The Blinne Blog

The French Connection

The source of the Niger yellowcake documents has now been officially identified in a story by the New York Times.

ROME, Nov. 3 - Italy's spymaster identified an Italian occasional spy named Rocco Martino on Thursday as the disseminator of forged documents that described efforts by Iraq to buy uranium ore from Niger for a nuclear weapons program, three lawmakers said Thursday.

The spymaster, Gen. Nicolò Pollari, director of the Italian military intelligence agency known as Sismi, disclosed that Mr. Martino was the source of the forged documents in closed-door testimony to a parliamentary committee that oversees secret services, the lawmakers said.

The interesting part is here buried in the middle of the story.

Senator Luigi Malabarba, who also attended Thursday's hearing, said in a telephone interview that General Pollari had told the committee that Mr. Martino was "offering the documents not on behalf of Sismi but on behalf of the French" and that Mr. Martino had told prosecutors in Rome that he was in the service of French intelligence.

A senior French intelligence official interviewed Wednesday in Paris declined to say whether Mr. Martino had been a paid agent of France, but he called General Pollari's assertions about France's responsibility "scandalous."

Even this is old news. The Daily Telegraph reported the following a year ago:

Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.

Italian judicial officials confirmed yesterday that Mr Martino had previously been sought for questioning by Rome. Investigating magistrates in the city have opened an inquiry into claims he made previously in the international press that Italy's secret services had been behind the dissemination of false documents, to bolster the US case for war.

According to Ansa, the Italian news agency, which said privately that it had obtained its information from "judicial and other sources", Mr Martino was questioned by an investigating magistrate, Franco Ionta, for two hours. Ansa said Mr Martino told the magistrate that Italy's military intelligence, Sismi, had no role in the procuring or dissemination of the Niger documents.

He was also said to have claimed that he had obtained the documents from an employee at the Niger embassy in Rome, before passing these to French intelligence, on whose payroll he had been since at least 2000.

However, he reportedly also added that he had believed that the documents in question were genuine, and to have never suspected that they had been forged. "Martino has clarified his position and offered to deliver to the magistrates the documents which confirm his declarations," his lawyer, Giuseppe Placidi, told Ansa.

It was not possible to contact Mr Martino through his lawyer yesterday. Contacted by The Telegraph, Mr Ionta politely declined to comment, but did not deny that the questioning had taken place. The Interior Ministry in Rome, which had also expressed keen interest in the Telegraph article, refused to comment on the matter.

Mr Martino is said by diplomats to have come forward of his own accord and contacted authorities in the Italian capital following the earlier article in the Telegraph. They said he had written a letter of resignation to the French DGSE intelligence service last week.

According to an Italian newspaper report yesterday, members of the Digos, Italy's anti-terrorist police, removed documents from Mr Martino's home in a northern suburb of Rome on Friday afternoon.

"After being exposed in the international press, French intelligence can hardly be amused or happy with him," one western diplomat said. "Martino may have thought the safest thing was to hand himself over to the Italians." Investigators in Rome suspect that Mr Martino was first engaged by the French secret services five years ago, when he was asked to investigate rumours of illicit trafficking in uranium from Niger. He is thought to have then been retained the following year to collect more information. It was then that he is suspected of having assembled a dossier containing both real and bogus documents from Niger, the latter apparently forged by a diplomat.

The New York Times on the other hand only cares about whether Italian intelligence was complicit in this and apparently had no curiosity about French intelligence. Nevertheless, Italian intelligence gets acquitted in the process.

General Pollari also said that no Italian intelligence agency officials were involved in either forging or distributing the documents, according to both Senator Brutti and the committee chairman, Enzo Bianco.

Committee members said they were shown documents defending General Pollari, including a copy of a classified letter from Robert S. Muller III, the director of the F.B.I., dated July 20, which praised Italy's cooperation with the bureau.

In Washington, an official at the bureau confirmed the substance of the letter, whose contents were first reported Tuesday in the leftist newspaper L'Unità. The letter stated that Italy's cooperation proved the bureau's theory that the false documents were produced and disseminated by one or more people for personal profit, and ruled out the possibility that the Italian service had intended to influence American policy, the newspaper said.

As a result, the letter said, according to both the F.B.I. official and L'Unità, the bureau had closed its investigation into the origin of the documents.

Finally, The New York Times states as fact something that is not so:

The documents were the basis for sending a former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, on a fact-finding mission to Niger that eventually exploded into an inquiry that led to the indictment and resignation last week of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby. [emphasis mine]

Note the following conclusions that the Democrats didn't allow to be published as part of the SSCI report:

Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee.

 

The former ambassador's wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador's wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA's Directorate of Operations which said, "[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger. [emphasis mine]

Two things should be noted. First, that Ambassador Wilson was sent on a matter not related to Iraq and thus was not evaluating the forged documents. Second, that according to his wife he had "lots of French contacts".

There should be an investigation on the role of French intelligence in this whole mess to determine if they deliberately planted these documents in order to discredit the Iraq war effort given that there were many French companies up to their eyeballs in the Oil for Food scandal.

 

Harriet Miers in Her Own Words

The Smoking Gun has posted Harriet Miers' Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Critics on the left and right have accused her of not being an originalist or being a lap dog for the executive branch. Her answer concerning judicial activism should put both of these accusations to rest. Her answer shows intelligence, humility, and just-plain common sense. She also shows how her life experience is relevant to service on the Supreme Court. Conservative critics should note particularly the last paragraph where Ms. Miers skilfully balances judicial constraint with judicial independence. Namely, "While legitimate criticism of judicial activism is healthy, even essential, we must be wary of unduly criticizing judges merely because we disagree with the result in a particular case." Enough of me, let's let Harriet Miers finally speak for herself.

The role of the Federal judiciary within the Federal government, and within society, generally, has become the subject of increasing controversy in recent years. It has become the target of both popular and academic criticism that alleges that the judicial branch has usurped many of the prerogatives of other branches and levels of government.

Some of the characteristics of this judicial activism have been said to include:
a. a tendency by the judiciary toward problem-solution rather than grievance- resolution:
b. a tendency by the judiciary to employ the individual plaintive a vehicle for the imposition of far-reaching orders extending to broad classes of individuals:
c. a tendency by the judiciary to impose broad, affirmative duties upon governments and society;
d. a tendency by the judiciary toward loosening jurisdictional requirements such as standing and ripeness: and
e. a tendency by the judiciary to impose itself upon other Institutions in the manner of an administrator with continuing oversight responsibilities.

The role of the judiciary in our system of government is limited. While its role and its independence are essential to the proper functioning of our tripartite system of government, the courts cannot be the solution to society’s ills, and (he independence of the courts provides no license for them to be free-wheeling. And, of course, parties should not be able to establish social policy through court action, having failed to persuade the legislative branch or the executive branch of the wisdom and correctness of their preferred course. Courts are to be arbiters of disputes, not policy makers. As has been said many times, the role of the courts is to interpret law and not to make it. My own beliefs about these issues have been formed over many years, and find their roots in the beginning of my legal career.

Beginning during my two years as a Federal district court clerk, I was taught by the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Joe F. Estes, the importance of Federal courts’ keeping to their limited role. His first task -- and therefore mine in assisting him -- in every case before him was to examine whether the case was properly in court. Was there a party with standing? Did subject matter jurisdiction exist? Was venue proper? These were all questions -- and all related questions going to whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction -- that he wanted answered before any others. If the answer was “no” to any of them, the case was dismissed promptly. These basic rules of Article III impose a clear responsibility on courts to maintain their limited role.

“Judicial activism” can result from a court’s reaching beyond its intended jurisdiction to hear disputes that are not ripe, not brought by a party with standing, not brought in the proper court, or otherwise not properly before the court because of the case’s subject matter. An additional element of judicial restraint is to be sure only to decide the case before the court, and not to reach out to decide unnecessary questions. The courts have the essential role of acting as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, including drawing the appropriate lines between the competing branches of government. But that role is limited to circumstances in which the resolution of a contested case or controversy requires the courts to act.

As I entered private practice, I grew to appreciate even more the importance of predictability amid stability in the law, and came to believe that those values are best served by a rigorous and focused approach to the law. For the legal system to be predictable, the words are vital -- whether they are agreed upon by parties to a contract or are the product of legislative compromise. Many times in practice I found myself stressing to clients the importance of getting the words exactly right if their interests were to be protected in the future. Legal practice also taught me the importance of stability in the law. A lawyer must be able to advise her clients based upon the existing ease law. Courts should give proper consideration to the text as agreed upon, the law as written, and applicable precedent. Then our system of justice can achieve appropriate stability, clarity, and predictability. Those values cannot be effectively pursued unless the law and the facts determine the outcome of a case, rather than the identity of the judge before whom a case is brought. Time and again, I saw that principle in real world cases. The importance of the rule of law, as opposed to peculiarities of specific judges, was just as critical in small matters involving individuals as it was big litigation involving millions of dollars.

“Judicial activism” can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent, but reconsideration under appropriate circumstances is also necessary. There are clear examples, like Brown v. Board of Education, where revisiting precedent is not only right, it is prudent. Any decision to revisit a precedent should follow only the most careful consideration of the factors that courts have deemed relevant to that question. Thus. whether the prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent and whether legitimate reliance interests militate against overruling.

As my career progressed, I became an elected official charged with legislative power. In that role, I was able fully to appreciate the difference between the role of those who are to make the law and those who are to interpret it. On the Dallas City Council, we dealt frequently with the legal issues facing the City, and with the legal and constitutional implications of our actions. We set policy for the City by, among other devices, passing ordinances. We understood our role, and we expected the courts to understand theirs -- part of which was to respect the policy-making prerogatives of the City Council. There was a vast difference between our vote as a policy matter to prevent the desecration of the American flag, and the job of the courts (including the Supreme Court) to rule whether such an ordinance was constitutional.

Finally, my time serving in the White House, particularly as Counsel to the President, has given me a fuller appreciation of the role of the separation of powers in maintaining our constitutional system. In that role, I have frequently dealt with matters concerning the nature and role of the Executive Power. And by necessity my work has required that I deal with the power of Congress in relation to the Executive. The remaining, and essential, component in our system is of course the power of the Judiciary. The Judicial Branch has its own role to play in the separation of powers. It is part of the system of checks and balances. In interpreting the law in the course of deciding contested cases and controversies, the Supreme Court holds the Executive and Legislative Branches to their respective constitutional roles.

Judicial review by the Supreme Court, including determining the meaning of the Constitution and declaring unconstitutional the actions of another branch of government, is a tremendous power exercised by judges who are not accountable to the electorate. Because their power is so great, and because it is largely unchecked, judges must be vigilant in exercising their power in a humble, prudent, and limited way. The courts must always be ready to decide cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to do so fairly and without regard to the wealth or power of the litigants before them. But it is just as important for the courts to stand ready not to decide in instances that do not call for a decision.

My experience working for Judge Estes provided another valuable lesson. He decided every case according to the law and facts, and he did not worry about the potential for a negative reaction to his decisions. He felt no pressure to please anyone. His only lodestar was the law. The example of Judge Estes helped to instill in me an appreciation for the importance of judicial independence that has only grown stronger over time. Criticism of courts that overstep their role is justified. We must zealously guard, however, independence of the courts. While legitimate criticism of judicial activism is healthy, even essential, we must be wary of unduly criticizing judges merely because we disagree with the result in a particular case. Judges are given life tenure and independence to shield them from the potential tyranny of the majority. While life tenure and independence should not be a license to usurp the rule of law in favor of a rule of man, they provide an essential structural protection to ensure that judges are able to make decisions based only on the fundamental vision of the Founders -- the rule of law.

God and Katrina

When natural disasters happen inevitably Christians (including myself) embark on a task known as a theodicy. A theodicy defends God's righteousness against the apparent injustice of the event in question. Tony Campolo does this for Katrina.

There are still other religionists who take the opportunity to tell us that God is punishing America for its many sins. Undoubtedly, there are some al-Qaeda fanatics who right now are saying that Katrina is the hand of God, striking America for what we have done to the people of Iraq and to the Palestinians. Furthermore, there are Christians who, in the weeks to come, can be counted on to thunder from their pulpits that Katrina is God’s wrath against the immorality of this nation, pointing out that New Orleans is the epitome of our national degradation and debauchery. To all of this I say, "Wrong."

The God revealed in Jesus did not come into the world "to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." (John 3:17) There can be no arguments over the claim that, for a variety of reasons, our nation deserves punishment. But when the Bible tells us about the grace of God, it is giving us the good news that our loving God does not give us what we truly deserve. Certainly, God would not create suffering for innocent people, who were--for the most part--Katrina’s victims.

Dr. Campolo is absolutely right that God would not create such suffering amongst the poor. Throughout church history theodicies are the occasion where the greatest theologians most erred because they said too much. For example, errors in Leibnitz' theodicy that this world is the best of all possible worlds was mercilessly critiqued in Voltaire's Candide. Campolo commits an error by denying God's omnipotence. We cannot go there any more than we can go where the religionists above went. When we do a theodicy Scripture guides us where not to go but does not allow relief of a theodicy that is bullet-proof. Silence and humility are the better part of wisdom for a theodicy.

So, if poor people are not the particular object of God's wrath -- Scripture is replete with the concept that God always identifies with the poor and oppressed -- then what's going on here? Could it be the wrong sins are being identified as a cause of this hurricane? If Dr. Campolo is right about the poor --  and I believe he is -- then maybe it is the very oppression of the poor that is being judged.

Let's consider what has happened. The poor in New Orleans could not escape even when their very lives depended upon it. Thanks to the hurricane they now have an opportunity to escape the crushing crime and poverty. This is not to say that many will want to return. But, there are also many that may choose to leave.  For those who do, it is incumbent upon those who call ourselves Christian to welcome our new neighbors and make them a valued part of their new communities. That means housing and jobs and dignity. Their government failed them not only after the hurricane but also before. Let's not fail them again.

Katrina: Doing the Math

Reuters reported the current death toll.

The recovery of Katrina's victims speeded up in the last two days. As of Thursday, Mississippi had recorded 201 deaths and Louisiana 118, while other affected states had much lower numbers.

Let's assume that the death toll quintuples to 500. How many people were evacuated after the hurricane?

Rescuers plucked thousands more from streets, levees, roads and rooftops. At least 32,000 were rescued and another 70,000 were evacuated from New Orleans after the storm, according to official figures.

That would make the evacuation 99.5% successful, 99.9% successful if you include the pre-hurricane evacuation!

Louisiana Homeland Security -- Part of Louisiana Government -- Blocks Aid to New Orleans

Left-wing blogs are going nuts saying that the Federal Homeland Security blocked food and water from the Red Cross to victims in New Orleans. The story is half right. The Red Cross' web site says:

Access to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city. And while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

CNN reported the story this way:

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (CNN) -- Louisiana officials rebuffed American Red Cross requests to enter New Orleans with relief supplies last week because of concerns over logistical difficulties, Red Cross and state officials said Thursday.

The Red Cross never launched its relief effort in the city.

The national president of the American Red Cross, Marsha Evans, first made the request to undertake the operation during a visit to the state on September 1, three days after Hurricane Katrina struck, a local Red Cross chapter official said.

Vic Howell, chief executive officer of the agency's Louisiana Capital Area Chapter, said he renewed that request the next day to Col. Jay Mayeaux, the deputy director of the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

"We had adequate supplies, the people and the vehicles," Howell said at a news conference in Baton Rouge. "It was the middle of a military rescue operation trying to save lives. We were asked not to go in, and we abided by that recommendation."

The name Louisiana Department of Homeland Security keeps coming up. Who are they? It sure sounds like the feds. I went to their web site and here is their self-description:

The Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (LHLS & EP); formally the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness (LOEP), was created by the Civil Act of 1950 and is under the Louisiana Military Department. In 1976 LHLS & EP via the Louisiana government reorganization, was moved to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). In 1990 LHLS & EP was transferred again to the Military Department. In 2003 the Agency name was changed to the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, reflecting the additional responsibilities to the State and her citizens.

Finally, note the sign that I have a picture. It is part of the department of public safety of the state police.

We're All Moderates and Catholics

The word catholic means universal. So, in that sense all Christians are little-c catholics. In the midst of an otherwise decent editorial I found an interesting error in David Brooks concerning the Roberts' nomination. First, the quote. A Competent Conservative - New York Times.

Confirmation battles have come to seem of late like occasions for bitterly divided Catholics to turn political battles into holy war Armageddons. Most of the main Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are Catholics who are liberal or moderate (Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Leahy), and many of the most controversial judges or nominees are Catholics who are conservative (Scalia, Thomas, Pryor). When they face off, you get this brutal and elemental conflict over the role morality should play in public life.

My question who is the moderate amongst the senators mentioned? And when did Justice Thomas, an Episcopalian, become Catholic? Thomas may very well be Anglo-Catholic and attended a Catholic elementary school but that is not the same thing.  It seems that being a moderate Catholic is where it's at these days. I guess anybody can be one, too. Hat tip: Polipundit.

Who Was Novak's Original Source?

Last year, I caught second-hand speculation within the CIA that Valerie Plame was "outed" from inside the CIA because she and her husband were politicizing intelligence. (A friend of mine had contacts in the Iraq Survey Group.) That speculation seems to be even more likely today.

Question from the Captain's Quarters.

I think it may even be more than that, at least on the media's part, and specific to the New York Times. They know who Judith Miller's source is, and they're trying their best to keep it quiet. One wonders why they're carrying so much water for a story they never broke. Could it have something to do with their publication of Joseph Wilson's original op-ed article that started the whole mess?

I could care less who Miller's source was (unless it was the same as Novak's). Rather, who was Novak's original source given that Rove was the confirming one? Let's look at the characteristics as described by Novak:

1. A senior administration figure
2. Not a partisan gunslinger
3. Would know the answer of why the CIA sent Wilson to Niger

This would give us either Colin Powell or George Tenet. (Commenters please give any other candidates here.) A spokesman for Powell denied that he ever talked with Novak at all about the Plame affair. This leaves George Tenet. A friend of Wilson's asked Novak about Wilson on July 8, 2003, the same day that Rove confirmed Novak's story. Novak told Wilson's friend:

“Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him.”

On July 10, Wilson confronted Novak before Novak ran the story:

Novak apologized, and then asked if I would confirm what he had heard from a CIA source: that my wife worked at the Agency. [emphasis mine]

After Novak ran his story, Wilson contacted Novak again and noted the discrepancy of Novak's sourcing. Novak replied, "I misspoke the first time I contacted you".

What if Novak didn't misspoke and was trying to protect his source? What if characteristic number 4 is works for the CIA? That leaves George Tenet as the source of who sent Wilson to Niger. Whether the source specifically named Valerie Plame is difficult to surmise because apparently her identity was an open secret. In the end, that's for the prosecutor and the grand jury to figure out. 

Bill Clinton: Statesman

Yesterday, Tony Snow gave a challenge on his radio show. He asked for a single quote where a Democrat was acting like a statesman in light of the London bombings. This was a difficult test. However, I found a notable exception from a surprising quarter.

The Rocky Mountain News reported the following quote from former President Bill Clinton:

Clinton, a late addition to the festival's lineup, fielded questions from Aspen Institute President Walter Isaacson and select participants in the event that wasn't open to the public.

Clinton pointed out that in the recent national elections in Iraq, turnout was an astounding 58 percent - higher than in recent U.S. elections. "It's clearly a legitimate process and the people want it to work, so I think we can try to make it work," Clinton said.

The former president said the United States and its allies should continue to help Iraq build its defense capabilities. Clinton also scoffed at the notion that America is embroiled in another war like Vietnam.

"This is not Vietnam. It might be a quagmire, but it won't be for the reason it was in Vietnam. Our problem (in Vietnam) was we didn't have a legitimate government to back," Clinton said.

Clinton also commented on Thursday's bombings in London, saying that, from the terrorists' viewpoint, it was a huge mistake. "I actually think they made a tactically bad decision to do this thing in London, from their point of view," Clinton said. "The British underwent the (Irish Republican Army) terrorism and the blitz bombing (from the Germans in World War II), and they are tough as nails. And they can take it and dish it out."

Well done, Mr. President, and thank you.

Moderates Misunderstood

E.J. Dionne believes there is a  Revolt of the Middle. While that maybe true it is not quite as he describes. He doesn't get many moderates just like the beltway doesn't get "values voters". Being a moderate Evangelical, I get to be doubly misunderstood. :-)

But something important has happened since President Bush's inauguration. America's moderates may not be screaming, but they're in revolt. Many who reluctantly supported the president and the Republicans in 2004 are turning away. The party's agenda on Social Security, judges and the Terri Schiavo case is out of touch with where moderate voters stand. Worse for Bush and his party, most moderates have a practical, problem-solving view of government and think these issues are far less important than shoring up a shaky economy and improving living standards.

Wrong. Many moderates -- at least religious moderates -- are not merely green-eye-shade pragmatists. There is principle behind who we are. We are concerned about the process as well as the policies. We don't require partisan advocates to be lite versions of the other party. Rather, we want the advocacy done fairly, honestly, and without the over-the-top rhetoric. The reason why Bush gained much of our support was because of the overly-strident critique of him by the Left. That support is cut into, however, if the Republicans return in kind.

The latest poll to bring home this message was released late last week by the Democracy Corps, a Democratic consortium led by pollster Stan Greenberg and consultant James Carville. Greenberg and Carville are not triumphalist. They are careful to note that "Democrats are not yet integral to the narrative" of American politics and that the decline in the Republicans' public image "is not accompanied by image gains for the Democrats." Democrats still have a lot of work to do.

The work the Democrats need to do is to turn down the temperature. Otherwise, what the Republicans are doing wrong will not benefit them. At least for religious moderates, this is a matter of principle. But what is that principle? What do religious moderates require of politicians? The same God requires of us all (Micah 6:8):

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

Dean Lures Back Red State Voters with Wrong Bait

Howard Dean gives as a goal of trying to lure so-called "values" votes in a USA Today interview.

"We need to be a national party, we need a national message, and we need to understand why people in dire economic straits — people who certainly aren't being helped by Republican policies — why they vote for George Bush," he said. "We need to respect voters in red states who want to vote for us, but we make it hard for them by not listening to what they have to say."

So far, so good. Values voters such as myself believe that the proper role of government is to protect the weak from the strong. The Democrats could make the argument that the so-called values agenda is too narrow. I made such an argument in January. Liberal Evangelicals, Ron Sider and Jim Wallis,  make similar appeals. I find such appeals moderately compelling. So, how about Howard Dean's own appeal?

Democrats get "caught" in defending abortion, he said. "Well, there's nobody who's pro-abortion, not Democratic or Republican. What we want to debate is who gets to choose: (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay and the federal politicians? Or does a woman get to make up her own mind?"

This falls very flat. The issue is not who decides but whether the Democrats will be true to their roots of being for the powerless.  Hubert Humphrey put it this way:

The moral test of government is how that government  treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

One could effectively argue that the Republicans fail that test. Republicans pick up Evangelical voters because they don't fail as badly as the Democrats. Either party could easily improve their situation because the bar is so low. Dean's quote shows that despite his best intentions he is not really listening. Thus, he is losing what might have been an easy opportunity to pick up Evangelical voters.