« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
July 18, 2005
Let's give Mehlman credit.
Some of my progressive friends are encouraged that Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, apologized last week for the Party's Southern Strategy of racial polarization that has been at work since the 1960s.
In 1968, Richard Nixon's campaign used code words like "law and order" and "states' rights" to inflame the fears and anxieties of white voters in the wake of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts in the mid-1960s.
The strategy helped Nixon win the presidency by capturing southern states that had eluded GOP presidential canidates since Herbert Hoover. Every GOP presidential candidate since Nixon has employed racially polarizing symbolism. Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign promotiong states rights in Neshoba County, where three civil rights workers had been killed in 1964. Despite the recent beatification of Reagan, that tactic remains chilling in its raw appeal to racial fear.
So Mehlman, in a speech to the NAACP convention last week, said this: "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
Good for Mehlman.
And good politics for the Republicans.
There are many threats to the potential for Democrats to reclaim the presidency and Congress. One of the biggest is Democratic erosion in the black faith community. George W. Bush has appealed to African-American voters, especially pastors, with like-minded views on issues like aborition and federal funding for faith-based initiatives.
Congressman Mel Watt, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, has dismissed Mehlman's apology, saying that the actions of his boss, President Bush, have not matched Mehlman's new, conciliatory rhetoric.
It does seem as if Republicans make a run at black voters every now and then. Lee Atwater became RNC chairman after using race effectively in George Bush's 1988 victory over Michael Dukakis. After that nasty campaign, Atwater pledged to reach out to black voters. Not much happened.
I take Mehlman's apology at face value. Based on the past, I'm skeptical. But if Mehlman meant that Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes were wrong to race-bait, then let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 05:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 10, 2005
Hooray for Judith Miller, II
After my last post on the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, a friend connected with me by email and took issue with my opposition to shield laws. I secured permission to post the missive below. It's followed by my response:
MY FRIEND: Your blog on Judith Miller made me worry that you've gotten too far away from the job that launched you way back when.
I share your admiration of Miller's willingness to do to jail. But why would you be opposed to shield laws? Yes, anonymous sourcing is sometimes abused by lazy reporters. So should be cancel the First Amendment cause it also protects The National Enquirer?
I doubt a judge would have sent a lawyer or doctor or priest or psychiatrist to jail for refusing to violate a confidence. Why a journalist who is just doing her job? Whither the First Amendment if people come to believe that reporters can't or won't protect their identity -- and hence their livelihood or even their life?
Perhaps next time these people will just decide to keep mum about the corruption they see in government or in the corporation or in the labor union. Wouldn't it be a better country if we didn't HAVE to watch Judith Miller leave her family and go to jail for something hopefully I or you would or would have done?
MY RESPONSE: You make some good points, and nothing about the issue of confidentiality and shield laws is cut and dried.
I've held the same position on shield laws since I was in college and the state legislature was debating it in the wake of Watergate. Here's my rationale:
Journalists are citizens just like anyone else. No special rights and no special responsibilities. No special protections. Why?
Because then you have define what a journalist is. Am I a journalist as author of keneudy.com? If keneudy.com uncovered corruption in City Hall, based on an anonymous source, should I have a shield?
What about Matt Drudge?
Who is defined as a journalist? Only those who work for a newspaper or TV station?
Judith Miller will ENCOURAGE whistleblowers to keep whistling by demonstrating her convictions and taking her secrets to jail. Matt Cooper will not. Those unsung heroes of conscience, the anonymous sources, will continue to find a way to drop the dime on corruption.
But now let's go to another facet of this story. Should Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald have gone after the two reporters? I don't know what he knows.
But as a former reporter who once was subpoenaed by a U.S. Attorney, I can tell you I believe Fitzgerald is politically inspired. When prosecutors have to rely on mostly hearsay testimony of journalists, you can rest assured that their cases are shaky at best.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 11:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 07, 2005
Hooray for Judith Miller
So a federal judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail for failing to reveal the name of a source who had told her the identity of a CIA agent. She never even wrote a story about the revelation.
Miller has taken the position that if she reveals the name of her source, no one would ever give her information confidentially.
Many Americans believe that journalists traffic too much in unnamed sources. I do. Anonymous sources sometimes cover for lazy reporting. We've even had cases in which journalists made up stuff and attributed it to "sources who refused to be identified."
I also don't believe in shield laws giving reporters special immunity from cooperating with criminal investigations. Reporters should have no special privileges, and no special responsbilities. They should be just like anyone else. And when they use anonymous sources, they must know that they may have to go to jail to protect them.
There are cases in which confidentiality is the only way some important stories will get aired in the media. Watergate is the best example. A corrupt president may have finished out his term had it not been for the Washington Post's willingness to use anonymous sources.
This is complicated. Journalists should rely less on anonymous sources. But there are times when society's interests are best served when a whistle-blower stays in the shadows and whispers in the reporter's ear. If we must, we must watch reporters like Judith Miller leave her family and go to jail to protect that whistle-blower. I'm grateful she's willing to pay the price.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 05:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 05, 2005
The American Taliban is at it again
(Sorry I've been an infrequent writer lately. I've been on a special assignment, followed by family vacation.)
The American Taliban, however, has been hard at work in the wake of the announcement that Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring from the Supreme Court. The icons of the American Taliban, including Paul Weyrich and Phyllis Schlafley, say that George Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, doesn't pass the conservative litmus test to be appointed to the court.
Are you kidding me? This is the guy who looked at interrogation methods at Gitmo and pronounced them to his liking. He's been a friend and adviser to George W. Bush since Texas days.
Oh, the Taliban, before they came into full bloom, thought that Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 would tip the balance of the court when they appointed O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter to the bench. They were disappointed. The troika weren't conservative enough.
I was reflecting on how the right wing in America gets more and more out there. When Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Chuck Grassley and John McCain were elected nearly a generation ago, I thought they were so fringe that they would change the politics of the U.S. Senate forever. Now, they are moderating influences.
The American Taliban is now agitating for a justice guaranteed to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's the big prize. And they won't stop their threats until they get the justice who'll make abortion and everything else that they despise illegal in America.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 05:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack