NYT: Odds are Bush, Rove will succeed in making illegal spying an asset

[DeepModem Mom]

News Analysis
Delicate Dance for Bush in Depicting Spy Program as Asset
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: January 23, 2006


WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - With a campaign of high-profile national security events set for the next three days, following Karl Rove's blistering speech to Republicans on Friday, the White House has effectively declared that it views its controversial secret surveillance program not as a political liability but as an asset, a way to attack Democrats and re-establish President Bush's standing after a difficult year....

***

Americans may be willing to support extraordinary measures - perhaps extralegal ones - if they are posed in the starkest terms of protecting the nation from another calamitous attack. They are less likely to be supportive, members of both parties say, if the question is presented as a president breaking the law to spy on the nation's own citizens.

Viewed from the perspective of the battles over the Homeland Security Act or the USA Patriot Act, this White House holds a tactical edge; it has repeatedly proved highly effective in defining complicated debates against the Democratic Party. Applying the campaign lessons of simplicity and repetition, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove, his chief political adviser, have systematically presented arguments in accessible if sometimes exaggerated terms, and they have regularly returned to the theme of terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Rove's speech on Friday to the Republican National Committee was a classic example. "Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."...

***

Beyond that tactical edge, the White House enjoys the advantage of its platform. The sheer crush of news media attention to a rare public speech by Mr. Rove could not have been lost on Democrats....


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23spy.html?hp&ex=1137992400&en=59a0b56a6f522da8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Tuesday_Morning]

1. ewww!

It's the nasty Adam Nagourney again!

[AndyTiedye]

2. Is Adam Nagourney the New Judith Miller?

[TahitiNut]

20. Adam Nagourney has been on the GOP pad for years.

He's been a part of the Public Relations and Marketing cabal as long as I can remember. His crap is always full of sleazy memes.

[PretzelWarrior]

3. FUCK YOU ADAM NYGORNY! I wrote angry letter to WaPo tonight

and now it's time for me to tee off on NY Times.

THese 2 dollar crack whores masquerading as mainstream media are REALLY STARTING TO PISS ME OFF! Apparently they see the election around the corner and start acting like the women of ill repute on fleet week.

[rodeodance]

4. he is right--Rove had been behind the scenes-then out he pops like

magic for an important speech.

....Beyond that tactical edge, the White House enjoys the advantage of its platform. The sheer crush of news media attention to a rare public speech by Mr. Rove could not have been lost on Democrats....

[rodeodance]

5. I do not like what I read here---but it is true.

...Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove, his chief political adviser, have systematically presented arguments in accessible if sometimes exaggerated terms, and they have regularly returned to the theme of terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

[glitch]

6. I knew even before I clicked on the DU op link it would be Nagourney

He sees Judy's now empty perch and says, that's for me!
Gawd, how awful to be such a whore.

[Kagemusha]

7. Simple repetition but with exaggerated terms. Don't they call that the..

...Big Lie method?

[gristy]

8. By the Neocons' tortured logic, they are justified in spying on both

"terrorists" and their own political enemies. How many times have they accused the left of supporting the terrorists? Countless times. They lump them all together. And they will spy on all of them. All to make us "safer".

[jsamuel]

9. bullshit! You freaking enabler

[carolinalady]

10. Some of the senators I have heard seem to be offering him an

olive branch saying they are sure the law cam be changed to accomodate his program if would just ask. I am afraid this article might be true, and it makes me sick. If we don't impeach him for this,what can we impeach him for?

[European Socialist]

11. Will Fitz please report for duty.

[JDPriestly]

12. Judging from the reactions of the guys in my office,

this little adventure has attracted a lot of attention and cost Bush plenty.

[Silverhair]

13. Yes. Democrats have to handle this much smarter than we are doing.

I have posted several times on the danger of the Democrats acting like a bull to Rove's matador on this issue. Charging the cape and meeting the sword to the heart.

The brutal fact is that during the Civil War, WWI and WWII, Americans surrendered huge hunks of civil rights. We got them back later, but they were surrendered during the time of fear.

All Rove has to do is cast the Democrats and being wanting to tie the hands of those who would protect us, and he wins. He gets to look like a heroic decision maker, and the Democrats as naive lawyers.

We have to do more than howl about it being illegal. We have to educate the public about why it important to them personally. Given the lessons of history, I am not optimistic. They could use it to actually gain seats in 06.

[Ksec]

14. They say Security. We say Torturers

They say Weak. We say Corrupt.

They say no message. We say wrong direction.They say economy. We say Jobs and Deficits.

Never let them say something that isnt answered by our own attack.

[rodeodance]

25. security for self/family is at the bottom of this. That is why Bushies

so successful.



They say Security. We say Torturers

[bluestateguy]

15. That depends on the Democrats ability to grow a set of balls

If they make chickenshit, nuanced DLC arguments that express a "we're kind of sorta opposed to this", or "we'd just spy on people differently", then the message will get lost in the rough and tumble of politics, and yes, the Bush team will get away with it. If democrats let the corporate media types, like this Nagourney fellow, push them around into taking an accomodationist position, then yes, the Bush team will get away with it.

If Democrats act like an opposition party and oppose, then I'm confident that they can succeed. Don't worry if Brit Hume says mean things about you.

I always ask conservatives if they would trust these powers under a President Hillary Clinton, or any Democratic president. After all, their boy will not be president forever. If the war on terror is going to last for decades, as we are told, then it would seem likely that at some point there will be a Democratic president leading that war. Do they really want to entrust those powers to a Democratic president who could just as soon use the NSA to spy on a laundry list of anti-abortion groups, conservative columnists, think tanks and the NRA?

[w13rd0]

16. I reject completely their framing...

...it all boils down to: "Trust Us"

I do not. Bush and his team have demonstrated incompetence and their absolutely horrible judgement of character.

I don't care how many people are snowed into believing it's necessary. It's wrong, immoral, illegal and unamerican.

[ovidsen]

17. Nigourney is right. The GOP is winning.

It's demoralizing to see how many folks here in SC's Low Country are falling for the argument that there's a terror boogeyman now hiding under every dumpster and viaduct (with a cell phone and a collection of IUDs). A veritable HERD of brown-skinned Koran-clutching extremists bent on destroying Mom, apple pie and the Flag is just waiting to strike. And therefore it's imperative that The Government (hands up! We're here to help you.. ) be allowed, even encouraged to tap our phones, read our mail, etc.

People are more than willing to secure imagined safety and security by giving up liberty and freedom. The ol' "can't see the forest for the trees" conumndrum.

Kagemusha, you're spot on. The "Big Lie" tactic is alive and well.

[EFerrari]

18. So, spying on Americans is a political asset?

Nice logic, Adam.

Geezus, do they even HAVE editors at the NYTs any more?

[HardWorkingDem]

33. Missed some of his points....

It is an asset to the Bushies if the voting Americans believe he is spying on terrorists and ignore all the other groups and people he is spying on. Which is what it looks like could be happening.

[EFerrari]

37. Except that disabled, retired Quaker doesn't seem to be al Qaida.

This will not work for BushCo, no matter how much their media outlets try to sell it. It won't.

[HardWorkingDem]

19. Common DU'er response - attack the messenger, ignore message..

Folks, I have been watching this spying thing play out and the Dems are blowing it. Look at the wording in all of the surveys, polls and et cetera when it comes to asking if domestic spying is okay in the "war on terrorism".

Hell yes, the polls are going to give the Bush Admin the go ahead when polls are phrased that way. And this is what Nagourney simply pointed out in one of the excerpts in this link. Dems need to get the information out there who is being caught up in their spying and have some damned pollster do a few polls where the question is phrased like, "should conversations of opponents of the Bush Administration be monitored in the 'war on terror'."

Dems need to quit automatically jumping on people and start paying attention to their concepts, especially when they point out a glaring problem with Democratic politics.

Hopefully with most recent headlines being the Bushies might be spying on PETA, Greenpeace and political opponents, the Dems will be able to get some traction on this issues.

[TahitiNut]

21. Try using "eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant."

They always seem to omit that little detail - no warrant. Illegal wiretaps on American citizens - without oversight or control. There's absolutely no assurance they're not eavesdropping anyone's communications they damned well please. (You can bet it's not their corporate crime buddies, though.)

[rodeodance]

24. points taken--fighting a machine is so weary--It jsut keeps comming back

in different forms--such as this article.

[baby_mouse]

31. Then we need a machine of our own. nt

[FreedomAngel82]

27. So polls give them the right to violate the law?

I don't think so. Who gives a damn about the polls. They broke the freakin law and took away the fourth amendment.

[HardWorkingDem]

30. Hell no......but...

when someone, regardless of who that person might be, puts forth a point that is important, the message should not be missed because the messenger is not fondly looked upon.

Look at all the responses here and the energy that is being wasted by DU'ers saying how much they dislike the columnist and so forth. That is so common here. Instead of wasting time doing that, as one of the replies to my post suggested, a new poll asking should Americans be spied on without a warrant should be done.

As we all know, any majority in a poll can be reached with the simple wording of the poll and that is what the columnist was trying to get across.

[DeepModem Mom]

29. Yours is a brave post, and you make some good points, HWD. nt

[nevergiveup]

22. I know nothing of this man

but what he says is probably true. Rove is back and he is a master at playing the fear card. At work this past week people would sweat and shake when talking about the new Osama tape and most of these folks do not like Bush. The 9/11 factor is still alive and well.

[rodeodance]

23. cpan read som this article just now.

[FreedomAngel82]

26. What important democrat agrees?

John Kerry? Chuck Schumer? Hillary Clinton? Patrick Leahy? :shrug: Did he name any name's?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

28. As long as Americans believe that the spying was limited to

tapping the phone lines of people with known links to Al Qa ida, the public will give them a pass. If it is revealed conclusively and REPORTED that the spying went much farther and swept up just average Americans, then they won't get a pass. If it can ever be conclusively shown that the White House spied on their political enemies - their would be an uproar. But, it really all goes to the reportage.

The Dems have to do a better job also with keeping focused on things like the Pentagon spying on Quakers, etc. because it is all part of the same ball of wax.

[spanone]

32. Regardless : BUSH* BROKE THE LAW. PERIOD. NO SPIN.

[underpants]

35. Yeah they are going to have a hard time spinning in a court

They can spin away but the question remains

Did he break the law?

Yes or No?

[cyberpj]

34. Saying it equals supporting it (metaphysically speaking)! Stop it NYT! nt

[ProfessorGAC]

36. Methinks He Overestimates These Two

When a guy has a 36% approval rating, i believe it requires significant overestimation to suggest that they have the clout to turn criminal behavior into an asset. The opportunities to turn it back on them are far too numerous. Adam is engaging in wishful thinking.
The Professor