Bush's Climate Charade

Zinsmeister, who worked briefly in Moynihan's Senate office more than two decades ago, got his West Wing job after Claude Allen resigned in disgrace. Before his appointment, he chalked up quite a record of inflammatory comments on social policy. Peter Baker wrote about some of Zinsmeister's statements in The Washington Post in June 2006: "As Zinsmeister sees it, racial profiling by the police makes sense; the military, if anything, treats terrorist suspects too gently; and casual sex has led to wrecked cities, violence and 'endless human misery.'"

I took note of Zinsmeister in my June 16, 2006, column, White House Hotheads.

In one particularly notable sequence of events, exposed by Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun, Zinsmeister altered his own quotes in a Syracuse New Times profile of him when he re-posted it on the Web site of the magazine he edited for the American Enterprise Institute.

One of the key quotes Zinsmeister changed was this one: "People in Washington are morally repugnant, cheating, shifty human beings."

Here's the "Zinsmeistered" version: "I learned in Washington that there is an 'overclass' in this country stocked with cheating, shifty human beings that's just as morally repugnant as our 'underclass.' "

Was that really any better? I was at the Harvard conference, and asked Zinsmeister how he had come to decide the underclass was morally repugnant and how it affected his work at the White House.

He insisted he had only used the phrase in a discussion of upper-class parents' tolerance of drug use by their children. As for "my experience with the underclass. . . . I have lots of it," he said, explaining that he had once lived across the street from a Washington D.C. housing project ravaged by the crack epidemic.

The Washington Post's Michael A. Fletcher appears to have been given copy of Zinsmeister's prepared remarks, and has a story with the unfortunate headline: "White House Aide Channels a Democrat on Fixing Nation's Social Ills."

SCHIP Watch

Gail Russell Chaddock writes in the Christian Science Monitor: "President Bush heads into only the fourth veto of his presidency with most of America's health establishment and nearly two-thirds of the Congress arrayed against him.

"A 12-year-old boy delivered the Democratic response to Mr. Bush's radio address this weekend, and children pulling red wagons are expected to deliver 1 million petitions supporting renewal of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to the White House on Monday.

"Explaining a vote against healthcare for poor children is not the issue that Republicans wanted to take into the November 2008 elections. Last week, 18 Republicans in the Senate and 45 in the House broke with Bush to support the pending S-CHIP bill, and Democrats say they need to flip only 15 more House Republicans to give the Congress a veto-proof majority.

"But the White House and GOP leaders in both houses of Congress say this is a fight worth fighting on policy grounds -- and that it may do them some good in spending battles to come and even in next fall's elections."

The Washington Post editorial board offers "a fact-check of some of the administration's arguments against the measure."

For instance: "Claim: 'The administration strongly supports . . . SCHIP's original purpose of targeting health care dollars to low-income children who need them most.' -- statement of administration policy

"The administration's proposal, to increase spending by less than $5 billion over five years, would fall $14 billion short of what's needed to maintain existing coverage in SCHIP alone -- never mind adding the millions of eligible but uncovered children the president once said he was determined to sign up. Where's the commitment in that?"

Sebastian Mallaby writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "Politically, this is crazy. The bill that Bush is poised to veto has bipartisan backing, and two-thirds of the public say they like it. But in policy terms the veto looks a little crazy, too. The bill would extend the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a successful initiative that Bush himself supports. A veto would be based on misleading statistics and an exaggerated faith in markets."

Quote of the Week

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino at Friday's press briefing, asked if Bush might reconsider his veto threat: "The President does not have second thoughts."

Spending Watch

Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "The White House, at the urging of congressional Republican leaders, is spoiling for a fight on Democratic spending. And GOP leaders are looking for any opportunity for confrontations on illegal immigration and taxation."

The New York Times editorial board writes: "If, as he says, President Bush is going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq, why on earth does he need vastly more money from Congress to wage war? The staggering, ever escalating numbers tell the real story: As long as it's up to Mr. Bush, the American presence in Iraq will be endless and ever more costly, diverting resources from other national priorities that are being ignored or shortchanged."

Legacy Watch, Part One

Hanna Rosin writes in a USA Today opinion piece: "The Bush administration has filled its junior staff positions with hundreds of young, hungry evangelicals. They are the executive assistants at the White House, junior press secretaries in the federal bureaucracy and interns of all sorts. Some are graduates of secular and even Ivy League colleges, but many come from the exploding number of Christian colleges."

The White house has "operated as a finishing school" for these young Republican activists, Rosin writes, and: "Like the Peace Corps generation, they'll be with us for years to come."

Legacy Watch, Part Two

Roger Cohen writes in his New York Times opinion column: "The unpopularity of George W. Bush has led many to believe global America-hating will ebb once he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009. That's a dangerous assumption. . . .

"The Iraq-linked damage to U.S. credibility is too severe to be quickly undone. The net loss of Western influence over the world means the ability of Bush's successor to shape events is diminished."

Federal Government Incompetence Watch

John Solomon and Juliet Eilperin write in The Washington Post: "The Environmental Protection Agency's pursuit of criminal cases against polluters has dropped off sharply during the Bush administration, with the number of prosecutions, new investigations and total convictions all down by more than a third, according to Justice Department and EPA data.

"The number of civil lawsuits filed against defendants who refuse to settle environmental cases was down nearly 70 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2006, compared with a four-year period in the late 1990s, according to those same statistics.

"Critics of the agency say its flagging efforts have emboldened polluters to flout U.S. environmental laws, threatening progress in cleaning the air, protecting wildlife, eliminating hazardous materials, and countless other endeavors overseen by the EPA."

Iacocca's View

Richard Johnson writes in the New York Post: "Lee Iacocca is no fan of President Bush. 'I campaigned for him because I knew his mother and dad for 30 years, and I figured he was from pretty good stock,' the auto-industry legend tells Details magazine. 'But Jeb was being groomed, too. They got the wrong kid. There's something wrong philosophically with how Bush's brain works. I feel sorry for him.'"

Jenna's Coming Out

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "Just a few short years ago, she was a party-loving college girl, sticking her tongue out in view of photographers and giving her parents heartburn. Now Jenna Bush, 25, is sporting a diamond-and-sapphire ring, engaged to be married -- though probably not at the White House, her mother says -- and heading out on a book tour.

"America is meeting this new, grown-up Jenna -- twin sister of Barbara, daughter of George W. and Laura -- this weekend with the publication of her book, 'Ana's Story.' It is a chronicle of Ana, 17, an H.I.V.-positive single mother in Panama whom Ms. Bush encountered while an intern there for Unicef, the international children's advocacy group."

The media blitz "began Friday evening, with Ms. Bush's first-ever television interview, an hour-long sit-down with Diane Sawyer of the ABC News program '20/20."

Sawyer pointed out that some observers have asked if the twins should be fighting in Iraq. The response: "I don't think it's a practical question. I think if people really thought about it, they know that we would put many people in danger. But I understand the point of it."

Lorraine Ali writes in Newsweek: "Safe sex is encouraged throughout her new book, even though the Bush administration's hotly contested HIV-prevention campaign was built around a staunch 'abstinence only' message. 'In Africa my dad's policies are pretty much in line with mine, but not domestically,' says Bush, referring to her father's ABC (abstain, be faithful, use a condom) policy in Africa. 'But it's a personal decision. All of us want our kids to be safe, and there's no doubt that condoms make our kids safe. And many girls don't have the choice -- they are exploited sexually. It's important they stay protected and protect others.'"

Bob Thompson interviews the First Twin for The Washington Post and gets her to acknowledge that she's not pregnant.

Late Night Humor

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert on Bush's courageous stand against SCHIP: "He wants what's best for our children, and in this case that means not giving them health care. . . .

"If we really care for our kids, we should deny them government health insurance now, to immunize them against expecting it as adults. . . . Mr. President, you must kill that bill. It's not just a veto, it's a vaccination."

Cartoon Watch

Mike Luckovich, Pat Oliphant and Dan Wasserman on SCHIP.

Luckovich on Bush's audiences; Ann Telnaes on Bush at the U.N.; Tom Toles on the cost of the war; Jim Morin on Bush's numbers; and John Sherffius on Bush and climate change.