Initially embargoed pending negotiation of publication. More details later.

Let’s Get Real About EFCA

The United States Senate is poised to vote on S. 1041 “The Employee Free Choice Act” sometime in the next few days. Proving its bipartisan popularity, the bill cleared the House of Representatives with a large margin. Minority Whip Roy Blunt, in a pen and pad session with political reporters, warned that it would not be a free vote, and that there would be consequences for any Republican who broke ranks. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip are now making similar threats, but the bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate. The Republican opposition to this bill is ostensibly about preserving the integrity of elections, but in reality, it’s about continuing to represent the interests of their corporate donors.

To review, the most controversial part of the bill re-introduces a “card-check” procedure. What this would do is make it easier for employees seeking to form a union to get straight to the certification process. If an employee signs a document indicating that he is in favor of a union being formed, it’s counted as a vote for the union. If a majority of the employees sign, then the vote is considered to have occurred, and the union proceeds straight to the National Labor Relations Board for certification. Other provisions of the bill provide for increased penalties for employers who violate labor negotiation laws and for making mediation and arbitration easier to reach for first time contracts.

The Republicans in the House and the Senate have few problems with the latter two provisions, but the first is the one that has them rallying the troops. Card-checks make union organizing much easier. Currently, the law makes it all but impossible for employees to form a union. Employers are able to harass and punish union organizers, prohibit them from any on-site organizing activity, subject workers to incredible amounts of compulsory anti-union propaganda during work hours and fire any employee who seems to remotely think that belonging to a union might possibly be something he’d consider considering. In addition to on-site employer harassment, employees are further disadvantaged by the fact that the only times that they can meet to talk about organizing are after work and off-site. Apparently, a group of people who’ve just worked a twelve hour shift in a slaughterhouse are expected to get together for chai lattes at the local Starbucks and talk about their options and 401(k)’s.

Republicans claim that they prefer the status quo in that it preserves a secret ballot process. After all, one of the hallmarks of a democracy is that no one knows how you voted. This doesn’t quite work, though, for two primary reasons. First of all, a place of work is not identical to a society or government. Short of being tried for treason and expelled, there is no real way for the government to punish someone for politicking. It’s a lot harder to legally find someone a traitor than it is to fire him because you don’t like his thoughts. Secondly, management already works by a card-check system, and Republicans consider that to be a hallmark of corporate efficiency and a strength of the American economic system. The difference is that in the corporate world, they’re called “proxies.” Shareholders are constantly signing over their voting authority to other shareholders to create large coalitions and get things done. What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander?

Assuming that we grant their argument is in good faith, however, there are other objections that come into play. Not all votes are best left in the dark and protected by secrecy. Perhaps the legislators in question would prefer it this way, but would anyone be happy if the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate were able to conduct their votes anonymously? Would any shareholder in any corporation feel comfortable with letting board members vote anonymously? When it comes to dictating policy for the country and for the company, we demand accountability and transparency from the voters. Why shouldn’t workers be able to demand the same accountability?

In closing, it’s worth investigating a thought experiment. Let us imagine that in the 2004 election, the Democratic party were able to take all the undecided voters in the country and get to them at their place of work. Let us further imagine that all of them were forced to listen to Democratic negative ads on the Muzak and be subjected to daily viewings of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. Furthermore, the Democratic Party hired public relations firms and strategic consultants to figure out how to bully those undecideds who hadn’t been brainwashed into voting Democratic. The Republicans would only be able to approach these voters at home, after hours and on their own efforts. Any attempt to talk to them at work would result in firing and excessive hounding. Would any Republican find this fair? It’s time to put the pretense behind us and pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Notate bene this was initially embargoed pending negotiation for publication. More on the details later.

The Senator From Punjab

Apparently, the transformational politics of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) bid for President of The United States of America is changing more than who can make a viable run for the office. Of course, all changes bring other changes, and the most recent one that Obama brought is changing who the evil, all controlling bugaboo minority in American politics is. Thanks to Obama, millions of Jews in America can sleep peacefully, knowing that the new bogeymen are Indians. According to an unsigned document that Obama’s campaign released on Friday, Hillary Clinton is not the senior Democratic Senator from New York. She is, apparently, the sole Democratic Senator from Punjab.

Punjab is a state in northwest India, not a state in the northeast of the United States. The headline on the document reads, “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s Personal Financial and Political Ties.” It then goes on to list several things pulled from public documents, such as newspaper accounts and financial disclosure forms, each of which shows Bill or Hillary Clinton representing their Indian constituents, accepting campaign contributions from companies that do business in India or investing in Indian companies. The language used to describe these activities, however, would make a tabloid journalist blush. In accepting $60,000 in campaign contributions from Cisco Systems, Clinton is not taking money from a pioneering software firm that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs, created millions, if not billions, of dollars of wealth and has created the software that enables e-commerce. Instead, Senator Clinton is cozying up with a group of robber barons who “laid off American workers to hire Indian techies.”

The rest of the document reads similarly, and takes the next step into conspiracy theory paranoia by creating a nefarious cast of characters, including respected hotelier and Democratic activist Sant Singh Satwal. Satwal is an immigrant who has built an empire of hotels, a living example of the American dream. He is also from Punjab.

Let us review the number of economic and political fallacies in this document. Initially, New York City has the greatest number of Indian immigrant families in the country. Senator Clinton is doing her job by advocating for her constituency. Moreover, trade with India helps bring a valuable ally in the global war on terror closer to the United States. We have been dealing with Islamist terrorists for perhaps twenty years. India has been dealing with them since before a group of Puritans set out on the Mayflower. On the economic level, trade with India helps reduce costs of business, making products cheaper and more available to more people. More Americans are able to consume products that were once playthings of the rich, and more Americans are able to use cheaper costs as a springboard to starting and expanding their own businesses. Global free trade has been the single most empowering force for Americans and their trading partners alike. Economies are not zero-sum: we all do better when we all do better.

However, this has never been about good governance nor has it been about economics. Over the last ten years, as the economy has become more globally integrated and Jews have become more accepted in society, the new bogeyman has become the Indian. Whether it’s people grumbling about telemarketing centers, manufactured goods, skilled artisans and executives coming to America, the Indian is the latest person to occupy the role of “foreigner who threatens American workers and has no loyalty to America.” One could very well expect that the next document will mention the “Hindu Occupied Government” or accusations that Indian-Americans are more loyal to India than they are to America.

The sad thing is that to date, Obama truly has run a transformational campaign. He has reached out to traditional Democratic constituencies, but has done so in a manner not seen since, well, Bill Clinton. He has offered up idea after idea, and has spoken inconvenient truths to both Democratic and Republican groups. Instead of continuing in his twenty-first century campaign, however, Obama has chosen to go back to nineteenth century Know Nothing politics. And just as the Know Nothings were happy to accept the cheap labor of Irish immigrants, so too is Barack Obama happy to accept the money and support of the incredible South Asians for the Obama movement.

Following the public outcry and disgust for his tactic, Senator Obama made what political observers call a “non-apology apology.” He said, “I thought it was stupid and caustic and not only didn't reflect my view of the complicated issue of outsourcing.” Senator Obama would be well advised to go back and read the document that his campaign is issuing on his behalf. It’s not about trade and economic dynamism. The document stops just short of constructing a hulking, decadent “Beast From The East” coming to The West to steal and corrupt. (Imagine the Persians from 300, only answering telephones and writing computer code.) If it were just about economics, the document wouldn’t have had the desired salacious effect. After all, who gets worked up about policy details and numbers? For someone who’s seemingly running on the politics of unity and hope, Senator Obama’s latest jab against the thousands of Indian-Americans is nothing more than the same, tired old politics of division and fear.

Dheeraj Chand is a political analyst in Washington, D.C. He maintains a website and blog at http://www.dheerajchand.com . He has family ties to Punjab, a state in northwest India.

Printed in The Dothan Eagle , 31 May, 2007.

Immigration Backlash is About Race
Dheeraj Chand

Not too long ago, the Republican Party was still able to attract immigrants. High skilled, low skilled, educated, uneducated – it didn’t matter. The Grand Old Party’s tent was big enough to attract immigrants of every stripe. Lowly educated workers were courted with social conservatism. Highly educated workers were courted by standing up to unions that wanted to keep immigrants away from “American” jobs. Those days are over. Now, the anti-immigration Republican base’s opposition to the Senate’s immigration legislation is so strong that Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), a one time sponsor of similar legislation, has run away from the bill. The ostensible reasons for the opposition are so flimsy that it is impossible to believe that the opposition is about anything except race.

The biggest anti-immigrant argument is the one that they lead with: they broke our laws. It is hard to believe that argument from the same base that celebrates violations of the law perpetrated by abortion-clinic bombers and a president who illegally sold arms to Iran. The objection is not so much to law-breaking as it is to breaking a law the base happens to like. If they were serious about enforcement of the laws, they would actively fund and support the enforcement of the employer sanctions that are already on the books. It’s the same principle that undergirds the drug war: go after the suppliers and the consumers.

The base says: “They don’t speak English.” Well, historically, few immigrants do. Social and market pressures give them a strong incentive to learn, and, more importantly, their children learn, and quickly. These market forces are more powerful than ever. In this era of globalization and light-speed communication, it’s hard to imagine a high-level corporate board meeting simultaneously taking place in Hindi, Spanish, Cantonese, German, English and Swahili. Surely the GOP base, market-fundamentalists when it comes to cutting taxes and rolling back regulation, should be able to understand how this works.

The base says: “They wind up living in their own communities and don’t interact with society.” There is some truth to this, but it’s nothing new. This has been the history of immigrant communities all through our time as America. They arrive en masse, seek out or create communities, develop their own social services and institutions, and within five generations, integrate. The irony here is that the GOP base is adamantly opposed to government-provided social safety nets, suggesting community-based charitable organizations should fill that role. Yet, when immigrant communities do precisely this, they use it as a pretext for an immigration crackdown.

The base says: “They drive down wages and take jobs that Americans could do.” Once again, this is somewhat true, and it’s nothing new. Driving down the cost of labour means that businesses are able to offer their products and services for lower prices. In turn, this allows more people than ever to have access to things that were once playthings for the rich. It also allows more people to make their hard earned dollars go further. As far as doing jobs that Americans could do, the simple fact of the matter is that they weren’t and they aren’t. There would not be job openings if Americans were already doing those jobs. Americans have chosen to price their labour outside of what the market will bear, and as such, you’re seeing the markets react. Moreover, these immigrants start new businesses and create new jobs, growing and enriching our economy. The same Republican base who trump free markets when opposing labor unions seem to have forgotten their principles when it comes to dealing with immigration.

Of course, the base, as powerful as it is, does not define the Republican Party as a whole. President Bush has taken a comprehensive approach to this issue since before running for Governor of Texas. Governor Jeb Bush has, too. Senators John McCain, Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), all Republican heavyweights, are on the pro-immigration of this issue, as well. Of course, the animus between them and the party’s rank-and-file members is so strong that Senator McCain told Senator Cornyn (R-Texas) to do something rather foul to himself.

If their public arguments are pretexts, what is this really all about? The Republican base is never up in arms about Italian-American, Irish-American, or Jewish communities. Each is a case of immigrants who arrived here, settled in their own communities and integrated over time, enriching our polity and culture. In my home state of Texas, ground-zero for the base backlash, the base take pride in the once large Texas German community. Why, then, is the base so terrified of Asian and Hispanic immigrants? To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, we’ve eliminated the impossible, so whatever’s left must be true: it’s about race. The party that began to oppose racism in this country and helped deliver the votes for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act is now beset with a civil war over race based immigration. How sad.

If the party of Abraham Lincoln, Fiorello LaGuardia, and Everett Dirksen remains captive to Trent Lott, Tom Tancredo, Jeff Sessions, and other knee-jerk nativists, demographic change may doom the Grand Old Party to join its forerunner, The Whigs, in the political graveyard. It is time for the Republicans to reclaim their birthright and embrace the principles that allowed them to rise: free movement of capital, free movement of ideas, free movement of labor, and opposition to racism.

Dheeraj Chand is a political reporter in Washington, D.C. He maintains a website at http://www.dheerajchand.com

Since the mid-term elections last November, we’ve heard a lot about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. We’ve heard about her fights with Ellen Tauscher and Jane Harman; her Armani suits, her hemlines, her pearl necklaces and her makeup; and we’ve heard about who she likes, who she doesn’t, and where her grudges lie. We’ve heard nearly everything about her except who she’s going to the prom with. And now, with her historic trip to Syria, we’re treated to endless debates about whether or not she should have worn a head scarf. If one didn’t know any better, he could reasonably assume that he was reading high school newspaper articles about the Mean Girl in Chief, rather than political coverage of the Speaker of The House.

How many political reporters know what brand and color of suits former Speaker Dennis Hastert wore? How many articles did we see about whether or not he wore too much jewelry, or his shirts were too clingy? Did anyone describe what kind of shoes Newt Gingrich wore, or which Congressmen he wouldn’t sit with at lunch? Do we know whom Tom Reynolds passed notes with in the Caucus Meetings? Why is this sort of thing considered hard news when it comes to Speaker Pelosi?

The picture we get from the reporting on Speaker Pelosi is not one of a strong-minded, politically savvy, grown-up leader who led her party from the minority to the majority. We’re not shown a leader who makes tough decisions about how to manage a fractious caucus that reflects the various viewpoints of America. Instead, we’re given a picture of a middle school girl stamping her feet, picking boys she likes and fighting with other middle school girls about who has the better shoes.

This kind of reporting on women leaders only serves to undercut their credibility. By focusing on trivial matters like clothing and makeup, it prevents us from taking their ideas and actions seriously. It also reinforces the bankrupt idea that the most salient feature of a woman is her appearance. When every mention of a woman’s ideas is buttressed by coverage of her clothing and looks, we reinforce the idea that the primary purpose of a woman is to be looked at, and then afterwards, we listen to her. In fact, given the kind of reporting we’ve seen on Speaker Pelosi, one could very well walk away with the idea that a female leader’s choices of Armani are more important than her choices of legislation.

No one expects reporters to use their voices to support the Speaker’s agenda, but it would be nice to see reporters treat her as the Speaker of The House, and not a movie starlet. Perhaps we can see more stories about why Speaker Pelosi had to go to Syria, and fewer stories about whether or not her headscarf matched her heels.

In the leadup to yesterday's vote on The Employee Free Choice Act, America was able to see first hand the resonance of of the role of organised labour in the modern economy. While the regular partisans of opinion journalism lined up behind predictable lines, straight news coverage of this bill was almost non-existent. In fact, reading coverage of the bill could pretty much reveal the editorial views of the bureau in question. To be as clear as possible, here is what the bill does:

• reinstates a "card check" procedure for voting on a union,
• provides for third-party mediation and arbitration for first time union contracts and
• makes the penalties for violations for NLRB sufficiently punitive to deter violations

As always, there are the real reasons that people oppose and support this bill, and the stated. The right wing, when they are being honest, will admit that the problem with this bill is primarily that it makes it easier for unions to come into being, expand and organise, and that they believe unions to be an objectively bad thing. Such is the position of Republicans like Phil Kerpen, Policy Director at Americans for Prosperity. Numerous Republicans, speaking off the record, have confirmed that this is their primary objection to the legislation. Similarly, no Democrat will deny that passing this legislation will ensure the gratitude of organised labour, a vital part of the Democratic coalition, and a partner whose numbers have been in sharp decline over the last several years. Passing this legislation will ensure the gratitude of blue collar workers, a swing demographic in this country and one whose defection relegated the Democrats vulnerable for years, for election cycles to come. These are the real reasons why partisans on both sides like the bill.

What is publicly argued, though, is quite different. Even Kerpen, normally a blunt and honest proponent of his beliefs, is unable to refrain from diversionary argument. In his 23 February, 2007, NRO column, Kerpen writes that his primary concern is that the legislation would demolish secret ballot processes and force workers into coercion and intimidation scenarios where burly thugs terrorise them at their homes to vote along with the boss. For any of us familiar with American history, it's easy to imagine. Visions of The Union League Club's machine politics come to mind.

It is, unfortunately for Kerpen, in no way based in fact, but let us ignore that for a minute. Prominently missing from his analysis of the situation is the fact that this very system of public voting already exists in the corporate world. Currently, shareholders are able to tracked down and pressured into signing proxies for voting by larger shareholders. In fact, it is quite probable that Kerpen would come out strongly in favour of this, as it allows for smaller stakeholders to easily communicate and entrust their staes to larger, more experienced stakeholders with more to lose. He would also probably laud it as a means to streamline internal communications and allows the company to move more quickly and responsively. Of course, he could always be consistent by next authoring an op-ed arguing that proxies disempower smaller stakeholders by allowing larger stakeholders to bully them and make their voices meaningless in a plurality and majority rule environment, but that is not likely.

As former Secretary of Labour Robert Reich argues, the workplace is not analogous to a democracy. In a democracy and government, only under very rare conditions can participation be ceased. The workplace, however, is an entirely different circumstance. The simple fact that people can quit or be fired changes the whole set of power relationships, and requires that people be given a straight up or down vote.

One of the most annoying trends in political reporting is the pervasive idea that the Democratic Party is in shambles, is unable to connect to a significant base of people, has to desperately scramble to get votes by trickery, exhortation, hyperbolic appeals to factions in society who don't share the values or beliefs of the American mainstream and that if they win elections, it's due to Republican incompetence. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is a well oiled machine, a juggernaut that rolls through the figurative streets unimpeded and destroying anything that may get in its way. Their votes are won by deliberate, careful consideration of several factors, and their voters are brought to the polls by disciplined and dedicated volunteers who inspire patriotic zeal in the American populace. Anyone who thinks that there is some kind of systemic bias in favour of the Democrats in the media should bother reading a newspaper some time, or watching a television, and seeing just how many "Dems In Disarray!" stories there really are. Even in light of the November elections, a resounding defeat for the Republican Party, and in light of the largely sucessful Democratic administration of the House of Representatives and Senate, the starting point of almost all political horserace coverage is that the Democrats, by virtue of being Democrats, are at a structural disadvantage and that the Republicans, by virtue of being Republicans, will shortly resume their natural places as the rulers of the playground. To put it bluntly, it's as if political reporters imagine elections to be a single shot contest, and that the Democrats are a handicapped chimpanzee, while the Republicans are Michael Jordan. Sure, it's possible that Jordan will miss once, and that the chimp is going to make a shot, but don't bet your retirement on it.

It is in light of years of consuming this kind of political reporting that I find this article by Bill Scher to be particularly refreshing. For once, the script has been flipped, and now it's Republicans who have to explain why it is that they do so badly amongst certain demographics. Scher is trying to make a serious point, and in doing so, has illustrated a systemic failure of political reporting. Just about anyoen with access to a newspaper or the internet since 2004 has heard about the "God Gap" between the two parties. To riff from Scher, how about we hear about what we can jokingly call the "Secular Separation" between the Democrats and the Republicans? Amongst people who don't frequent their places of worship more than once a week, the Republicans have been bleeding votes for years now. If we take the spokesmen of their largest coalition partner at their word, this country continues to slide into irreligious sin. Does this mean that ceteris paribus, the GOP are doomed to electoral irrelevance? Perhaps it won't be long before we see J.C. Watts on Fox News describing what tactics the GOP will be using to appeal to the all important "Secular Citizen."

Originally appearing at Talk Radio News Service

The White House Gaggle 19 January, 2007

By Dheeraj Chand

President’s Schedule

President Bush had his usual meetings and briefings, and will continue to do so through the day. The President will record his radio address today. The topic is health care, and we can expect to see previews of some of the policy initiatives from the State of the Union. At 1.20 p.m., the President will be giving an interview to David Jackson of USA Today. He is leaving for Camp David on Saturday morning. Secretaries Gates and Rice will be joining him there, but are not traveling with him.

The Week Ahead

Monday: The President will make his annual call to the participants in the "March for Life". He will make this call from Camp David. He will then return to the White House.

Tuesday: The President will address Congress for the annual State of the Union speech.

Wednesday and Thursday are still to be determined.

Friday: The President will deliver remarks to the House Republican Conference at 12.15 p.m.

Saturday: The President will attend the annual Alfalfa Club dinner.

The State of the Union

Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino spent quite a bit of time talking about the State of the Union address. She was emphatic about the global, positive vision that the President intended to set out about Iraq and other policy issues. He intends to discuss his surge strategy during the address, but in global terms, as part of the larger war on terror, and will most likely not use the address as a forum from which to rebut specific arguments against his strategy. Perino said that she didn’t expect that the weekend meetings with Secretaries Gates and Rice would affect the content or substance of the address.

Iraq

Perino had not heard about Talebani’s remarks that he would be willing to come to an understanding with Iran, and had no comment.

Chinese Anti-Satellite Weapon

The White House has conveyed its displeasure and concern to the Chinese government through diplomatic channels but has not yet heard back. Japan and Australia have also expressed concern. This is in response to the successful test of the satellite disabling weapon that the Chinese have been attempting to develop for almost thirty years.

Originally appearing at Talk Radio News Service

White House Gaggle 18 January, 2007

By Dheeraj Chand

President’s Schedule

President Bush had his usual morning meetings and briefings this morning.
Throughout the day, he will be giving interviews with different regional
media outlets. The President is headed to Camp David on Saturday, coming back to D.C. on Monday.

The Regional Media Interviews

Press Secretary Snow was asked which regional media outlets would be given
interviews. He responded that the major ones were Tribune, Cox, Sinclair
and others. He did not clarify the length of the interviews or the subject matter.

Maliki’s Statements on U.S. Funding

Asked about Maliki’s comments to the press that the United States
government didn’t give enough money to Iraqi troops for guns, bullets and
other supplies to accomplish their tactical objectives, Snow disputed that
characterization of the remark, saying that it was one comment taken in
isolation. Both Prime Minster Maliki and President Bush are very serious about a secure Iraq, Snow continued.

Hussein Hanging

Press Secretary Snow said that President Bush was not insulting the
government of Iraq during his interview with Jim Lehrer, and that the
disagreement over the hanging of Saddam Hussein was just a disagreement
between sovereign governments.

Agenda for the Weekend

Snow said that the agenda item for now is continuing work on the State of
The Union.

President’s New Strategy

Asked whether or not the White House regards Iraqi P.M. Maliki is fully on
board with the President’s new strategy, Snow enthusiastically responded,
"Oh, yeah!" He then said that the situation in front of us is that a
foreign head of state wants to take responsibility for political,
diplomatic and security issues of his state, just like any other leader.
They’re moving ahead as we speak, making progress towards critical
legislation like the hydrocarbon law, de-Baathification, etc.

Republican National Committee

Asked again about the RNC meetings taking place, and the anger of Sunbelt
and southern border states with the appointment of Sen. Mel Martinez, Snow
retorted that he is certain that the RNC is going to ratify Martinez and
Duncan. He responded to the specific complaints about Martinez, that he
is perceived as being pro-immigration, by saying that the President is
aware the that the GOP functions as any political party does, with
agreement and disagreement, and will move forward with great leadership.

Senate Activity

Snow said that the White House does not yet have a statement of
administrative policy on the Senate Finance passed small business tax
cuts.

Responding to questions about the veto threat on the energy bill because
of tax increases and spending cuts, Snow said that the President
doesn’t care for tax hikes. One of the great miracles of modern times, the
robust economy in light of historically unprecedented shocks, is largely
due to strategic tax cuts, and as a general policy, this administration
doesn’t care for tax cuts.

Originally appearing at Talk Radio News Service

White House Gaggle 17 January, 2007

By Dheeraj Chand

President’s Schedule

President Bush had his usual meetings and briefings, and will continue to do so through the day. The President went to the National Institute of Health labs today in Bethesda, Maryland, to attend a roundtable discussion on cancer prevention. In attendance were also Secretary Leavitt from the Department of Health and Human Services and several prominent oncologists. At 1.15 p.m., the President is meeting with a group of Republican legislators to discuss Iraq.

President Bush’s Recent Interviews

Asked about why the subject of Iran has not come up in any of the President’s recent interviews, and whether or not this was the result of a White House ban on the topic, Press Secretary Snow categorically stated that this was not the case. He said, tongue in cheek, that the White House would never dare dictate to Jim Lehrer or CBS News what they may or may not ask.

Sentiment on Iraq

Snow was asked whether it is the case that the President agrees that he and his advisors messed up when he says that he agrees with public sentiment that things are not going well in Iraq. He responded that the President agrees that the Baghdad security plan didn’t work as planned and that it is time to try new things in order to secure a free, stable and democratic Iraq that will be a valuable ally in the global war on terror.

Maliki Government Relations

Snow said that he is unsure of the last time that there was any diplomatic communication between the United States and the Maliki government, and that he’d imagine that it went through the normal diplomatic channels.

The Cancer Roundtable

Snow said that as a survivor of cancer himself, he is very moved by the President’s commitment to this issue, and that the reason that President Bush is focusing on this issue today is that there has been a lot of progress in the field and that it’s important to focus on programs that are doing well. He would not comment on funding priorities or the impending State of the Union, but he did say that the President is hopeful that the combined efforts of public and private sector actors would help the lives of the American people.

Oppositional Congress

Snow backed away from as many questions about the non-binding "Sense of the Senate" resolution as possible. He reiterated that Congress should ask itself what message it is sending with such a resolution. Then, when asked what he thinks that an appropriate role for Congress would be, if passing resolutions of disagreement is seemingly inappropriate. Snow responded that as far as passing resolutions goes, they’re free to do what they wish, but that they should be mindful of the message. Each branch of government has different responsibilities, and the courts have been very consistent in ensuring that executive power remains with the executive branch.
Snow clarified that the concerns that Congress should be mindful of are the following: First, the U.S commitment to success and peace for Iraq, second; that those who commit acts of violence in Iraq are mindful of our commitment, and third, that our international allies know that we remain committed to these goals. He said that he couldn’t comment on threats to cut off funding, as those bills don’t yet exist.

Israel/Syria

Press Secretary Snow had no comment for the second day in a row on the Ha’Aretz story claiming that the United States squashed an agreement of understanding between the governments of Syria and Israel.

War Protests

Responding to the protests of active-duty soldiers on Capitol Hill yesterday, Snow said that he understands that all wars are unpopular with some people, but that one could sense the overwhelming support of the armed forces by the high re-enlistment numbers and the thousands of people joining up for their first tours.

Originally appearing at Talk Radio News Service

White House Gaggle 5 January, 2007

By Dheeraj Chand

President’s Schedule

The President had his regular morning briefings, and will have his regular
meetings throughout the course of the day. He will record the radio

address this week on the subject of the budget. He will also continue his
congressional outreach meetings during the day.

Personnel Changes

Asked whether or not the personnel changes reflected the President’s
opinions on how the war in Iraq has proceeded and his opinions on the
prior staff’s competence, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow replied that there are no
implications and no one should make any inferences about President Bush’s
pleasure or displeasure. They have needed a Deputy at the Department of State,
but they were more concerned with finding the right person than they were
with merely filling the slot. Snow went on to discuss the
qualifications of Admiral McConnell, citing his experience, creativity,
intelligence, management capacity and his extensive contacts and good
relations with the intelligence community. Asked whether or not the
personnel changes in the intelligence, diplomatic and military are part of
President Bush’s Iraq policy-making process, Snow reminded the
press that he was not going to comment on the nominations and appointments
until after the President had announced them. He did, however, discuss
John Negroponte’s vast diplomatic experience. He also clarified that
Harriet Miers was not fired, and that she had resigned.

Meetings with Congress

Press Secretary Snow opted not to name which Representatives and Senators would
be meeting with the President over the course of the day, although he did
say that these meetings would continue over the weekend. He also declined
to comment on what the President and legislators would be discussing.

Relationship with an Opposition Congress

When asked what kind of bills the President would veto, Snow
replied that it would be irresponsible and dangerous for him to threaten a
veto on bills that haven’t been filed, yet, and tantamount to tossing a
gauntlet to Congress.