CHERYL CORLEY, host:
This is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Cheryl Corley in for Farai Chideya.
On today's Roundtable, this week the Senate began to its debate on funding the war in Iraq after last week's House vote, which puts a deadline on U.S. troop involvement. A controversial poet loses an appeal of his free speech lawsuit, and hurricane Katrina victims lose their fight to file a lawsuit against a major insurance company.
Joining our panel are Robert George, editorial writer at the New York Post, Callie Crossley, social and cultural commentator on the Boston television show "Beat the Press," and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, professor of globalization and education at NYU. Thanks everybody for being with us today.
Mr. ROBERT GEORGE (Editorial Writer, New York Post): Good to be here.
Professor MARCELO SUAREZ-OROZCO (Globalization and Education, New York University): Thank you.
CORLEY: Well, the battle between the president and Congress continues to heat up. The Senate this week takes on war spending. Last week it was House lawmakers who narrowly approved funds for the war while requiring troops to be withdrawn from Iraq before September of 2008. The voting was mostly along party lines. The bill got a boost when several members of the Congressional Black Caucus said they would not block the bill.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson said they voted against the legislation only because it would not bring an immediate end to the war. However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the measure was a way to bring an end to the chaos in Iraq.
Representative NANCY PELOSI (Democrat, California; Speaker of the House): Our commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, recently said there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq. Yet the president's response to escalating levels of violence is to deploy more troops, a strategy that has been tried and failed three times already.
CORLEY: Of course, the president has promised to veto this bill. What do you all think? Was this House bill a fair compromise?
Mr. GEORGE: Well, I would say, first of all, I think Nancy Pelosi slightly mischaracterized what General Petraeus said. I think General Petraeus said a military solution alone is not going to be a solution to the war.
I mean, I think this was a sort of a mishmash right here. I mean, our paper, the editorial page at the Post which is supportive of the surge and sort of continuing going along with where we are now - our view point on it is that, in - on one hand they're trying to sort of in a sense kind of tie the hands of, say, Petraeus on the field; at the same time, they realize that they can't get this kind of a bill passed just on the merits. And so they had to add $11 billion worth of domestic pork that has actually nothing to do with the bills. So I mean I think it's a pretty atrocious looking bill, frankly.
CORLEY: Callie?
Prof. SUAREZ-OROZCO: Somebody once said war is the continuation of politics by other means. This is a case of politics being the continuation of war by other means. And it really represents the beginning of the final rounds, let's say, between the White House and the Congress in the context of the conflict in Iraq.
The question is how muscular will the Democratic leadership want to be moving forward in this next set of rounds around this issue. But it represents a turning point. It represents a turning point in terms of the gathering of a fight between the Congress and the White House that will consume the administration moving forward.
CORLEY: Callie, what about the vote of the Congressional Black Caucus with most supporting the measure? Was that surprising to you or did they have to support Nancy Pelosi at this point?
Ms. CROSSLEY: It wasn't surprising to me. And mishmash, though it may be this, as Robert has described it, the addition of pork to any bill, as you know, is typical. That's what happens. I do take his point that that's what had to happen here to get some people to support the bill, and I understand that.
But here's what's not surprising. The Congressional Black Caucus in supporting - those members that did end up supporting it - are supporting the people who said get out. And what gets me is that there - you know, the congressional members who are in there arguing against a bill like this are going against what the folks who voted in the last election have said do. And what they have said do is get out. And that's the bottom line.
I mean even the Republican members know that, because some of them are sitting there narrowly having escaped the wrath of some of their constituencies. So I think that Marcelo was right where this is going to be a big pitched battle, but it ought to be because folks are representing their constituencies and they have said get out.
Now everybody knows that whatever is put out there on the first go around is going to get amended, added to, argued about, whatever. But it should be overall the sentiment that reflects the people's concerns.
CORLEY: Well, the Senate began its debate, too, on an Iraq war funding bill that caused for pull out of U.S. troops but by March of next year. Unlike the deadline in the House version, the Senate's deadline is non-binding. Even so, the White House is already threatening to veto both or whatever the bill turns out to be. How significant, really, are these votes?
Mr. GEORGE: Well, I mean, they are significant in that they certainly put the Congress on notice as saying it's not going to be business as usual. And in a sense it is the most significant change in the Washington dynamic in terms of managing the war since the election. And now the fact is though, I mean, the president is the commander in chief, and as long as he has the power to veto, it's going to be able to continue.
Now, what will end up happening is, if you do - if he ends up vetoing a bill that has some kind of a timetable on it, then you're going to end up - that's when the rubber hits the road because you're going to have a situation where the troops in the field certainly need the resources to continue. And if the money is not appropriated, you're then going to have the situation where you're going to have finger pointing as to who's responsible for that.
CORLEY: Well, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who is considering a run for the presidency, stopped short this weekend of calling for the president's impeachment. But he says some lawmakers may be thinking that's an option. Do you think at this point Congress is ready to consider that at all? Anyone.
Ms. CROSSLEY: No. I think the people like to talk about it because, it, you know, it adds a little fuel to the fire, but I honestly don't see any big ground swell.
Mr. GEORGE: There are some…
Ms. CROSSLEY: (Unintelligible) else going on.
Mr. GEORGE: There are some people, there are, I think there are actually, there is probably a significant number of Democrats who would like to try and bring impeachment against the president. But I think Nancy Pelosi, I mean, impeachment has to start in the House, constitutionally speaking. Nancy Pelosi has already said that that's off the table.
And I think, politically speaking, I think the Democrats prefer to have the president as he is now with a 30 percent or so approval rating from Republicans. I think it's easier for them politically, rather than sitting to overreach by trying to go for impeachment. After all, I mean, he's going to be, he'll be leaving office regardless, you know, in about two years, anyway.
CORLEY: All right, well let's move on. Amiri Baraka has always been known as an outspoken and controversial poet. And now, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against him in a case involving a poem he wrote after the September 11th attacks. That poem entitled "Somebody Blew Up America" questions who is behind a number of horrific events in history. But there were two lines in particular which suggested Israel had prior knowledge of the September 11th attacks, which caused an uproar. And New Jersey officials solved the controversy, or so they thought, by eliminating the post to poet laureate and taking the title away from Baraka. Now, he filed a lawsuit, claimed his first amended free speech rights were violated, and this is Baraka's response to the appellate court ruling.
Mr. AMIRI BARAKA (Poet): Listen to what they say. The district court did not err in holding defendants did not deprive Baraka of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest, or infringe upon his First Amendment rights. You mean to tell me if you try to fire me but then gets slick and just get rid of the poet laureate position you're not infringing upon my rights of First Amendment to speak? Whatever reasons did you do that for?
CORLEY: Now, Baraka says he intends to continue to fight for free speech and take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's go first to his own question: How can this not be interpreted as a free speech issue?
Ms. CROSSLEY: Well, I think it is a free speech issue, but the point is, does he have a right to the post of poet laureate? I mean, I think that's what the issue is here. And some, a lot would argue, and including the governor who eliminated the post, no he doesn't. So we're eliminating the post. Is that a mere free speech issue?
Mr. GEORGE: Well, I mean, I thought that the '60s were over. Please, give me a break here. You have a right to free speech. You don't necessarily - that does not necessarily mean that there are not consequences for having that speech. I mean, you are not allowed, you can't be imprisoned. I mean another question is why on Earth does New Jersey have a poet laureate anyway? I just don't understand…
CORLEY: Well don't most states have a poet laureate?
Ms. CROSSLEY: Yeah.
CORLEY: Yeah.
Mr. GEORGE: …specifically. Well, I mean, I think…
CORLEY: You don't like poetry.
Mr. GEORGE: (Unintelligible)
CORLEY: Let's face it.
Mr. GEORGE: Look, I love poetry. I just don't think that - I don't think it should be a state-paid position. And you - again, you have a right to free speech. That does not mean that there are not certain consequences for exerting that free speech. I mean, obviously sort of imprisonment or being fined or anything like that. But I mean that's the way life goes…
Prof. SUAREZ-OROZCO: Well, certainly it's a free speech case and he exercises free speech. But really here the devil dwells in the details and it has to do with the technicalities of does he have the right to the prize? Does he have the right to the post? Does he have the right to - and these are legal questions that will be sorted out. This will go to the - I mean, he'll - it'll reach the Supreme Court but I very much doubt that this will be framed as a free speech issue.
Mr. GEORGE: And what's a key point here is that the New Jersey legislature, the governor actually, I think, acted the way the law is drafted. They realized from a free speech context they could not done him his wages. They could not take away the $10,000. They could not fire him from the position because that would be constitutionally impermissible.
What they do have the power to do, though, is they have - in a sense, a similar situation as the whole question over the war. They have a right as a legislative body to say, should there be a poet laureate? Should we fund this position? And they decided no, so they got rid of it.
CORLEY: All right. Well, let's move along to another topic. But first, if you're just tuning in with us, you're listening to NPR's NEWS & NOTES. I'm Cheryl Corley. And joining me today on the Roundtable: Robert George, editorial writer at the New York Post, Callie Crossley, social and cultural commentator on the Boston television show "Beat the Press," and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, professor of globalization and education at NYU.
Well, a U.S. district judge refused an effort to group a number of Hurricane Katrina lawsuits in the Mississippi Gulf Coast into a class-action lawsuit. The judge said the basis for the lawsuit was inconsistent with the requirements of due process. The insurance company says it does cover damage due to natural disasters - and we've heard this before - but from wind, not rising water, including storm surge. So more bad news for Katrina victims possibly. In this case, one woman wanted to join other State Farm policyholders in Mississippi whose homes were reduced to slabs by the storm. So how can people continue to be motivated to rebuild giving such circumstances?
Prof. SUAREZ-OROZCO: Now, we're on the legal Katrina that follows the natural disaster (unintelligible) political and legal made disasters.
Mr. GEORGE: Good point.
Prof. SUAREZ-OROZCO: So, I think, that's a very, very good question, Cheryl. It really takes a tremendous amount of energy and a tremendous amount of will to move forward in the context of these various, just horrific mishandlings of the reconstruction. A sad day, again, for our brothers and sisters in the South.
CORLEY: Well, the insurance game, of course, is about business and profits and bottom lines just like any other company. Given that, what do insurers owe these Katrina victims?
Ms. CROSSLEY: I think they owe them restitution. And let's have a reality check here. We know what destroyed those homes. They know what destroyed those homes. I know that that's going to be a big hit financially, but they are already in process of making up that money by raising the premiums to exorbitant rates for some who have decided that they want to return and rebuild. So they're going to get their money.
But to deny people, I mean, this just seems beyond a legal and a business decision to me. I know business doesn't often end up in the same sentence with morality. But this just seems immoral to me. I just don't understand it. It's depressing.
Mr. GEORGE: Yeah. And I mean I think even, I mean, even just in the terms they technical for phraseology, say, you know, they pay for damage from wind but not from, like, from water surge. Well, you know, what was causing the water to surge if it wasn't partly the winds and so forth?
On a purely legal basis, they may be technically correct. But there is, it seems at least at worst - excuse me - best, it seems at least amoral if not immoral. The one story I did see, though, the judge who made this decision was trying to urge all parties to go into a mediation, which means that they may not get dollar-for-dollar restitution but they may get at least something to try and put their lives together.
But it does again undermine the hope for people who believe that the Gulf region can be restored to what it once was.
Prof. SUAREZ-OROZCO: This is really a case where the spirit of the law and the spirit of the issues that are at stake really ought to take precedent over these technical, legalistic maneuverings because there are the thousands and thousands of families that had been affected by this. And we have to help people get back to their lives, and this is the precise context where a mediation, where a much more ambitious multilateral conversation needs to be established.
Mr. GEORGE: The subside of it, of course, really is…
Ms. CROSSLEY: Yeah, well, yeah. Because let's - no, Robert, let us make a point that the mediation program means case by case by case…
CORLEY: Right.
Ms. CROSSLEY: …and what was trying to be established here was a class action. So a lot of people could, you know, presumably move through the system a little faster in getting some help.
Mr. GEORGE: Well, I recognize that. But the mediation process has managed to settle, I think, about 50 percent of this particular group of people. I did want to say just to add on, though, that if the flipside of it was though - if the insurance companies did have to pay complete restitution and then they, because of that, had to go bankrupt, that doesn't exactly help those also trying to rebuild as well because then you're going to have less insurers able to assist those for future calamities.
CORLEY: And I guess the argument then, and we'll have to wrap this up. I guess the argument then is the profits of the insurance companies and how close to the edge really would they be towards bankruptcy if they funded all these insurance clients, correct?
Ms. CROSSLEY: I'm guessing not too close.
CORLEY: All right.
Ms. CROSSLEY: Yeah, that's just going to be my guess.
CORLEY: All right. All right. Well, that will end it for us. Thank you all for joining us today. From our New York bureau is Robert George, editorial writer at the New York Post, along with Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, professor of globalization and education at NYU and co-director of immigration studies. And at Harvard University studios in Massachusetts, Callie Crossley, social and cultural commentator on the Boston television show "Beat the Press." Thank you everybody.
Mr. GEORGE: Thank you, Cheryl.
Prof. SUAREZ-OROZCO: Thank you.
Ms. CROSSLEY: Thank you.
CORLEY: And as always, if you'd like to comment on any of the topics you've heard on our Roundtable, you can call us at 202-408-3330. That's 202-408-3330.
You're listening to NEWS & NOTES from NPR News.
Copyright © 2007 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.