Christians Who Won't Toe the Line
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, March 16, 2007; Page A21
Evangelical Protestantism in the United States is going through a New Reformation that is disentangling a great religious movement from a partisan political machine. This historic change will require liberals and conservatives alike to abandon their sometimes narrow views of who evangelicals are.
The reformers won an important victory this month when the board of the National Association of Evangelicals faced down right-wing partisans and reaffirmed its view that solving global warming was an important moral cause. In so doing, it also expressed confidence in the Rev. Rich Cizik, the NAE's vice president for governmental affairs.
Cizik, who combines opposition to abortion with a firm commitment to human rights, the poor and the environment, came under attack from a gang of ideologues who would freeze evangelicals on a political course set more than a quarter-century ago.
"This tussle over the issue of climate change is part of a bigger tussle over the definition of evangelicalism and who speaks for evangelicals," Cizik said in an interview.
Calling on evangelicals to "return to being people who are known for our love and care for our fellow human beings and the Earth," Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice."
Since 1980, white evangelical Christians have been seen primarily as a Republican voting bloc. They delivered more than three-quarters of their ballots to President Bush in the 2004 election.
That is no accident. In 1979, a group of conservative activists led by Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and Morton Blackwell, a Republican National Committee member from Virginia, went to the Rev. Jerry Falwell, urging him to organize what became the Moral Majority.
Their primary goal was not religious but political: to enlist evangelicals behind conservative Republican candidates. Blackwell candidly called evangelicals "the greatest track of virgin timber on the political landscape." The activists reaped a mighty load.
The Christian Coalition was equally political in its inspiration. Emerging from Pat Robertson's unsuccessful bid for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination, it sought to advance his influence in the party.
The political maestros can't abide any serious evangelical Christian daring to broaden the agenda beyond the limited set of issues (notably, opposition to abortion and gay rights) that keep the faithful voting Republican. Cizik was a threat, so they attacked him in a March 1 letter to the NAE board. It was signed by such conservative luminaries as Weyrich; James Dobson of Focus on the Family; Don Wildmon of the American Family Association; Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; and Gary Bauer, who ran for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination.
"Cizik and others," they said, "are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children."
Worse, they smeared Ci

Rove Joins Gonzales as a Target
Friday, Mar. 16, 2007 By MASSIMO CALABRESI/WASHINGTON
United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / A

The new e-mails showing Karl Rove's early involvement in the decision-making over the firing of U.S. attorneys are inconclusive on the central question underlying the dismissals: did President Bush or his top advisers put their own political interests ahead of the public interest? But on Capitol Hill, where ill-will toward the White House is growing by the day, lawmakers are more interested in learning who, if anyone, lied to Congress — and these e-mails will only further raise suspicions and keep investigators digging.

The e-mails show Rove was involved early on in figuring out which and how many U.S. attorneys would be fired. A Jan. 6, 2005, e-mail from one White House lawyer to another states that Rove wanted to know "how [they] planned to proceed regarding U.S. Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc."
It's impossible to tell from this e-mail what position Rove took on the issue, only that he was interested in finding out what the plan was. But it does appear to fly in the face of White House attempts to distance top Administration officials from the firings. On Tuesday press secretary Tony Snow played down Rove's involvement in the early handling of the U.S. attorney firings and told reporters traveling with Bush that Rove had "expressed disagreement" with a proposal by then White House counsel Harriet Miers around the same time to fire all 93 of them. Deputy spokesman Tony Fratto insisted the White House has not been trying to distance Rove from the matter. "Karl recalls that Harriet raised it with him and he thought it was a bad idea and said so," Fratto said. "Nothing in this e-mail that was released contradicts that in any way."
The e-mails have come as Senators are grilling the White House for other details of its involvement in the firings. In a letter sent to President Bush Wednesday, Senator Charles Schumer cited a Feb. 23, 2007, letter from the Justice Department saying that "it was not aware of anyone lobbying" for the appointment of Tim Griffin as U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Schumer then referred to a Dec. 19, 2006 e-mail by former Justice Department chief of staff Kyle Sampson saying that getting Griffin "appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." Schumer asked Bush to "explain any involvement of Karl Rove or members of his staff in the decision to request the resignation" of the U.S. attorney Griffin was to replace.
Sampson, who resigned as chief of staff Monday, is the focus of much attention on the Hill. But the person most squarely in Congress's cross hairs is Sampson's former boss, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. On Tuesday, Bush said Gonzales "has got work to do up there," pacifying lawmakers, and though some read that as a possible prelude to Gonzales' forced resignation, most Administration watchers doubt the President would ever pull the plug himself on a Texas loyalist such as the Attorney General, who has been with Bush for years.
Whether or not he would accept Gonzales' resignation is another matter, and Gonzales is in enough trouble on the Hill that he may have to proffer it. Two Republican Senators are already on record calling for him to step down. And his disfavor is far more widespread. One senior G.O.P. aide calls Gonzales, "by objective measures a crony," and says, "We want it over." Minority Whip Trent Lott thinks Gonzales should stay, but says, "It's not good and the Democrats will poke at it for all it's worth."
There are plenty of reasons for Gonzales' problems on Capitol Hill. He's considered a Texas outsider who never made an effort to build relationships there. That's fine when you're in a position of strength, says one top Senate Republican aide. But "when times get tough now, we're not there for him because he doesn't have the Capitol Hill connections."
Gonzales may also be suffering from what the aide calls "Rummy rub-off." Senators who stood up loud and clear to defend Rumsfeld before the '06 election, only to have Bush fire him immediately afterwards, have learned their lesson. Few want to take the political hit defending someone they don't like, only to see him step down in a few days or weeks.
Rove will find himself receiving further scrutiny from the Hill in coming weeks. On Tuesday, Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate judiciary committee, sent him a letter asking him to make himself available for interviews and testimony before the committee. Yesterday the committee notched up the pressure on him, making clear it intended to authorize subpoena power against him next week.

US govt recklessly blew cover: Plame


March 17, 2007 - 8:24AM

Valerie Plame, the CIA operative at the heart of a political scandal, told Congress senior officials at the White House and State Department "carelessly and recklessly" blew her cover to discredit her diplomat-husband.

Plame, whose 2003 outing triggered a federal investigation, said she always knew her identity could be discovered by foreign governments.

"It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover," she told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"If our government cannot even protect my identity, future foreign agents who might consider working with the Central Intelligence Agency and providing needed intelligence would think twice," Plame said in response to a question.

Plame sat alone at a witness table and fielded questions about her CIA career and the disclosure of her name in July 2003 in a syndicated newspaper column. She says she was outed as retaliation against her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticised the administration's pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

The hearing was the first time Plame has publicly answered questions about the case, which led to the recent perjury and obstruction-of-justice conviction of Vice-President Dick Cheney's former top aide, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Her appearance was a moment of gripping political theatre as Democrats questioned whether the Bush administration mishandled classified information by leaking her identity to reporters. No one has been charged with leaking her identity.

"It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is our job to determine what went wrong and insist on accountability," committee chairman Henry Waxman, a Democrat, said at the outset of the hearing.

The man who led the criminal investigation, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, was not on the witness list. He told lawmakers on Wednesday federal law prohibited him from offering his thoughts on the case.

Nobody from the White House involved in the leak was scheduled to testify. Neither were officials from the State Department.

"My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior officials in the White House and State Department," Plame testified. "I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained."

Plame said she had no role in sending her husband on a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger. Wilson said in a newspaper column his trip debunked the administration's pre-war intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.

Wilson has written a book and Plame has one expected out soon. They are also suing Cheney and others, claiming their constitutional rights were violated.

Waxman says he wants to know whether the White House appropriately safeguarded Plame's identity. During the Libby trial, it was revealed that many in the Bush administration knew Plame worked for the CIA but not that it was classified.

Fitzgerald never charged anyone with the leak and he told Waxman he could not discuss his thoughts on the case.

Representative Tom Davis, the ranking Republican on the committee, said as Fitzgerald didn't charge anyone with the leak, the hearings were unlikely to add any insight.

"No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified," Davis said. "This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem."

MIDTERM REVIEW PACKET

STUDY GUIDE FOR MIDTERM EXAM

Concepts to Know –

Be familiar with these terms. I will not be asking you to memorize the definitions of each and every one of these terms. As long as you know what they are, you will do fine on the exam.

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Politics
Institution
Government
Order
Liberty
Authority
Totalitarianism
Authoritarianism
Aristocracy
Theocracy
Democracy
Direct democracy
Legislature
Initiative
Referendum
Recall
Consent of the people
Legitimacy
Consent of the people
Representative democracy
University Suffrage
Majoritarianism
Elite Theory
Pluralism
Political culture
Political socialization
Equality vs liberty
Capitalism
Ideology
Liberalism
Conservatism
Socialism
Libertarianism

Chapter 2 – Constitution

Civil disobedience
Conventions
Limited government
Colonial Congresses
Declaration of Independence
Articles of Confederation
Unicameral legislature
Shay’s rebellion
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
Supremacy Doctrine
Three-Fifths Compromise
Separation of powers
Popular sovereignty
Federalist Papers
Bill of Rights


Chapter 3- Federalism

Unitary
Federal
Confederal
Centralized government
Decentralized government
Political subcultures
National consensus
Enumerated powers
Necessary and Proper clause
Inherent powers
Police power
Concurrent powers
Prohibited powers
Supremacy clause
Checks and balances
Marshall Court
McCulloch vs. Maryland
Gibbons v. Ogden
Expansion of the Federal Government
Civil War Amendments
Dual Federalism
New Deal
Cooperative Federalism
Picket-Fence Federalism
Categorical grants
Federal mandates
Jim Crow laws

Chapters 4 and 5 – Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
Civil liberties
Civil Rights
Defamation of character
Slander
Slander
Separate-but-Equal Doctrine
Grandfather clause
Poll tax
Literacy test
De Facto Segregation
De Jure Segregation
Busing
Plessy vs. Ferguson
Brown vs. Board of Education
Civil Rights Act

Chapter 6 and 7– Public Opinion, Political Socialization, Interest Groups
Consensus
Divisive Opinion
Political socialization
Peer group
Agenda setting
Generational effect
Socioeconomic status
Gender gap
Opinion poll
Sampling
Exit polls
Interest group
Lobbyist
Grassroots lobbying
Endorsement
Contributions
Political Action Committees
Bundling
Democratic corporatism
Proliferation of interest groups
Purposive incentive

Chapter 8 – Political Parties
Independent
Political party
Faction
Two-Party system
Era of Good Feelings
Democratic Party
Republican Party
National convention
Party Platform
National committee
Patronage
Divided government
Ticket splitting
Third party
Realignment
Dealignment
Party identification
Swing voters


Potential Essay Questions:

You will only have to write one essay on this midterm exam. Here are five potential essay questions. On the exam itself, you will have three choices, but will only have to choose ONE.

The Articles of Confederation was the first attempt of the Founding Fathers to establish a working democratic government. Name, and explain, three reasons why this government failed.

In most governments, the judicial branch was a weak institution with limited power to create change in government in the 19th century. Discuss the growth in power of the United States Supreme Court, and explain why it was able to become a strong member of government (cite cases).

The Civil Rights movement was a monumental event in American history that changed race relations in our country forever. Describe three landmark events, court cases, or legislation that played a pivotal role in this movement, and explain its impact on American politics.

Interest groups have multiplied by the thousands in contemporary politics. Why are there so many, and how do they exert influence on the political scene?

Many scholars argue that political parties have become weaker in recent decades. Give three reasons why this is so, and explain.