Detainees May Go to U.S., Obama Says/Obama vs Cheney: A (Polling) Mismatch from the Start

Detainees May Go to U.S., Obama Says
By DAVID STOUT
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 21, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/politics/22obama.html?_r=1&ref=global-home


WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Thursday that his administration wants to transfer some detainees from the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba to highly secure prisons in the United States, and that doing so will in no way endanger American security. Reiterating his determination to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, in the face of growing Congressional pressure to keep it open, the president said what has gone on there for the past eight years has undermined rather than strengthened America’s safety, and that moving its most dangerous inmates to the United States is both practical and in keeping with the country’s cherished ideals.

“As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal ‘supermax’ prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists,” the president said. “As Senator Lindsey Graham said: ‘The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.’”

The “supermax” prisons, familiar to viewers of cable-television crime programs, are fortress-like structures of concrete and steel where the inmates — the worst of the worst of hardened criminals — live in near-isolation.

Speaking at the National Archives, which houses the Constitution and other documents embodying America’s system of government and justice, the president promised to work with Congress to develop a safe and fair system for dealing with those Guantánamo detainees who cannot be prosecuted “yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.”

“I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face,” the president said.

“I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges,” Mr. Obama said. “Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees — not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.”

The president said Americans should resist the temptation to indulge in “finger-pointing” over mistakes. But he offered scathing criticism of the presidency of George W. Bush, referring repeatedly to the missteps, in Mr. Obama’s view, of “the past eight years.”

In an address punctuated several times by applause, the president asserted over and over that fidelity to American values is not a luxury to be dispensed with in times of crisis but, rather, the compass that will steer the country to safety in an age of terrorism.

“We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe,” he said.But even as the president was finishing his speech, television networks were preparing to cut away to another speech, titled “Keeping America Safe,” by former Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney, who was to speak before the American Enterprise Institute, has emerged as one of the new administration’s staunchest critics on security questions.

Both speeches came in a week in which Congress has been wrestling with detention issues. The Senate rebuffed the president over financing for closing down the detention center. Republicans and Democrats alike argued that the White House had yet to outline a realistic plan for what to do with the remaining detainees after the center is closed.

Mr. Obama did not provide details about his plan, except for his pledge to work closely with Congress to arrive at a system both practical and humane.

“People don’t understand that much of what we’re doing is being driven by the courts, and whether he had decided to close Guantánamo or not, he would have to respond” to the judicial rulings, said David Axelrod, a chief adviser to President Obama, referring to lawsuits and litigation brought by civil liberties groups and others. “We’re in the process of cleaning up the accrued issues of the last six or seven years and they’re complex and thorny and they’re going to require a series of actions.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Jeff Zeleny and Kate Phillips contributed reporting.




Obama vs Cheney: A (Polling) Mismatch from the Start
By Chris Cillizza
Copyright by the Washington Post
May 21, 2009
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/obama-vs-cheney-a-polling-mism.html?hpid=topnews


The dueling speeches by President Obama and former vice president Dick Cheney are being cast as a showdown over national security but the tit for tat is a mismatch from the start.

Why?

Here are the last four personal favorability ratings for Obama: 56 percent, 68 percent 60 percent and 58 percent.

Here are the last four personal favorability ratings for Cheney: 37 percent, 18 percent, 19 percent and 30 percent.

What these numbers show clearly is that the American public is far more favorably inclined to listen to what the president has to say than they are to hear Cheney out.

Message matters in politics but only if the messenger is credible. In the context of a campaign, a negative attack only works when the person making the attack is trusted and believable.

So, too, in a policy debate. Cheney's message hardly matters because he, as a messenger, is badly flawed in the eyes of the American people. Republicans privately acknowledge this, arguing that in the hands of a more popular (or less divisive) politician -- the ideas that Cheney are putting forward could find fertile ground with the American people.

But, that's not the dynamic we find today. No matter how the two speeches are covered -- dueling visions for the country, Obama versus Cheney, restoring American values vs keeping America safe -- the underlying political dynamic is clear: Obama's message is far more likely to resonate with the American people because they are predisposed to like and believe him.