Michael Smerconish 2013-05-23T07:42:36-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=michael-smerconish Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Michael Smerconish Good old fashioned elbow grease. Polarization in 4 Steps tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2470717 2013-01-14T07:51:41-05:00 2013-03-16T05:12:02-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
In a word, it's polarization -- the complete inability of our elected officials to work together for our general welfare. The deeper question is where does polarization originate and what perpetuates it at a time when constituents want Congress to compromise? (More than three-fifths of Americans -- 61 percent -- said they'd rather a politician seek compromise solutions than strictly adhere to principles, according to a Colby College-Survey USA study released last month.)

Solving the problem is more difficult than explaining its momentum, which I think I can do in four steps.

First, New York Times statistician and blogger Nate Silver had a partial explanation in a recent "FiveThirtyEight" blog post. Silver noted that, in 1992, there were 103 members of the House of Representatives elected out of swing districts (which he defined as districts in which the presidential vote was within 5 percentage points of the national tally). But today, Silver calculates that number is just 35. That means that 400 of 435 races are virtually predetermined by party affiliation. At the same time that competitive districts have diminished, landslide districts -- defined as those in which the presidential margin diverged from the national outcome by 20 or more points -- have roughly doubled. So, more and more members of Congress are being elected from hyperpartisan districts and therefore face no backlash from their constituents when they are unwilling to compromise.

Second, there is the effect of closed primaries. When those hyperpartisan districts are in states with closed primaries -- nominating contests open to only party members -- the most reliable voters in low-turnout elections tend to be those who are ideologically driven. For whom do they vote? The most conservative or most liberal candidates, whose ultimate election in November becomes virtually guaranteed once they clear the primary because the opposition party is outnumbered on Election Day. Combine hyperpartisan districts and closed primaries and you have the backdrop for an enormous ideological divide. Consider that, for the last three decades, the National Journal has sought to categorize the ideological leanings of every member of the House and Senate.

According to the National Journal, Congress was more polarized in 2010 and 2011 than at almost any other point in the last 30 years, with every Democratic senator compiling a voting record more liberal than every Republican (and vice versa). The House was similarly divided. But it hasn't always been like this. In the early 1980s, on Ronald Reagan's watch, the National Journal calculates, roughly 60 percent of the Senate was composed of moderates.

Third, there is the effect of a polarized media, itself a creation in the last three decades. This is where those ideologically driven voters who dictate the nomination process in hyperpartisan districts within closed primary states go for their news and opinion, and where the members of Congress who are elected strive to stay in good stead. Gone are the days when a successful career in Washington was dependent upon longevity in office, and corresponding seniority brought prestigious assignments.

Today, the quickest path to success is to say something incendiary, get picked up in the cable or talk-radio world, and then become a fund-raising magnet. (You know who loves that sort of attention? The ideologically driven voters who vote in primaries that nominate candidates in hyperpartisan districts within closed primary states!)

And the perceived need for constant fund-raising is the fourth contributor to polarization. In the past, members of Congress actually moved to Washington. Today, a typical residence for a member is a flophouse on Capitol Hill that is shared with an ideological twin and slept in two or three nights a week. Nobody truly lives in Washington, moves his or her family there, or enrolls children in a D.C. school. Most important, lawmakers don't socialize with colleagues. If you don't know a colleague's family, or the priorities of his or her constituents, that person is a lot easier to demonize based purely on ideology.

Joseph A. Califano Jr., an adviser to Lyndon Johnson and cabinet secretary for Jimmy Carter, has just published what he refers to as a "report" titled "What the Hell's a Presidency For? -- Making Washington Work," in which he argues that there is much to be learned from LBJ's effective leadership style, including his ability to work across the aisle, that could change modern Washington. He touched on this issue in an e-mail to me last week:

"The day after each congressional election, a no-holds-barred campaign begins for the next one. Why? Because control of each house is on the line every two years and congressional committee assignments are more important to member fund-raising than the president."

Of course, elected officials today can't afford the luxury of building working relationships with colleagues because they've got to get back home and raise money to spend in those contests in which their election is virtually assured, being held in a state with a closed primary, hoping to be featured on cable TV news.

Originally published in The Philadelphia Inquirer.]]> Obama: Substance Not Smears tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2071600 2012-11-04T07:02:32-05:00 2013-01-04T05:12:01-05:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
I objected when George W. Bush was the subject of undeserved, hyperbolic criticism, but the baseless scorn heaped upon President Obama makes Bush's detractors look diplomatic. The president, the office, and our nation deserve better.

It's been unrelenting. The day after Obama took office, Rush Limbaugh told Sean Hannity he wanted him to "fail." Later, Glenn Beck called the president a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Donald Trump's birtherism took hold while words like socialist were uttered with increased frequency. And a prairie fire of falsehoods spread through the Internet suggesting, among other things, that Obama is a Muslim or that he refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, paving the way for Dinesh D'Souza's fictionalized "documentary" 2016: Obama's America, which characterizes Obama as fulfilling the anticolonial agenda of his father -- a man he literally knew for just one weekend!

Among the usual memes used to undermine the president is the threat of some apocalyptic cataclysm, usually in the form of an assertion of federal power, like the seizing of guns. These predictions demand unthinking acceptance of the notion that the president, like a bizarre Manchurian candidate, is saving his nefarious agenda for a second term that might never arrive. By my count, the website Snopes.com has evaluated and debunked 103 of 124 Internet assertions about Obama.

Just before Hurricane Sandy hit, Ann Coulter called our sitting president a "retard," Sarah Palin mocked his "shuck and jive shtick," and John Sununu openly questioned Gen. Colin Powell's weighty endorsement as being motivated by race. At least earlier in the campaign there was some effort at camouflage. Such as when Mitt Romney aired an anti-Obama welfare commercial that falsely suggested Obama supported handouts ("they just send you your welfare check") when, in fact, Obama was accommodating requests of several governors, two of them conservative Republicans, to try new ways to put people back to work. A similar sentiment was expressed by Romney when he maligned the 47 percent who don't pay federal income taxes, overlooking that 83 percent of that group are either working and paying payroll taxes or they're elderly.

And, almost daily, there have been dire warnings about Obama, often with sirens, from the Drudge Report. Example: the Sept. 18 edition featuring a hideous picture of Obama (eyes closed) emblazoned with the all-capped quote: "I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN REDISTRIBUTION," a 14-year-old excerpt that conveniently excised the future president's explicit embrace of "competition" and "marketplace." No wonder I routinely field calls from radio listeners who, with no hint of embarrassment in their voices, say things such as "I call him 'comrade'" or "he's not my president."

Their best evidence? Obamacare -- crafted by the same people who wrote Romneycare. Critics ignore that the Affordable Care Act is premised upon personal responsibility and was born in a right-wing think tank. Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning website of the Tampa Bay Times, called the idea that Obamacare represents a "takeover" of the health care system the 2010 Lie of the Year. And while some have also labeled the president a "socialist" for signing the $831 billion stimulus, no one ever used such language when Bush acted similarly with the $700 billion TARP.

In the final days, the critics have turned to Benghazi, drilling down on the shifting narrative regarding the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, but ignoring that, as the Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 22, "The CIA was consistent from Sept. 13 to Sept. 21 that the attack evolved from a protest." There's another problem with the criticism. Romney now gets intelligence briefings, too. Perhaps that's why he took a pass on this kerfuffle when Libya was the first question at the final debate.

So why the attention on the recent 9/11? Perhaps to deflect attention from Obama avenging the first 9/11. Most disturbing, the president's critics have sought to diminish that achievement by treating his order as a no-brainer. As a candidate in 2008, Obama was roundly criticized when he said (to me and others) that he would act on intelligence regarding the al Qaeda leader even if he were in Pakistan. To Bush that was "unsavory." To John McCain, that was "naive." Hillary Clinton said this was "a mistake." Joe Biden said Obama "undermined his ability to be tough." And Romney regarded that pledge as "ill-timed" and "ill-considered." Imagine the criticism Obama would have faced if the mission had failed.

The reality is that there is much to be admired in the president and his rise to power. Replace Kenya with Poland or Germany, and you'd have observers rightly saying that only in this country could such a career path be possible. He is a loving husband and father who, with the first lady, is ably raising two daughters in the glare of the White House. He is an intellectual heavyweight. And his personal ethics have been above reproach.

Real patriots vote for or against candidates based on substance, not smears.

Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.]]> Obama Talks Second Term Plans tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2034876 2012-10-28T13:15:16-04:00 2012-12-28T05:12:01-05:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/ here.

Michael Smerconish: Let's talk polarization ... You've been unsuccessful in getting Republicans to work with you. Today, I noted that the Washington Post ... said that you've been isolated ... What can, what will, you do in a second term to win cooperation from Republicans?

President Obama: Well, I think the most important thing is, after the election -- and I believe I'm going to win -- to once again bring the Republicans together with my administration and Democrats and say to them, the election is over; we still have some big problems to solve, and the goal of making me a one-term president is behind us. And the question now is, how do we move forward in a way that strengthens middle-class families, makes sure that job growth is strong, and that wages are going up.

Probably the first piece of business is going to be to go ahead and fix our deficit and debt issues, and make a decision about how big our government is and how we're going to pay for it. And I put forward a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan - we've already cut a trillion dollars' worth of government spending. We can do the rest by a sensible combination of spending cuts and some revenue.

And if we can spend the first four, five, six months getting that done, so that the American people feel like the parties came together and put us on a more solid fiscal footing, where we don't have to worry about taxes going up sky high for everybody, we don't have to worry about massive cuts that would hurt our economy and our growth, then I think that that will break the fever here in Washington.

Q: Will you make the first move? Will you go to Capitol Hill?

A: Listen, I've said to folks, I'll go to Capitol Hill, I'll wash [House Speaker] John Boehner's car, I'll walk [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell's dog - I'll do whatever is required to get this done. And I think the key that the American people want right now is for us to tackle some big challenges that we face in a common-sense, balanced, sensible way.

Q: Will you resurrect and fight for Simpson-Bowles by way of example?

A: Well, Simpson-Bowles is a great example -- for your listeners who aren't completely familiar with it, this was a commission I put together, bipartisan, to find a way to reduce our deficit and stabilize our government finances in a balanced, sensible way.

And we didn't accept every one of the recommendations, because they, for example, wanted defense cuts that were steeper than I felt comfortable with as commander-in-chief. They wanted revenues that would have required us eliminating home-mortgage deductions for middle-class families, and charitable deductions for middle-class families, which I thought went too far.

But what we did was take the basic principles that they put forward, which is you've got to have spending cuts, you've got to get control of our health-care programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- and you've got to make sure that you raise some revenue. And we put together a package that allows us to meet the same targets that they've been talking about...

Q: Can you give my listeners an example of a major change that they can get from President Obama in a second term?

A: Well, I just gave you an example, which is we can get our deficit and debt under control in a sensible, balanced way. That's number one. Number two, we can build on the success we've had with the auto industry by encouraging manufacturing to come back to our shores...
I think most workers understand that having a strong manufacturing base makes our economy stronger as a whole. And so for us to change our tax code to lower corporate tax rates for manufacturers who are making stuff here, closing loopholes for companies that are shipping jobs overseas so that they're not getting tax breaks for setting up shop in China - that's a big piece of business.

On energy, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020. We have done more on energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil over the last four years than we've done in the previous 20. But we've got an opportunity now to really free ourselves from dependence on Middle East oil, for example, and Venezuelan oil, and some of these other turbulent places in the world. That would make a huge difference not only in terms of gas prices, but it would also make a difference in terms of our national security.

Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.]]> Specter's Biggest Speech tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1966173 2012-10-15T08:02:46-04:00 2012-12-15T05:12:01-05:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
My memories span campaigns, Senate hearings, radio broadcasts, martinis, dinners, birthdays, and bat mitzvahs. They include a night in Havana when I watched him debate Fidel Castro at the dinner table, a donnybrook I dubbed "the D.A. vs. the Dictator." And our time together is evidenced in campaign buttons, ticket stubs to Supreme Court confirmation hearings, tapes of radio broadcasts, manuscripts he wrote, and countless photographs. (I wear the cuff links he gave me last year for my 50th as I type these words.)

But among the items in my Specter treasure trove is one keepsake I will hold in most respect of his memory: Nine note cards from a speech Specter delivered nearly five years ago. When I told him that night that his remarks were memorable, he immediately handed them to me.

The date was Dec. 8, 2007 (it would be important to him that I get that sort of detail correct). Specter was being awarded the gold medal for distinguished achievement at the 109th annual dinner of the Pennsylvania Society. Each year, nearly 2,000 Pennsylvanians travel to New York City for a weekend of speeches, shopping, and socializing, culminating with presentation of the gold medal. There is no comparable concentration of Pennsylvania power than this annual Saturday night in Manhattan.

And so it was in the massive, main ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria that Specter's turn came to accept his award and address the crowd of black-tied and bejeweled power brokers. Two years before, Specter had become the longest-serving U.S. senator in the history of Pennsylvania, and this was significant recognition even for a man with vast achievements.

From a seat near the dais, I could tell this was an important speech for Specter because I saw him reach inside his tuxedo as he approached the lectern. See, Specter rarely needed a script. Regardless of the setting, he would usually speak off the cuff after carefully resting his wristwatch in front of him. Instinctively, I grabbed a pen and started to take notes on my dinner program. Shorthand was never my strong suit, and I was elated when after he finished, he handed me several 5-by-8 white index cards.

There are nine note cards in total. The first two are a list of blurbs in his handwriting obviously meant to prompt his thoughts. Things like "Most treasured event -- biz, law" an obvious reference to how he would begin his presentation. He also wrote "90 votes -- few center," a reflection of how many votes on any given issue were predetermined in the Senate. Specter's remarks that night were personal and reflective of what was then already a long career in government.

He shared an anecdote about the day a subordinate in the District Attorney's Office named Ed Rendell told him he was leaving to run for office. Specter offered an introduction to GOP powerbroker Billy Meehan and was surprised when Rendell said he was a Democrat.

He also spoke of his membership in the Wednesday Lunch Club, a regular gathering of two dozen Republican Senate moderates in the 1980s. Specter then lamented, "Moderates today can meet in a phone booth."

But the final seven cards of the speech are typed in large block print. And he delivered them verbatim. Arlen Specter wanted to get this exactly right. Here is what was contained in those notes -- a wonderful epitaph for a man of personal strength and integrity and political independence:

The importance of courtesy and civility is critical at all levels -- international negotiations, national, state, and local government. This weekend is exactly the kind of time when we should all reflect on how much we have in common and how much harder we should try to get along.



In this room, right now, there likely are dozens of young men and women with the brains and energy to lead our state and nation through the breadth of this century. But will we have the discipline and restraint to get along with each to do the people's business? If you can lift a glass together with your colleague from across the aisle on a Saturday night here in New York, you can lift your pen with that same colleague across the hall on Monday morning in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, or any place in our state.



Moderation in the pursuit of virtue is the approach which must be extended from our county courthouses, to Harrisburg, to Washington, and beyond to international conferences.



This is the approach that will ensure that when you future gold medalists stand in my place on a future second Saturday in December, you can declare, as do I, that we still live in the greatest country in the history of the world.


Originally Published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.]]> Why to Reinstate the Draft tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1907116 2012-09-23T09:16:26-04:00 2012-11-23T05:12:02-05:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
Rangel believes that reinstatement of the draft is most equitable toward all. He thinks it's unfair that privileged kids like mine don't equally share the burden of military service. Actually, I'm starting to think that making them serve is the best way to keep them safe. It sounds counterintuitive, but think about it.

Order in Afghanistan is crumbling. So far this year, 51 NATO soldiers have been killed in what are referred to as "blue on green" attacks in which supposedly friendly forces attack our troops. So even though the Taliban knows we are leaving, and could sit back and wait to make its move when we cease combat operations in 2014, it wants to send a message to the United States about the futility of the last decade of war in the same country that the Soviets couldn't conquer.

Meanwhile, as investigators still seek to learn the circumstances surrounding the murder of J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, an estimated 30 people have died in 20 nations in protests over the movie Innocence of Muslims and, on Friday, France closed a number of its embassies to prevent confrontation stemming from a French magazine's publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. In the final 50 days of the American election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is demanding that an American line be drawn in the sand with regard to Iran, even though he has not drawn one himself.

We live in very dangerous times, and some who would otherwise preach fiscal responsibility seem to relish the opportunity to pursue even more on military intervention, overlooking that we can't afford it, both in dollars and in bloodshed.

Perhaps, then, the best way to restrain our leaders against another foreign entanglement is to ensure that any significant commitment of troops will involve all American families. We need to make going to war more difficult.

This won't be an easy sell in Washington. Despite a decade of war, there has been no serious discussion of a draft since 9/11. Rangel, a Korean War veteran, has been the exception. Rangel has said fairness demands that the white middle and upper class share the burden of war. He has formerly proposed what he calls the Universal National Service Act on four occasions, most recently in 2010. The only time he received a vote was in 2004, when it was defeated, 402-2, and such was the farcical nature of that roll call that Rangel himself voted against it.

In March 2011, Rangel tried again. In seeking cosponsors, he wrote to his colleagues:

"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way. The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children."


Rangel proposed that "all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25, if called upon by the president during a declaration of war, a national emergency, or a military contingency operation, to perform national service for a minimum of two years with few exceptions."

He said such a law would cut down the number of deployments for active duty and Reserve military units who now see multiple deployments during the course of their enlistment due to troop-strength shortages, and provide an opportunity to work in education, health care, ports, security, and other services as deemed necessary by the president.

That effort didn't even get a vote.

Last December, on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, Rangel tried again. "It's abundantly clear that everybody does not assume the same sacrifices, whether we're talking about taxes or loss of life," he said.

Had there been a draft on Sept. 12, 2001, Americans would have rallied to the cause. Whether the need was for troops, a war tax, or rationing, the public would have responded. But a force recruited by mandatory conscription would not still be in Afghanistan after 11 years. Rangel has said that if a draft had been in place, the invasion of Iraq would never have happened. He might be right.

Funny thing. Rangel sees a need for the draft so that kids like mine aren't off-limits. I see the need for a draft to ensure that a trigger-happy president and Congress don't overextend us in a dangerous world to fulfill commitments that should never have been made. Either way, it's an idea worthy of debate.

Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer]]> If Romney Loses tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1889503 2012-09-17T06:48:33-04:00 2012-11-17T05:12:01-05:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
The next 52 days until the election? Nope. What will follow if Mitt Romney loses.

Rush Limbaugh raised the issue Monday. He was responding to comments made on what he called "PMSNBC" by Chris Matthews suggesting that an Obama victory would be the end of conservative control of the Republican Party. Limbaugh had his own assessment:

There's going to be a third party that's going to be orientated toward conservatism -- or Rand Paul thinks libertarianism. If Obama wins, the Republican Party will try to maneuver things so conservatives get blamed. The only problem is right now, Romney is not running a conservative campaign.


"But they're going to set it up, 'Well, the right sat home, the right made Romney be other than he is.' They'll try to deflect the blame, but they got who they want," he said of the Republican Party's selection of Mitt Romney for president.

I was keenly interested in Limbaugh's comments because I appeared opposite Matthews when he made the statement that got Rush's attention, only I never had the chance to respond on TV. Here is what Matthews said in the segment hosted by Tamron Hall:

The best way to beat the right wing is to beat them. If [Obama] beats them in this election, they're finished. And I think that's the point. The moderates will come back. Jeb Bush will come back. The people like Chris Christie will come back. The moderates will retake the party. If you smash the right.


Matthews went on to say that the "Mitch McConnells will shut up for a while" if Romney loses.

While I agree with both commentators that there will be quite a crossroads within the GOP should Romney lose, I disagree with both Limbaugh and Matthews as to how events will play out. I suspect the divide within the party won't be resolved until voters get a say in the 2016 primaries.

Rush is wrong when he says that "Romney is not running a conservative campaign." Truth is, there has been none of the anticipated tack toward the center that would make Romney a more attractive candidate to independents. His comments in the aftermath of the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, are illustrative of where he has sought his appeal -- from the far right.

Romney's unfounded statement that Obama had sympathized with the insurgents and apologized for the United States were a hat tip to the Internet lore that portrays the president as something other than American. It fits the fictitious narrative you get in depictions such as Dinesh D'Souza's movie 2016 that Obama is furthering European socialist goals while president and that he is embarrassed about his country, hence the need to apologize.

Trouble is, there are no facts to justify those statements. The man who once governed Massachusetts as a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-health care reformer has run as a "severe" conservative and checked absolutely all the boxes required of him in the conservative litmus tests.

Matthews is mistaken when he thinks that a Romney defeat will mute McConnell, the senator who famously said that his "single most important goal" was to defeat Obama. The opposite is more likely. Should Romney lose, McConnell will no more shut up than Rick Santorum. As for the former senator from Pennsylvania, get ready for a giant "I told you so," given that he famously said that Romney "was the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama."

And there is no way that the likes of Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin will go silently into that night. To the contrary, their conclusion will be that Romney was a moderate in conservative clothing and that only a "real" conservative can assume the mantle of the party of Reagan, overlooking of course that Ronald Reagan would probably have had his bona fides questioned in this climate. Who said that? Jeb Bush. ("Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad -- they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party -- and I don't -- as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground.")

While it's true that Jeb Bush has suggested that the party grow the tent and that Chris Christie has some moderate tendencies (he's embraced a clear path to citizenship, has supported some gun-control laws, and has said that "climate change is real") there is no evidence that either is prepared to engage in a confrontation with the right over control of the party. Christie did once say, "I'm tired of dealing with the crazies," after being criticized for appointing to the state bench a Muslim lawyer who once represented a terror suspect. But Christie's full-throated support of the conservative incarnation of Romney casts doubt on his willingness to engage the fringe within his party.

No back-room maneuvering is going to solve this crisis. There are too many egos unwilling to get out of the way. Wholesale change will come only at the ballot box, which seems unlikely in the near future given the exodus of moderates from the party. What motivation do they have to return? Of course, I might be wrong. And if Matthews is right about Jeb Bush emerging in the GOP, you know what that could mean?

Bush v. Clinton in 2016!


Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.]]> Never Forget tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1873994 2012-09-11T11:15:26-04:00 2012-11-11T05:12:01-05:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
How else to explain a New York Post story last week detailing how some visitors are treating the National September 11 Memorial in Manhattan as a "playground." The Post reported that "tourists balance coffee cups and soda bottles on the parapets bearing the names of the dead. Parents hoist their children to sit on the bronze plaques, while other visitors splash water from the two waterfalls onto their faces to cool themselves on a hot summer day. On the plaza, tourists break out lunch foods and lie on their backs."

That behavior is appalling. Those who would picnic in a graveyard disrespect not only the lives that were lost on that sacred ground, but also those soldiers still in harm's way as a result of the events that gave rise to that memorial. But such behavior is in keeping with a pattern.

Despite the best of intentions, too often we do forget too soon.

April 19 marked the 17th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the day on which 168 innocents lost their lives, including 19 young children.

One day later, April 20, was the 13th anniversary of the Columbine school shootings, in which 12 students and one teacher were murdered by two students who then killed themselves.

In Philadelphia, May 13 marked the 27th anniversary of the MOVE conflagration that claimed the lives of 11 people, five of them children.

Ever heard of Howard Unruh? Wednesday was the 63rd anniversary of the day Unruh murdered 13 of his neighbors in Camden, N.J.

And come Nov. 22, the nation will mark the 49th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Each of these was a monumental day based on tragedy, but for how many of them do we now pause? All were events that were "the" news for a period of months, and, in every instance, there was grieving accompanied by the refrain of "never forget." But life does go on. And when witnesses and loved ones of the victims die and memories fade, the challenge of remembering grows more difficult.

Ensuring that Sept. 11 stands apart will require community and individual action.

Today, 9/11 should be part of every school's lesson plan.

Employers should find a way of noting the occasion, in keeping with the decorum of the workplace.

Flags should, of course, be flown at half-staff.

And the media must keep showing the harrowing footage of the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers. More than anything else, if that presentation were shown with more regularity -- beyond just the anniversary newsreels -- it would go a long way toward keeping us ever mindful of what transpired 11 years ago.

Most important, at dinner tables across America, tonight needs to be a time for parents to share with their children the perspective of where they were 11 years ago, what happened to the nation and with what consequence.

We won't forget. But unless we take these measures and more, those who follow us will.

Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday 9th and reprinted in papers across the country today.]]> I Want a Platform Fight tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1831378 2012-08-26T11:46:36-04:00 2012-10-26T05:12:07-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
I'd like to ask those who will ratify the GOP platform in Tampa this week what punishment they think is appropriate for a woman who is raped and decides not to carry the pregnancy to term.

Or would her physician be the one facing criminal prosecution? Maybe both?

The question is not esoteric. It's a natural consequence of the party platform as drafted. Unless there are eleventh-hour changes, the relevant part of the official document that sets forth what the party represents will stand as follows:

"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."


There are no exceptions made for rape or incest, which means the Republican Party has again taken the position that it should be unlawful for a woman who becomes pregnant due to rape or incest to have an abortion.

It was the same in 2004 and in 2008. Aside from some minor, semantic tweaks, the same language appeared in the Republican Party platform four years ago, sandwiched between "Freedom of Speech and of the Press" and "Preserving Traditional Marriage" (which itself is right before "Safeguarding Religious Liberties"). John McCain didn't agree then, nor did George W. Bush when similar language was put forth on his watch, but that's what ended up in the platform.

What's changed is Todd Akin, of course. The congressman and Republican Senate nominee from Missouri has ensured that unlike in the 2010 midterm elections, social issues will be back in play in 2012, including at the presidential level.

Mitt Romney made it clear that he disagrees with Akin about whether rape victims can become pregnant, and he called on him to get out of the U.S. Senate race. "As I said yesterday, Todd Akin's comments were offensive and wrong, and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country," Romney said last week. "Today, his fellow Missourians urged him to step aside, and I think he should accept their counsel and exit the Senate race."

That was the appropriate response -- as far as it went. But there is something else Romney should do, both because it would be just and because it would benefit his campaign, especially among those who will determine his fate: not the fringe, but independents.

Three months ago, a Gallup survey found that 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "pro-choice," compared with 50 percent "pro-life," but that superficial split masked a clear consensus in support of exceptions to the pro-life stance: 25 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances; 52 believe it should be legal only under certain circumstances; and 20 percent say it should be illegal in all circumstances. That means 77 percent of Americans support abortion rights in at least some cases.

Given that, imagine the impact if Romney initiated a platform fight, demanding that the language in the document be amended to allow for exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

As it stands, Americans will remain on vacation this week -- more interested in the path of Tropical Storm Isaac than they are in the Oak Ridge Boys singing the national anthem, the roll call vote for the nomination, the remarks of Ann Romney, and the rest of the Republican convention proceedings. The only drama will concern the party's struggle to quell interest in the adoption of the platform -- a typically easy task now made difficult by Akin.

Things would be dramatically different if the old Mitt Romney were to arrive in the Sunshine State and demand that the platform be modified. That would be the Romney who governed Massachusetts and once told its voters, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country."

I don't expect that to happen. For starters, it would create some awkward moments with his running mate. Paul Ryan believes abortion should be legal only in cases when the mother's life is at risk, and he sponsored a bill recognizing unborn "personhood" that made no allowance for rape victims.

A Washington Post editorial recently noted: "One example of this effort to minimize rape came earlier this year when Congress considered whether to rewrite the rape exception in federal abortion funding bans by inserting the phrase 'forcible rape,' words eerily similar to Mr. Akin's note of 'legitimate rape.' Among the bill's 227 cosponsors was Rep. Paul Ryan, now Mitt Romney's running mate. The language was stripped from the bill before it won final House approval, but even then, it contained such onerous provisions that it never made it to the Senate floor."

That won't play in places like Montgomery County, Pa. -- all the more reason for Romney to maintain his purported pro-life views, but to draw a line in the sand in support of commonsense exceptions.

After all, the government shouldn't tell a woman who has been raped that she can't carry her pregnancy to term. And it shouldn't tell her that she must.

Originally Published in the Philadelphia Inquirer]]> 'You Didn't Build That!' in Context tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1721794 2012-07-30T21:22:15-04:00 2012-09-29T05:12:39-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
Last August, while contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate against Scott Brown, Warren offered a fiery defense of liberal economic theory at an event in Andover, Mass. Two minutes' worth of what she said became a YouTube sensation that has now been viewed nearly a million times. That her remarks appeared extemporaneous and from the heart made the clip all the more watchable.

Warren was rebutting GOP charges of class warfare based on her argument that one's ability to become financially successful in America is contingent in part on an environment that has been created and supported by all. She said, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody." And then she hit her stride:

"You built a factory out there? Good for you," she says. "But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

As for the tax implications, Warren said, "Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." The crowd enthusiastically applauded.

Ten months ago, upon watching the clip, I said on the radio that, unlike President Obama, Warren had found her voice with a finely honed message for the middle class. While the size of the "hunk" that should be paid "forward for the next kid" is debatable, her underlying premise was solid.

Finally, two weeks ago, Obama attempted to take a page out of her campaign manual while speaking at a fire station in Roanoke, Va. But the president's presentation lacked Warren's clarity, and it was then taken out of context by Romney supporters.

Unfortunately, both sides have been quick to cut and paste, as evidenced by the unfair attention paid to Romney's "I like to fire people" remark, which was actually a statement about bad service.

In this case, from a discussion that spanned several paragraphs, Obama's remarks were reduced to this: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

That statement was then used to further a fictitious narrative of the president as a socialist, assaulting entrepreneurship. American Crossroads, a political organization connected to Karl Rove, quickly produced a commercial purporting to show small-business owners reacting to that one line on an iPad and noting their responses: "Unbelievable"; "What an insult"; "I am outraged"; "I can't believe he just said that"; "We risk everything every day"; "It came from my personal savings."

But the context of Obama's two sentences was a far cry from an assault on American entrepreneurship. He was arguing that, while he was willing to cut government waste, he would not gut investments that grow the economy or give tax breaks to the likes of himself or Romney. And then came this:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.



If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.



The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.


Obama then cited the funding of the G.I. Bill, the creation of the middle class, the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam, inventing the Internet, and landing on the moon as examples of what he was talking about.

The trouble with the president's remarks? They extended beyond the 20-second attention span of this campaign. And when the edited version made the rounds, a legitimate, substantive conversation about social contracts was instead reduced to silly charges of socialism.

This piece was originally published in The Philadelphia Inquirer.]]> Mission Accomplished tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1491556 2012-05-06T18:43:23-04:00 2012-07-06T05:12:07-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
This past week, an Obama campaign Web commercial featuring Bill Clinton, quotes Mitt Romney, in 2007, downplaying the significance of getting bin Laden: "It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars, just trying to catch one person."

That ad got the goat of Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.). "Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of Sept. 11 and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad," he indignantly declared.

Romney himself said "even Jimmy Carter would have given that order" to get bin Laden. His comparison served only to unintentionally highlight the mission's considerable risks, as it invoked the memory of the failed Iranian hostage rescue mission on April 24, 1980. (The mission failed, but Carter did give the order.)

Obama responded to the debate by saying, "I hardly think that you've seen any excessive celebration taking place here," and suggested that people should look to prior statements regarding whether it was appropriate to go into Pakistan.

I know exactly to what he was referring and it has its roots in the last presidential campaign, not the current one.

Long before many gave him a serious shot at the presidency, then-Sen. Obama announced his intentions with regard to Pakistan. On Aug. 1, 2007, he said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."

That drew a rebuke from then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during a Democratic debate on Aug. 7: "I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al-Qaeda and Taliban."

En route to capturing the GOP nomination, McCain, on Feb. 20, 2008, also chastised Obama: "The best idea is to not broadcast what you're going to do. That's naive."

But Obama stood his ground, repeating his willingness to pursue bin Laden in five different conversations I had with him (three while a candidate, two while president). His previous words now look prescient.

On March 24, 2008, he told me: "Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain, and George Bush all suggested I had said something wrong when I said we should be going after bin Laden and high-value targets, and if we've got them in our sights we should ask for Pakistan's cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take them out, but if they don't, we shouldn't need permission to go after somebody or folks that killed 3,000 Americans."

And on Oct. 9, 2008, he said to me: "Now we need to work with Pakistan to dismantle those training camps and kill bin Laden. But if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to take bin Laden out, and we have him in our sights, we've got to do it."

The irony of the current debate is that Romney and McCain -- the GOP's most recent standard-bearers -- are leading the chorus of those seeking to diminish Obama's authorization of the raid at Abbottabad by implying that "any leader" would have made the same decision.

But if their previous public statements were to be believed, neither would have been a lock to pull the trigger. At the time, Romney called Obama's August 2007 statements about pursuing high-value targets in Pakistan "ill-timed and ill-considered."

And a year after he called Obama's remarks "naive," McCain demurred in a discussion with me about the possibility of unilateral U.S. action to bring bin Laden to justice.

"Pakistan is a sovereign nation and we have to have the cooperation of Pakistan to have these operations succeed," McCain said during our June 2008 interview.

"If you alienate Pakistan and it turns into an anti-American government, then you will have much greater difficulties," he continued. "Do they do what we want them to do? No. Have they been helpful to us? Yes. Has Musharraf been a friend of ours? He has been.

"I wish there were better relations between [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai and Musharraf. I wish a lot of things were different in this world. But... you and I just have an honest disagreement if you think we can just get tough on Pakistan and they will do what we want them to do."

Obama was the first to voice a willingness to give the order to launch such a mission, and has never wavered. Moreover, given the surgical precision with which the SEALs operated, it is easy to overlook the possible perils that the mission presented. The decision to give the order to launch the attack appears to have been easy only in retrospect. It bears remembering that then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Vice President Biden had serious reservations about the plan.

Had the mission failed, Obama would have been roundly chastised by the same people who now refuse to accord him any credit for the mission's success. Again, the president was decisive, and deserves credit for making a decision that was fraught with peril, politically, militarily, and diplomatically.

He's earned the right to say, "Mission accomplished."

Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.]]> Mort tragique de Trayvon Martin: des appels au 911 qui en disent long tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1382486 2012-03-27T11:01:39-04:00 2012-05-27T05:12:02-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
En attendant ces conclusions, une écoute attentive de l'appel effectué par Zimmerman soulève sept questions troublantes.

D'emblée, celui-ci affirme : « Il y a eu des cambriolages dans mon quartier ». Qu'est-ce qui nous prouve que cela est vrai ? Selon le quotidien Orlando Sentinel, Zimmerman a appelé la police de Sanford 46 fois au cours des 15 derniers mois. Compte tenu de cette fréquence, il aurait dû prendre un ton familier et dire : «Bonsoir, c'est moi, George Zimmerman, le responsable de la patrouille de quartier». C'est la moindre des choses que l'on puisse espérer d'un tel volontaire. Pourquoi souhaitait-il garder l'anonymat?

En deuxième lieu, Zimmerman ne donne aux policiers aucune raison concrète d'intervenir. Il affirme que l'adolescent a «l'air suspect, drogué ou quelque chose du genre ». Pour quelle raison en est-il venu à cette conclusion ? Et celui-ci d'ajouter : « Il pleut, le gars marche sans but apparent. Il regarde partout autour de lui». À mon humble avis, marcher sous la pluie en regardant à gauche et à droite n'est pas un motif suffisant pour sonner l'alarme.

Après avoir spéculé longuement, Zimmerman tente de maîtriser sa voix et dépeint Martin comme un agresseur : «Il observe attentivement chaque maison, et regarde maintenant en ma direction. Il met sa main sous l'élastique de son pantalon. Quelque chose cloche. Il vient vers moi, il tient quelque chose dans ses mains et je ne sais pas ce que c'est».

Par la suite, Zimmerman tente d'établir une complicité avec le réceptionniste. Il dit en soupirant : «Ces trous du cul s'en tirent tout le temps». À son grand honneur, le téléphoniste demeure imperturbable et tente d'obtenir des informations géographiques plus précises de la part de son interlocuteur.

Un cinquième élément troublant est la possible insulte à caractère racial proférée alors que l'adolescent s'éloigne. Zimmerman ouvre la portière de son véhicule, et le vent rend l'enregistrement plus difficile à comprendre. Bon nombre de blogueurs croient avoir discerné le mot «coon» (nègre). Après avoir monté le volume, j'en arrive à la même conclusion. Si l'analyse vocale abonde dans le même sens, cette insulte pourrait valoir à Zimmerman une inculpation pour crime haineux. De toute manière, si Martin s'est bel et bien enfui en courant, il n'y avait pas de risque d'agression pouvant mener à une situation de légitime défense.

Un sixième élément discrédite Zimmerman quelques secondes plus tard. Celui-ci quitte son véhicule et paraît essoufflé. Le téléphoniste lui demande : «Vous êtes en train de le suivre » Zimmerman répond dans l'affirmative. Le téléphoniste l'avertit : «On n'a pas besoin que vous fassiez ça». Zimmerman se contente de dire « ok ». Il ignore le conseil du téléphoniste et rate une autre opportunité de s'identifier en tant que patrouilleur volontaire. Sa respiration haletante laisse entendre qu'il poursuit l'adolescent.

Enfin, durant la dernière minute de l'appel, Zimmerman communique sans hésiter son nom et son numéro de téléphone, mais refuse de divulguer son adresse complète : «Ah merde, je ne veux pas la dire à voix haute, je ne sais pas où est passé le gars». Zimmerman garde encore une fois le silence par rapport à son rôle de patrouilleur. Il suggère au téléphoniste de transmettre son numéro aux policiers afin qu'ils puissent le localiser au moment opportun.

En Floride, la loi permet d'utiliser une force létale si celle-ci permet d'éviter sa propre mort ou des blessures graves. Cela étant dit, l'appel qu'une voisine a effectué durant l'altercation apporte des indices supplémentaires.

Dans cet autre enregistrement, on entend un homme crier à l'aide à l'extérieur de la maison.
Si l'analyse démontre que la voix est celle de Zimmerman, la légitime défense pourrait être alléguée de manière crédible. En effet, le patrouilleur aurait attendu très longtemps avant de dégainer et de tuer son opposant.

Par contre, si la voix est celle de Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman n'a absolument aucune chance de s'en tirer.

L'article original a été publié dans le quotidien Philadelphia Inquirer.
]]> Tale of the Trayvon Martin Case 911 Calls tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1378581 2012-03-25T18:32:06-04:00 2012-05-25T05:12:02-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
Here are seven observations about Zimmerman's 911 call to police, and one point about the neighbors' calls:

First, Zimmerman began his call by saying, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood." I'd like to know if that is true. And it strikes me as peculiar that he did not identify himself immediately. The Orlando Sentinel reports that, in the last 15 months, Zimmerman had called the Sanford police 46 times. So why not begin this latest call by saying, "Hey, it's me, George Zimmerman, from the neighborhood watch?" Wouldn't a neighborhood watch volunteer want the police to know who he was? If not, why not?

Second, he never offered anything concrete to justify a request for police assistance. He first told the police operator that the teen he was watching is "a real suspicious guy." Then he said he "looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs, or something." Well, what exactly was it about Martin that raised Zimmerman's suspicions? "It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about," he said. But walking in the rain with your eyes open isn't by itself nefarious. Maybe that's why Zimmerman then took it up a notch.

Third, having offered a litany of nonspecific concerns, Zimmerman calmly tried to portray Martin as an aggressor: "He's just staring, looking at all the houses. Now just staring at me." That was followed by: "Now he's coming toward me." Then, the more menacing: "He's got his hand in his waist band." Finally: "Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is."

Fourth, Zimmerman seeks a form of complicity from the operator that was not reciprocated. He mutters, "These a-, they always get away." To his credit, the operator did not react. Instead, he continued to solicit locational information from Zimmerman.

Fifth, Zimmerman seems to make a racist statement. After he reports that "he's running," the door to his truck can be heard opening. If Martin were running, that is hardly the behavior of a confrontational individual against whom deadly force need be used. And the blogosphere is on fire with conjecture that Zimmerman called Martin a "coon." I raised the audio of that part of the tape, and it sure sounds like he said that. If it's confirmed, that statement alone should provide sufficient probable cause to indict Zimmerman for a hate crime.

Sixth, Zimmerman ignores the operator's advice. After he departs from his truck to pursue Martin, Zimmerman's breathing is audibly labored. The operator hears that, and asks, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman replies, "Yep." The operator responds: "We don't need you to do that." This would seemingly have been another natural opportunity for Zimmerman to say, "I'm a neighborhood watch volunteer." Instead, he softly says, "OK." Then, the continued sound of his breathing suggests he was still pursuing Martin.

Seventh, Zimmerman was willing to report his name and phone number, but strangely stopped short when asked for his address. Asked if he lived in the area, he again said nothing of his neighborhood watch role. He gave part of his address, and then stopped. He said, "Oh, crap, I don't want to give it out loud, I don't know where this kid is at." Instead, he tells the operator to have the police who arrive on the scene to "call me and I'll tell them where I'm at."

Then there are the calls from neighbors who heard the ensuing altercation. Florida law provides that there is no duty to retreat so long as the person using deadly force "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself." On at least one of the 911 calls logged by neighbors, a man is heard crying in distress just before the fatal gunshot is audible. Who was it, Zimmerman or Martin?

If a voice analysis shows it to be Zimmerman, that will suggest he was justified in using deadly force, that he was crying for help and restraining himself before drawing his gun.

If, however, it is Martin crying out for help, Zimmerman's ability to cloak himself in "stand your ground" will evaporate, and that identification will appropriately lead to his arrest.

Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.]]> Boycott Won't Rush Him Out tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1356726 2012-03-18T08:52:33-04:00 2012-05-18T05:12:01-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
Last week, radio-trade columnist Tom Taylor reported that Limbaugh's syndicate (Premier Networks) was circulating a list of 98 advertisers that want to avoid "environments likely to stir negative sentiments." He said the advertisers had concerns that extended beyond Limbaugh:

"They've specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in... programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity). Those are defined as environments likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public."

The bible of the talk-radio trades, Talkers, then pointed out that "no controversial programming" dictates were common and practically as old as talk radio itself, and were not a specific reaction to the Limbaugh case -- although they are certainly reiterated as a result of it.

Still, the hosts identified constitute the starting rotation at many talk stations across the country. Their programs, strung together, amount to 15 or more straight hours of daily kicking the crap out of President Obama (whether he deserves it or not). The only diversity they offer is in their voice inflections.

Meanwhile, the nation seems poised for something more multidimensional. Jon Stewart nailed it when, at the Rally to Restore Sanity, he co-hosted with Steven Colbert in 2010, he proclaimed:

"Most Americans don't live their lives just as Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives."

Stewart's observation is supported by lots of recent data, including:

An August 2011 Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey that found that 40 percent of Americans who responded said their general approach to the issues was "moderate."

A December 2011 analysis by USA Today that showed that, since the 2008 election, more than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican Parties, while the number of independents has grown. Registered Democrats are in decline in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party, and Republicans dipped in 21 states. Independents gained in 18.

In January, Gallup announced that the percentage of Americans identifying as political independents increased in 2011 to 40 percent, the highest Gallup has ever measured.

But "independents" are not a constituency cultivated by current talk radio. Instead, talk caters to the same small number of loyal conservatives whom Limbaugh first attracted after his syndication in 1988. He filled a void when he established a clubhouse for those who were being denied membership in more mainstream outlets.

Philadelphia was the last major market to welcome Limbaugh when he came aboard at WWDB-FM (96.5) in 1992. The station was then home to "Evil" Irv Homer, a libertarian before Ron Paul made it fashionable; Dominick Quinn, a conservative known more for his expansive vocabulary than his ideology; Frank Ford, an acerbic liberal; and Bernie Herman, whose moniker was the now seemingly anachronistic "gentleman of broadcasting." Personality was king, and sustaining a conversation was more important than talking points.

Limbaugh's success on radio led to polarizing imitations on cable TV. Politicians imitated what they saw and heard, and took the nation down with them.

Though the public eschews polarization, politicians pile it on. The National Journal documented in 2010 that the Senate was more divided than at any point in the three decades since it has been evaluating legislators' key votes. The Journal found that every Democrat had complied a voting record more liberal than every conservative, and every Republican had complied a voting record more conservative than every Democrat. And, no, the climate has not always been like this. According to the Journal, in the early 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president, 60 percent of the Senate was somewhere in the middle. That's a reality Arlen Specter documents in his forthcoming book, Life Among the Cannibals.

So Congress wasn't always like this, and neither was talk radio. Coincidence? I think not. There are other factors, but the climate created in the media is one of them. Which is why it would be healthy for the country should the backlash against Limbaugh take hold. But it won't come from an advertiser boycott, where one sponsor's decision creates another's opportunity. If anything, advertiser boycotts hurt radio generally as much as they harm a particular host.

This column originally ran in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
]]> The Unfaithful Candidate tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1303719 2012-02-27T08:55:42-05:00 2012-04-28T05:12:01-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
Given that polls show he faces prejudice among a sizable share of primary voters because of his Mormon faith, you would think Romney would be eager to try to redefine the role of faith in the election. But he keeps refusing to challenge those who would apply faith-based litmus tests, even though doing so would win him plaudits among the independents who will pick the next president. That's probably because he fears it would backfire among those who will pick the GOP nominee.

It has been a dizzying two weeks in matters of church and state. First, the Obama administration unwisely attempted to force religious institutions to offer birth control coverage to their employees in contravention of church teachings. The administration exempted churches, but it should have done the same for church-related institutions from the get-go.

Forget for a moment the shortsightedness of an institution that opposes abortion but fails to recognize that contraception can prevent it. Whatever the basis of the church's position, the government should not force it to act against its teachings. In doing so, the president served up a perfect political opportunity for his opponents to accuse him of waging war on religious freedom.

The next mistake, however, was the church's. When the president came to his senses and offered a compromise that would not force the church to pay for contraception coverage, the bishops rebuffed it. Instead of declaring victory, they continued to fight.

Here in Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote in The Inquirer that the administration's mandate, "including its latest variant, is belligerent, unnecessary, and deeply offensive to the content of Catholic belief." He added that "no similarly aggressive attack on religious freedom in our country has occurred in recent memory." And he concluded that the "mandate is bad law, and not merely bad, but dangerous and insulting. It needs to be withdrawn -- now."

Chaput and the other bishops overplayed a winning hand. Who is being intolerant when an employee of a Catholic-run hospital, charity, or college, who might not be Catholic herself, is told she cannot have access to birth control as part of her health insurance -- even though her employer doesn't have to pay for it?

It was into this crossfire that Rick Santorum stepped last weekend when he said the president was motivated by "some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible." When challenged by Bob Schieffer of CBS, Santorum thinly defended his comments as references to Obama's environmental policies. But the remark seemed in keeping with the email circulars many of us have received ("YOU MUST READ THIS") that seek to portray Obama as an "other," someone fundamentally different from the rest of us.

That's when Romney should have stepped in and asked: What separates us from Iran or al-Qaeda if we are going to pick our presidents according to religious litmus tests? Perhaps he could have quoted the First Amendment and reminded people that it ensures every American's ability to exercise his faith, or to exercise no faith. But Romney remained silent.

And he stayed silent when Matt Drudge trumpeted a 2008 Santorum speech at Ave Maria University in which he invoked Satan while discussing abortion. "And the father of lies has his sights on what you think the father of lies, Satan, would have his sights on -- a good, decent, powerful, influential country, the United States of America," Santorum said.

And Romney was still silent a day later, when the Rev. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, said on MSNBC that while he believed Santorum was a Christian, he couldn't be sure whether Obama or Romney was. Maybe Graham was channeling the Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress, who said in October that the Mormon Church was a cult. This week, Jeffress said he would hold his nose and vote for Romney. No doubt his antipathy is shared by the one-third of evangelical Christians who told the Pew Research Center that they would have a hard time voting for a Mormon.

All these developments presented Romney with chances to remind the nation that this is not the election that ends with a cloud of white smoke over the Sistine Chapel. What did he do instead? He doubled down on his efforts to reach the party's religious base, telling a Michigan crowd: "Unfortunately, possibly because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda -- they have fought against religion." And in the CNN debate last week in Arizona, he accused Obama of an "attack on religious conscience."

That kind of talk may help Romney on Tuesday with some of the GOP faithful in Michigan and Arizona. But it is not likely to be forgotten by independents come this fall.]]> A Response to Sean Hannity tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1270476 2012-02-12T12:21:28-05:00 2012-04-13T05:12:01-04:00 Michael Smerconish http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/
HANNITY: I know the president will say, 'Well, we got bin Laden.' Putting that aside...

LUNTZ: And the public gives him credit for that.

HANNITY: They do. The public does give him credit for that. But it wouldn't have happened if he had his way, and I think that can be proved as well on tape.

I think that is a cheap shot delivered to a commander in chief who made a difficult decision. I don't know what tape Hannity has and I challenge him to release it. I do know what recordings I possess. Mine are five different conversations I had with the now-president (three while a candidate, two while president) in which he made crystal clear his willingness to kill bin Laden in precisely the manner the al Qaeda leader was taken out.



Here is what Senator Obama told me on March 24, 2008:

"Senator Clinton, Senator McCain and George Bush all suggested I had said something wrong when I said we should be going after bin Laden and high value targets and if we've got them in our sights we should ask for Pakistan's cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take them out but if they don't we shouldn't need permission to go after somebody or folks that killed 3,000 Americans."



Here is what Senator Obama told me on April 21, 2008:

Mr. Smerconish: Listen, when we were last together you know that I was pleased with what you had to say about redirecting our efforts toward al Qaeda in Pakistan.

President Obama: Right.

Mr. Smerconish: And that issue is even more serious today then it was a few weeks ago. New York Times front page Saturday, listen to this, this is the Times talking... they say that there's a "recurring problem for the White House: that the place where the terrorist threat is most acute is the place where American forces are most restricted from acting." What's going to be the approach relative to Pakistan and those tribal regions?

President Obama: Well I think what we have to do is first of all establish a relationship with the new government. The problem we've got is that we've backed Mursharaff so heavily in Pakistan that the incoming democratically elected Parliament there mistrusts us. We've got to establish some new relationships, indicate to them that we're supportive of democracy, but insist that we've got to go after these terrorists that it's a threat to democracy in Pakistan and rule of law in Pakistan and stability in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan and long term threat to America. I've been very clear that if we see targets in Pakistan that we can take out with drone missiles and use the predators that have been so effective then I think we've got to do so. But, I think what's clear from the New York Times story and what I've learned talking to forces on the ground is that unless we can really pin down some of these Taliban fighters who flee into the Pakistan territories, we're going to continue to have instability and al Qaeda is gonna continue to have a safe haven and that's not acceptable.





Mr. Smerconish: Are you prepared to stop writing that check if in fact you're not satisfied...

President Obama: Absolutely. Absolutely. Look, Musharaff was receiving billions of dollars and not doing much with it. Now I want to ramp up aid to Pakistan when it comes to building schools that teach math and science instead of hatred of Americans. I want to ramp up aid that helps farmers become self sufficient. I want to make sure that not just in Pakistan, but Afghanistan, people have opportunities to get out of poverty.

When it comes to military aid, we should be propping up Pak military when they're focused on a possible war with India and ignoring the very immediate and real threat of militants who are in their territories. Our aid has to be in some ways contingent on them making a serious effort.

Mr. Smerconish: I've had any number of conversations with suburbanites from the Philadelphia suburbs who say "I don't know, this Obama, I'm concerned he's going to be weak on the War on Terror because he wants to get us out of Iraq." And what I've tried to explain is that you're talking about a redirection of effort to go after those who really were responsible for September 11.

President Obama: Absolutely! Look, Iraq has been the biggest strategic error that we could have made. I mean, not only have we diverted resources that should have been used to pin down bin Laden and al Qaeda but we've actually increased the propaganda of al Qaeda in their ability to recruit terrorists and train them in Iraq. And, I think it's very important for us to recognize we've fallen into a strategic trap, we've actually strengthened Iran in the region which is why our allies like Jordan are so concerned. That is something that I'm going to put an end to. We're going to stabilize Iraq but we're going to hunt down those terrorist networks that are our biggest strategic threat. And Ambassador Crocker when he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee acknowledged as much.

Here is what Senator Obama told me on Oct. 9, 2008:

Obama acknowledged that as the war in Iraq wound down, the United States also would have to "send a strong message to Pakistan that we can't tolerate safe havens for bin Laden, where he's training terrorists to kill Americans. We can't tolerate it. Now we need to work with Pakistan to dismantle those training camps and kill bin Laden. But if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to take bin Laden out and we have him in our sights,we've got to do it."

Here is what President Obama told me on Aug. 20, 2009:

Mr. Smerconish: Mr. President, in each of our prior three conversations, I spoke with you extensively about the need for closure, and we agreed relative to bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri. And as a matter of fact, and this is well documented -- I've written and spoken about it extensively -- things that you said during the course of the campaign played a critical role in my personal decision-making pertaining to the 2008 election. So I feel I'd be derelict in my duty if I didn't come here today and say, where are we? I know we had a major victory recently with the number-one individual for the Taliban in those tribal regions. But pertaining to bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, where is it?



President Obama: Well, here's where we're at. We are continuing to ramp up the pressure in Afghanistan. And we had a -- what appears to be a successful election in Afghanistan despite the Taliban's effort to disrupt it. You've got General McChrystal now over there and more troops who are putting pressure on the eastern and southern portions of Afghanistan.

On the other hand, you've got the Pakistani army for the first time actually fighting in a very aggressive way, and that's how we took out Baitullah Mehsud --

Mr. Smerconish: Right.

President Obama: The top Taliban leader in Pakistan, who was also one of bin Laden's key allies. So the goal here is essentially to have a pincher where we are squeezing them on both sides, we're eliminating their allies, it's making it more difficult for them to communicate, making it more difficult for them to operate safe havens, and over time what we hope to do is to flush them out. We are going to keep on putting pressure on them, and I know that it's at great cost. I have to sign letters to family members who have fallen and a lot more are falling in Afghanistan than in Iraq. And as a consequence, we've got to make sure that we are really focused on finishing the job in Afghanistan, but it's going to take some time.


And here is what President Obama told me on Oct. 27, 2010:

Mr. Smerconish: As a candidate, sir, you once told me that Pakistan was playing the United States like a violin -- is that still the case?

President Obama: You know I think we've seen over the last 18 months improvement in how Pakistan deals with us. We have seen more cooperation on counter terrorism. They've finally started to send their armies up into some of these border regions where al Qaeda and these other extremist organizations are operating.

We have not gotten all the cooperation that we need. Now some of its capacity. Pakistan is not in real good shape right now. They just went though the worst floods they've seen in a generation. They are cash strapped. And so, some of that means they are not working as effectively with us as I'd like us to be working with them.

On the other hand if you look at -- for example -- the pace of pressure we've been able to apply to Al Qaeda over this past year with the cooperation of the Pakistani government. We've been able to take over a dozen top al Qaeda leaders, hundreds of their key affiliates, they are hunkered down in a way that we haven't seen in a very long time.

And so we've made progress but we still have a long way to go. I just had a meeting last week with a Pakistani delegation including their top general indicating to them that we expect greater cooperation than we've been receiving so far.

Mr. Smerconish: Is it at a point, sir, where it's time to send our Special Forces across that Afghan Pakistan border engaged in the hunt of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri?



President Obama: Well, I can't go into details about everything that we're doing obviously because we've got a lot of brave men and women who are already out there and a lot of their work is classified. But I will say that we are ramping up the pressure each and every day and I'm actually confident that the work that General Petraeus is doing on the Afghan side of the border, the cooperation we've begun to get from the Pakistanis on their side of the border is starting to have an effect. But as you and I have talked about before -- everyday I've got a team of some of our best people who are still looking for bin Laden still looking for Zawahiri still focused on making sure that we are defeating and dismantling Al Qaeda once and for all.

Mr. Smerconish: On your watch, do you believe that we've ever had a line on bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri?

President Obama: I think it's fair to say that by the time I got into office the trail had gone very cold. And we have done a lot of work over the last several years in making sure that we are starting to resuscitate the kinds of leads that would be necessary eventually to get them.

That's my audio, Sean. What have you got? ]]>