Innovations in Party Whipping
Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove’s message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.
Mr. Rove is leading the White House campaign to help the GOP in November’s congressional elections. The sources said the White House has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as appearances and photo-ops with the president.
Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his blacklist. The sources said dozens of GOP members in the House and Senate are on that list.
So goes the story published on a Moon-ite news website. I note for the record the movement of supposed Republican critic Lindsey Graham, who said at the hooplah-hearings:
“The FISA statute, in a time of war, is a check and balance. But here’s where I think I’m your biggest fan. During the time of war, the administration has the inherent power, in my opinion, to surveil the enemy and to map the battlefield electronically — not just physical, but to electronically map what the enemy is up to by seizing information and putting that puzzle together.
And the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements.
. . .
So my friends on the other side, I stand by this president’s ability, inherent to being commander in chief, to find out about fifth column movements, and I don’t think you need a warrant to do that.
With the supposed Rove strategy of getting Republicans in line behind Bush’s Imperial Presidency with hardball tactics — leveraged through his control of the Republican apparatus, I now have to wonder about this:
During a commercial break while the fictional Bauer was desperately searching for canisters of deadly nerve gas that had fallen into the hands of terrorists, viewers saw an advertisement questioning the wisdom of real-life senators who would “weaken” the Patriot Act. “What if they are wrong?” the commercial asked.
It marked a blurring of Hollywood fantasy with political reality that represented a sharp departure even in the no-holds-barred world of political campaign advertising.
Moments before on the TV show, Bauer had just gained a crucial lead on the nerve gas after threatening to cut out the eyes of a turncoat White House aide in league with terrorists.
The ad, which may air again during future 24 episodes broadcast in the home states of Republican senators who have raised questions about the Patriot Act, is an unusual example of an interest group so closely meshing political persuasion and fictional entertainment.
Who is behind this ad?
The Patriot Act commercial was paid for by an ad hoc conservative group whose public supporters include many prominent former Bush administration officials and is housed at a hawkish Washington think tank, the Center for Security Policy.
Things that make you go “hm.” I state for the record that I think “24” is basically government-sanctioned propaganda for the police state… connected with that post 9/11 meeting the Bush Administration had with Hollywood producers. Which makes it a thing that makes me go “uh. huh.”
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is attempting some party whipping of her own.
Saying her own party needs to get tough on the issue of terrorism or face more election losses, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton attacked the White House and presidential adviser Karl Rove Wednesday in a speech to auto workers.
[paragraph of worthwhile domestic attack.]
The senator, who is up for re-election this year and considered a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Republicans won the last two elections on the issue of national security, adding “they’re doing it to us again.”
The GOP are trying to play “the fear card” she said, citing a speech by Rove two weeks ago in which he suggested Republicans can prevail in 2006 by showing Democrats have undermined anti-terror efforts by questioning Bush’s authority to allow wiretapping without getting court approval first.
“I take a backseat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism and standing up for national homeland security,” Clinton said, arguing Democrats should not be afraid to question President Bush’s handling of the war on terror.
Fair enough, Mrs. Clinton. “Back seat to no one”, blahde blah blah… you probably used the same language when you voted to allow the authorization for Bush to use force in Iraq. But now then… what strategies do you have, as a leader and spokesperson for the OPPOSITION PARTY, to to question and more importantly stop Bush from claiming the authority to allow wiretapping without getting court approval first? Or is this entire speech a grandstand to outhawk the hawks? I want to know the answer to these questions.