient); someone with diversity of experience; someone such as a senator like Hu- go Black or a governor like Earl Warren or an at- torney general like Robert H. Jackson or a presi- dent like William Howard Taft. I urge my colleagues to set aside partisanship as we look to the confirmation process.
JAMIE S. GORELICK
Deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration; partner at WilmerHale
Two considerations will be top priorities for
President Obama. The first is the impact a nomi- nee will have on the court itself. The president, a constitutional scholar, knows the importance of the intellectual depth and integrity of an individu- al justice. If he hopes to have the court reach ma- jority opinions aligned with his thinking and re- trieve the center from the court’s rightward shift, he will need a brilliant nominee who can go toe-to- toe with but also persuade conservatives on the court to adopt his or her position. In the rarefied environment of the Supreme Court, this calls for someone who is highly regarded across the legal community and academia for clarity of thought, principled decision-making, dedication and — most important — persuasive collegiality, espe- cially with those who hold different views. The second major consideration is that this con-
firmation process will take place just before the midterm elections. There will be intense media at-
TOPIC A Replacing Justice
Stevens
A link to break: Iran and Mideast peace talks
by Ray Takeyh
n the midst of the recent U.S.-Israeli tumult, a curious conventional wisdom is starting to evolve. A Washington that cajoles Israel on its
they are likely to coexist with the Iranian bomb. No degree of peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians is likely to alter that calculus. Meanwhile, the guardians of Iran’s theocracy understand their neighborhood better than the succession of U.S. emissaries who journey to the Gulf in hope of Arab solidarity. Iran’s leaders ap- preciate the limits of Arab belligerence and realize that a strong regime of economic sanctions and diplomatic confrontation will not emanate from the sheikdoms. U.S. allies will assess their own ca- pabilities and vulnerabilities, shape alliances and pursue their interests understanding that they are susceptible to Iranian influence predicated on reli- gious ties and political subversion. A policy of hedging their bets is more in line with the tradi- tions of the emirates, with their penchant for cau- tion and circumspection. If Iran dismisses threats from the Gulf states, it similarly discounts the possibility of U.S. military retaliation. Since becoming Iran’s president in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his hard-line supporters have assured their compatriots that U.S. preoccupations with Iraq and Afghanistan provide Iran with a deterrent policy. No American administration, they insist, is likely to jeopardize the fragile stability of its war-torn charges by forcefully taking on Iran’s nuclear portfolio. It is entirely possible that Iranians are once more mis- judging America’s predilections. The history of the Middle East, after all, is riddled with rulers who misapprehended Washington’s intentions. How- ever misguided they may be, Iran’s leaders comfort themselves with thoughts that their nuclear
provocations will not trigger American retribu- tion. Israel, then, looms large in Iran’s strategic calcu-
lations. Unlike the Arab states, Israel approaches Iran with resolution. And unlike the United States, Israel is not entangled in conflicts that Iranian mischief can aggravate. Hamas and Hezbollah are not only unreliable proxies but ones that Israeli ar- mor can handle. Fulminations aside, Iranian lead- ers take Israeli threats seriously and are at pains to assert their retaliatory options. It is here that the shape and tone of the U.S.-Israeli alliance matters most. Should the clerical oligarchs sense divisions in that alliance, they can assure themselves that a beleaguered Israel cannot possibly strike Iran while at odds with its superpower patron. Such perceptions cheapen Israeli deterrence and dimin- ish the potency of the West’s remaining sticks. All this is not to suggest that Washington cannot criticize Israeli policies, even publicly and force- fully. The ebbs and flows of the emerging peace process will cause disagreements and even ten- sions between the two allies. But as they plot their strategies for resuming dialogue between Israel and its neighbors, U.S. policymakers would be wise to vociferously insist that the dynamics of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will not affect Washington’s cooperation with Israel on Iran. A concerted effort to decouple the peace process from Iran’s nuclear imbroglio is the best means of declawing the Islamic Republic.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The desire to avoid a filibuster need not neces- sarily be part of the equation. It is by no means clear that it would be politically viable to sustain a filibuster against any professionally qualified Su- preme Court nominee. Unlike other, lesser ap- pointments, a Supreme Court nomination be- comes and remains the dominant national news story. The country clearly expects an up-or-down vote on the nomination. (This is partly why Judge Clarence Thomas was confirmed even though the party of the president who nominated him had only 43 senators.)
A bold choice does not necessarily mean an “ac-
tivist” choice. As a former community organizer, President Obama believes that permanent pro- gressive change best comes from achieving popu- lar political victory. What may matter most to him for the next few decades is avoiding a court that strikes down progressive legislation and arrogates to itself decisions (such as campaign finance reg- ulation) that the president believes should best be left to majoritarian political processes.
EDWARD WHELAN
President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center; former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia; contributor to National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog on judicial nominations and constitutional law
LEE HULTENG/ MCT VIA NEWSCOM
tention paid to what kind of person the president has selected. Presidents are very aware that their choices for the court reflect on them. Obama’s first nominee, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reflected well on him. Her record of achievement was im- pressive and her personal story compelling. The American people could admire and relate to her. Obama will want a nominee who demonstrates to the American people that he is principled, thoughtful and fair-minded.
WALTER DELLINGER
Head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton administration; partner at O’Melveny & Myers
There are many things a president does to get
elected. There are some things a president gets elected to do. Selecting a justice of the Supreme Court is one of the latter. Because it is a decision so deserving of the expenditure of a president’s political capital, it is a matter on which he should not compromise. I do not mean to suggest whom President Obama should choose, merely that he should choose with his heart.
At washingtonpost.com/opinions Assessments from Jonathan H. Adler and Erwin Chemerinsky.
President Obama has recently raised alarms about the supposed threat of conservative judicial activism — of Supreme Court majorities that would wrongly override democratic enactments and invent constitutional rights that advance con- servative policy ends. But the alternative that he favors is liberal judicial activism: He has commit- ted to appoint justices who will indulge their own subjective passions, their “deepest values” and “the depth and breadth of [their] empathy” in de- ciding what the Constitution means. In his comments thanking Justice Stevens for
his service on the court, Obama said that he would nominate someone who “knows that in a democ- racy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.” If the president genuinely cares about not having the voices of ordinary citizens drowned out, he would favor a third way, the path of judicial restraint. He would search for and select a nominee who would steadfastly defer to the political processes and leave in force democratic enactments unless they violate the clearly ascertained meaning of a consti- tutional provision. Of the candidates being mentioned to fill the
Stevens vacancy, the one who most clearly offers the promise of pursuing the path of judicial re- straint is Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
R
A17
OMBUDSMAN ANDREW ALEXANDER
At the Capitol, rage that merits more reporting
health-care legislation. Before the day ended, The Post and other news organizations had reported a series of incidents so ugly they were denounced by congressional leaders of both parties. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, a black Democrat
D
from Missouri, said a protester spit on him. Rep. Barney Frank, the openly gay Democrat from Mas- sachusetts, was heckled with anti-gay slurs. Two black Democrats, Reps. André Carson of Indiana and John Lewis of Georgia, said protesters sub- jected them to racial epithets. The episodes were recounted for days in Post stories and columns. Much blame was directed at Tea Party activists. But many readers, echoing conservative broad- casters and bloggers, insist the reports were exag- gerated or that the events simply never took place. Post reports were “based on no proof at all and without even offering any evidence,” District read- er Clarice Feldman charged in an e-mail. Conservative commentator and blogger An-
drew Breitbart has accused Lewis and Carson of fabricating claims of racial epithets to “create the impression that the ‘tea party’ movement is rac- ist.” He initially offered $10,000 to the United Ne- gro College Fund for video evidence of the slurs. It’s now $100,000. “They didn’t expect someone would challenge them on this,” Breitbart told me. “What idiot would challenge John Lewis,” a civil rights movement icon? “Well, I’m that idiot.” Let’s take them in order. YouTube videos show the spitting incident took place as Cleaver and other black lawmakers passed through a gantlet of rowdy protesters on
emonstrators at the Capitol were loud and angry on March 20 as they jeered House Democrats preparing to approve landmark
the steps outside the Cannon House Office Build- ing. Amid booing and chants of “kill the bill,” Cleaver is seen reacting as he passes screaming protesters. He turns, points an accusing finger and appears to chastise one, who is shouting non- stop. As he continues up the steps, Cleaver uses his hand to wipe a protester’s saliva from his face. Cleaver was hit with spit, but whether it was de-
liberate is very much in question. The video sug- gests he was unintentionally sprayed by the screaming protester. The distinction is significant because it fundamentally changes widespread me- dia characterizations of what occurred. The Post and other news organizations left the impression of a despicable, premeditated assault. With videos of the incident so prevalent on liberal and conser- vative Web sites, and with the question being so widely raised in the blogosphere and on cable channels, The Post was remiss in not providing clarity by quickly dissecting what happened. (Cleaver’s office did not return repeated calls seek- ing comment for this column.) The episode involving Barney Frank is more
clear-cut. Many readers have told me there is no evidence to support The Post’s report that Frank was subjected to anti-gay slurs. They’re wrong. An ABC News video recorded the incident inside a House office building. When ABC aired its video, the epithets were bleeped. A review of the un- altered footage, made by ABC at my request, clear- ly captures a protester shouting, “Barney, you fag- got.” Case closed.
If there is video or audio evidence of the racial slurs against Lewis and Carson, it has yet to emerge. Breitbart insists they “made it up.” If so, they’re good actors.
Roxana Tiron, a reporter for the Hill newspaper, said she was talking with a congressional staffer inside a House entrance to the Capitol when a “trembling” and “agitated” Carson said he and Lewis had just been called the N-word by protest- ers outside. “He literally grabbed me by the arm and . . . said ‘You need to come out with me,’ ” im- ploring her to step back outside to listen to the taunts. Post reporter Paul Kane was nearby and witnessed Carson’s reaction. “It was real. It was raw. It was angry. It was emotional. And he want- ed it documented,” recalled Kane, who said U.S. Capitol Police prevented them from going outside. Carson later told the Associated Press the protest- ers had chanted the N-word “15 times.” Breitbart told me the “phantom 15 words” is “beyond absurd.” Through spokesman Justin Ohlemiller, Carson stands by his assertion. The spokeswoman for Lewis, Brenda Jones, insists he and his chief of staff heard repeated uses of the N-word. They are declining interviews, she said, because they don’t want to “fan the flames of destructive language.” Breitbart’s $100,000 challenge may be publicity-seeking theater. But it’s part of wide- spread conservative claims that mainstream me- dia, including The Post, swallowed a huge fab- rication. The incidents are weeks old, but it’s worth assigning Post reporters to find the truth. After all, a civil rights legend is being called a liar. That aside, there’s serious money at stake.
ombudsman@washpost.com. For daily updates, read the Omblog at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ ombudsman-blog/.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184