Just POlitics

U.S. holds firm on N. Korea

The North Korean government called for one-on-one talks with the U.S. and the White House rejected the option.

"It's not an issue between North Korea and the United States. It's a regional issue," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters this morning. "And it's an issue that impacts all of its neighbors."

In N. Korea’s announcing that they are discontinuing six-party talks and that they have nuclear weapons, the country has put themselves not only at odds with the U.S. but China as well. China provides food and oil to N. Korea and China is as concerned about N. Korea having nuclear weapons as everyone else.

"This is a heavy blow to Beijing. It's very clear what kind of position Beijing expected Pyongyang to take, and Pyongyang said no way," Zhu Feng, a foreign policy specialist at Beijing University said. “Beijing has to prepare different options. They can't just continue saying that diplomatic pressure without economic pressure is the only way for a resolution."

Kerry’s stalling

Senator Flip-flop (John Kerry) continues to amaze the public. He now is saying that all of his military records have been made public even though others and he himself admitted that they haven’t.

Of course he is whining that President Bush’s military records are not complete as well: "Where are George Bush's still? Where are his military records?" Kerry demanded.

The failed presidential candidate continued to maintain that all his records had been released, telling the Boston Globe, "Let me make this clear: My full military record has been made public."

The report came from the Boston Globe. They didn't press him on a Washington Post story last year revealing that more than 90 pages of his own file can't be released until he signs Form 180. The Globe asked only if he would sign it.

Kerry said that he would sign the 180-release form but there’s still no word that he has.

Dems going to values school

Democrats in Congress are bringing in instructors to teach them how to better brand their policies in the language of values, according to a NY Times story. However, it seems they are missing something along the way:

"They've learned the lessons of the battle but not the war," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who helped formulate the language behind the "Contract With America," a manifesto of principles that helped his party reclaim the House in 1994. "The battle is that you have to be able to say 'God' and not flinch. They are picking up the language, but they don't have the genuine emotion behind it."

The Democrats seem serious in trying to learn the lesson of values, however:

The Democrats' advisers say they do not expect any transformations overnight, either in the language Democrats use or the way voters react to it.

"We don't need just a few Bible verses or some cheap God talk," said Mr. Wallis, who is the founder and editor of the Christian magazine Sojourners and the author of a new book, "God's Politics." He added: "This is more than a language issue. It's a content issue. So I said to the Democrats: 'This isn't going to be a sprint. It's going to be a marathon.'

Sizing it up

One of the best sources of news is ABC’s The Note. They sized up the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans this morning:

One party has political elites who revere and respect its recent presidential candidates; one party can't even be bothered to stop chatting and, err, partying to listen to its candidates speak.

One party has a clear programmatic agenda that has been relentlessly pursued in a well-organized fashion for five years; one party is still trying to build a credible war room (both materially and culturally).

One party never apologizes and never shows weakness; one party is on its fourth day of cry-babyish "defense" of its Senate Leader, after a run-of-the-mill GOP "attack."

One party is already organizing for 2005/6/7/8; one party is still trying to figure out what changes a yet-to-be-elected chair will make on the Wisteria Lane of politics — Ivy Street, SE.

One party would know that electing a national chair with a net negative approval rating is at a minimum problematic; one party thinks it's a virtue.

One party can whenever it wishes take off-the-shelf opposition research (video and text) and turn it into talking points that drive the friendly and (sometimes) mainstream media; one party considers 36 hours to be "rapid response."

One party will air its dirty laundry to whatever lowest-common-denominator media outlet comes a-sniffin'; one party engages in cock-fight-style drag-'em-outs in their headquarters' basement.

One party is on offense; one party is on . . . something else.

On party learned the lessons of the '90s; one party unlearned them.

One party knows the press is its "enemy"; one party mistakenly thinks the press is its "friend."

One party is expending resources to expand the base and broaden the tent; one party says it is planning to do those things, but is distracted defending demographic and geographic turf.

One party owns national security; one party can't figure out how to own health care or the environment in a way that would help win elections.

One party figured out how to keep its "extreme" party platform on abortion and still make electoral gains; one party hasn't.

One party is trying to use its general unity to hold together and pass Social Security reform; one party is trying to figure out how to extend and build on its unity over opposing personal accounts to a general strategy.

One party has been taking the long view for a long time; one party can't see past yesterday.

One party has members who will take these words to be gospel; one party is dominated by people [who] will quickly dismiss it as mean-spirited.

One party would agree with what we wrote above; so would the other one.

This is the landscape as the DNC winter meeting continues today at the Reagan Hilton.

One further reference from The Note is a must today:

Note to Brent Bozell and Rush Limbaugh: do not take this section seriously.

Note to Democrats: we shall repeat this again . . . a bit more slowly.

The reason . . . why . . . the . . RNC . . . is . . .going . . . after . . . Harry . . . Reid . . . is . . . to . . . make . . . him . . . mad . . . and . . . get . . . Democrats . . . all . . . riled . . . up.

McAuliffe says good-bye

Here it is... the final email from Terry McAuliffe, signing off as chairman of the DNC:

I couldn't let the final days of my four years as Chairman of the Democratic Party go by without offering you one last message of thanks. I have been deeply moved by all the kind words I have heard in recent days about what we have achieved in strengthening our Party.

And I am always aware that the praise for the remarkable progress our Party has made is really aimed at people like you - those who have stood by the Democratic Party through thick and thin.

On Saturday when I turn the role of Party Chairman over to Howard Dean - and every day for the rest of my life - I will proudly count myself among the rank and file Democrats who are the heart of our Party.

Thanks so much for your passion, energy, commitment and support.

Sincerely,

Terry McAuliffe
Chairman