I'll be watching John Frankenheimer's Seven Days in May and The Manchurian Candidate, but for those interested in contemporary politics...

ABC's "This Week" -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; evangelist Pat Robertson; New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady.

CBS' "Face the Nation" -- Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

NBC's "Meet the Press" -- White House chief of staff Andrew Card; Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

CNN's "Late Edition" -- Card; Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak Al-Rubaie and Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel Al-Jubeir; former Labor Secretary Robert Reich; publisher Steve Forbes.

"Fox News Sunday" -- Card; Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Link.

Nebraska, a state George W. Bush won in 2004 by a two to one margin, is gearing up to be a state to watch in 2006. Already, the Nebraska Senate race is becoming increasingly competitive, as conservative Dem. Ben Nelson fights for his political life. Now, a primary battle has erupted in the state's gubernatorial race, as the AP's Kevin O'Hanlon reports:

Former Nebraska football coach Tom Osborne plans to seek the Republican nomination for governor instead of a fourth term in Congress.

The 68-year-old Osborne made the announcement Saturday in his hometown at Hastings College, his alma mater.

[...]

To get to the governor's mansion, the famed former coach will face at least two opponents in the Republican primary — Gov. Dave Heineman and Omaha businessman David Nabity.

It's always enjoyable to watch when a couple of conservative Republicans duke it out for a nomination. This year, we have the distinct opportunity to watch this not only in Nebraska, but also in Texas, where Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is preparing to challenge Governor Rick Perry. So grab your popcorn. It's going to be an entertaining two years.

The Boston Globe's Nina J. Easton has an extremely interesting article today on the right wing's retreat from supporting President Bush's privatization scheme. She leads,

The Weekly Standard, an influential conservative magazine, this week published an "exit strategy" for the president's Social Security plan.

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer says the White House plan for private accounts, the heart of his reforms, is on life support. Free-market activist Stephen Moore, who in January felt "the stars were aligned" for Congress to adopt private accounts, now says the "window has slammed shut."

Even Edward H. Crane, president of the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, and a chief architect of private accounts, said he thinks it will take another congressional election before President Bush has a realistic chance of enacting the centerpiece of his second-term agenda. "I don't see the momentum in Congress right now," he said.

If there's any momentum in the Social Security debate now, it's moving away from privatization. As much as the President and his cronies have tried to sell the American people on drastically cutting benefits in return for minimal investments, the fact is that the American people do not support gutting the program. The progressive community can see it. The centrist community can see it. Even the far right, as represented by Cato and The Weekly Standard, can see it. The real question is why the White House can't see it.

In politics, you can never go wrong when the founding fathers are on your side. Mario Cuomo put this theory to the test in the Democrats' weekly radio address today, reports the Associated Press:

If Republicans rewrite Senate rules to more easily end filibusters, the country will experience "exactly the kind of `tyranny of the majority' that James Madison had in mind," former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo said Saturday.

Cuomo, in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, said Senate Republicans "are threatening to claim ownership of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, hoping to achieve political results on subjects like abortion, stem cells, the environment and civil rights that they cannot get from the proper political bodies."

"How will they do this? By destroying the so-called filibuster, a vital part of the 200-year-old system of checks and balances in the Senate," Cuomo said.

"The Republicans say it would assure dominance by the majority in the Senate," he said. "That sounds democratic until you remember that the Bill of Rights was adopted, as James Madison pointed out, to protect all of Americans from what he called the `tyranny of the majority.'"

"It sounds nearly absurd when you learn that the minority Democrats in the Senate actually represent more Americans than the majority Republicans do," Cuomo said.

The Madisonian line of attack is an effective one for Dems, but so too is Cuomo's last quote. As Chris Bowers has noted here and other places, even though the Dems lost seats in 2004, they actually received more votes than the Republicans. Go figure.

In an impressive piece of investigative journalism for The Washington Post, Dan Morgan and Marc Kaufman report that the FDA officials found that two dozen Representatives went around the checks and balances of government at the behest of a pharmaceutical lobbyist. They write,

The German pharmaceutical giant Bayer suffered a serious setback last year when a federal administrative law judge backed a proposed ban on a drug used to fight poultry infections at factory farms. The judge cited growing scientific evidence suggesting that the practice was reducing the effectiveness of antibiotics vital to human health.

Facing defeat in a three-year legal battle, Bayer sought help in a new arena -- Congress. In a letter written in the office of Rep. Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.), and with the assistance of a Bayer lobbyist who was a longtime Pickering friend, 26 House members argued that the poultry medicine was "absolutely necessary to protecting the health of birds." It called on Lester M. Crawford, acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, to set aside the judge's decision regarding the class of drugs. The Bayer product is known as Baytril.

The Baytril case provides an unusual look at an attempt by lawmakers to influence the executive branch's handling of an important public health issue involving parochial economic interests and complex science. In stepping in, the congressmen entered a murky area and overstepped legal limits on their involvement, FDA officials said. While members of Congress frequently write to agencies as part of regular oversight, they are not supposed to intervene in formal, trial-type proceedings.

[...]

Pickering's office said a senior House Democrat, Rep. Bobby R. Etheridge (N.C.), and members of the House Agriculture Committee were given a chance to make changes. In all, 18 Republicans and eight Democrats signed. Among them were the House's third-ranking Republican, Whip Roy D. Blunt (Mo.); John A. Boehner (Ohio), second-ranking Republican on the Agriculture Committee; and Nathan Deal (R-Ga.), who recently became chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's health panel. [emphasis added]

Although Republicans might take the line that members of both parties were at offense in the issue, the numbers tell the larger story. 18 Republicans, but only eight Democrats, were involved in the action. What's more, among the Republicans was Majority Whip Roy Blunt, the number three member of his party. So no matter how the GOP tries to spin this, they shouldn't be let off of the hook.

A glimpse into my life...

Tonight I had the great pleasure of participating in a game of political jeopardy here on campus. After single jeopardy I was stuck in last place at a disappointing zero. Luckily, the first place contestant only had 900, so I was not out.

Double jeopardy, in which the categories (current events, elections, constitutional law and Gov 2) were better suited to my areas of knowledge, treated me better. By the end of the round, I stood at 4600, my nearest competitor at 3000.

Naturally, I bid 1500 in final jeopardy, in which presidents was the category. After answering how many presidents have died in office correctly (8 -- Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR and JFK), I won by a 6100 to 6000 margin, taking home a $100 gift certificate to Best Buy.

In other news, we're almost done with the complete redesign of this site, which has been necessary for some time. Finally, Basie! will have a professional looking template. Finally, Basie! will be accessible on Safari browsers. More info to come early next week.

Mark Z. Barabak (usually of LA Times) has an extremely interesting piece in this issue of The Washington Monthly on whether Arnold is quickly becoming Jesse Ventura redux. Barabak writes,

If the narrative arc sounds familiar—a charismatic, unconventional governor comes to the statehouse in a weird election, succeeds at minor reforms, but soon overreaches with ambitions exceeding his political skills—that's because we've seen this movie before.

Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura won office in 1998 as an independent in a fluky three-way contest. He began his tenure with promise and in his first year achieved some modest accomplishments. He managed to push an on-time budget through the Democratic Senate and Republican House with relative ease. He also made a start at improving public transit and reducing congestion in the Twin Cities area. By the end of his second year, however, voters grew weary of Ventura's macho act, impatient with his inability to balance the state budget or work with lawmakers, and indifferent to initiatives such as creating a unicameral legislature. Lawmakers, once cowed, gleefully struck back, slashing—among other things—money for the governor's security detail. Ventura left office bitter and mocked, his “populist-centrist” reforms largely unfulfilled.

The danger for Arnold Schwarzenegger is falling into a similar spiral. Voters are clearly less awed by their celebrity governor in his second year in office, and he's staked out ambitious goals that would try even a far more practiced politician. “He's shown himself to be someone who really can communicate with voters,” says Tony Quinn, a non-partisan Sacramento analyst. But more than any philosophy or set of policies, he suggests, Schwarzenegger's tenure, thus far, has been primarily about salesmanship. “The problem he seems to be having now is getting a consensus on what we need to sell,” Quinn adds. In short, the business of governing.

This week, the Democrats cleared the field for State Treasurer Phil Angelides to run against Arnold. With Schwarzenegger stuck at a 40% approval rating, it's not entirely inconceivable that Arnold will go the way of Jesse.

In other Ventura-related news, Dean Barkley, former advisor to the Minnesota Governor and United States Senator (for a month), has joined Kinky Friedman's third party gubernatorial campaign in Texas. The AP's Kelley Shannon has the story:

Former Sen. Dean Barkley, who has recently been a consultant and lobbyist, will serve as campaign director and chief strategist, Friedman announced Friday.

Barkley founded Minnesota's Independence Party and in 1997 recruited Ventura, a former pro wrestler and actor, to run the following year. As governor, Ventura appointed Barkley to fill the vacancy left when Sen. Paul D. Wellstone died in a plane crash in 2002.

Friedman must collect 45,539 voter signatures after the spring 2006 primary to make the November ballot. Republican Gov. Rick Perry is seeking re-election next year, and GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and former U.S. Rep. Chris Bell, a Democrat, are among his expected challengers.

Luis Saenz, director of Perry's campaign, said of Barkley: "I'm sure he will at least be able to help the Kinkster sell more books."

This should certainly be a race to watch in the next two years. Suffice to say it will be very entertaining.

From the AP's Thomas Wagner:

Insurgents set off at least 17 bombs in Iraq on Friday, killing at least 50 people, including three U.S. soldiers, in a series of attacks aimed at shaking Iraq's newly formed government. An audio tape by one of America's most-wanted insurgents, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, warned President Bush there was more bloodshed to come.

The well-coordinated attacks, which also wounded 114 Iraqis and seven Americans, came as political leaders are trying to curb the insurgency by including all of Iraq's main religious and ethnic groups into an uncertain new Shiite-dominated government that takes office Tuesday. Most of the bombing targets were Iraqi security forces and police, whom insurgents accuse of collaborating with the Americans.

This weekend, I have the treat of speaking with a number of powerful and important journalists right here at Pomona College. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak once again with Bill Keller, Executive Editor of The New York Times, as well as Steve Gettinger, Managing Editor of National Journal (a premier political magazine). In about 15 minutes, I'll be off to see a conversation between Louis Menand, staff writer for The New Yorker and Verlyn Klinkenborg, a member of The New York Times' Editorial Board (all of whom are alumni of Pomona College). I'll let you know how it all went a little later this afternoon.

At least that is the concern of consevative activists, as reported by The Washington Post's Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei:

[C]onservative Republicans will balk at his call last night for "progressive indexing," which would reduce future payments for middle- and upper-income retirees by linking increases to prices rather than wages. Stephen Moore, a leading proponent of personal accounts, warned of a "nightmare" in which benefit cuts "cost Republicans the Senate in 2006."

"He has a clear conundrum right now," Moore said.

Look for more defections from the right in the near term, and not just from outsiders. It would be hard to imagine the dozens of members of the extremely conservative Republican Study Committee in the House to sign on to any plan that cuts benefits unevenly (leaving alone the fact that Dems won't agree to a plan that cuts benefits so dramatically). Conservatives in the Senate might be as loath to support such a plan as well.

So while The Washington Times and Fox News might have deemed the President's press conference last night a success, looking ahead, it's clear that the President did little to advance the cause of privatization.

"Earlier today Iraqi legislators ended a three month impasse by approving a cabinet for new Prime Minister Ibrahim al Ja'afari. The new prime minister is a Shiite, the new president is a Kurd, and of course as always, the new transportation secretary is Hispanic."

-- Jon Stewart (Comedy Central's "The Daily Show")

Link.

The insiders over at National Journal [via Poltical Wire] think that the 2008 Presidential contest will feature:

A National Journal poll to be released tomorrow of "congressional and political insiders" finds Sen. George Allen (R-VA) ranked first among 2008 GOP presidential candidates and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) ranked first among Democrats. Each of 215 insiders were asked to rank their top five choices.

On the Republican side, Allen finished with 229 combined points, while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) finished second with 217, Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) third with 184, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani fourth with 129 and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney fifth with 109 points.

On the Democratic side, Clinton led all Democrats with 388 points, followed by former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) with 192, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner with 166, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) with 125 and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) with 90.

A Senator versus a Senator. That should provide for a riveting race...

Surprise, surprise. Gordon Smith once again gave in to the White House. One minute I'm praising him for standing up and pledging to upend the Republican budget, the next he caves to the conservatives in his party. The AP's Mary Dalrymple has the story.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who held Republican leaders in protracted negotiations over the size of Medicaid reductions, announced his support for the plan.

"Those who care about Medicaid, those who are served by Medicaid, be engaged and know that my office, my heart, my mind are open to you to do this right and not just to do this fast," Smith said.

Smith said he's working with the White House to assemble a commission through the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine. The advisory panel would recommend one round of changes by Sept. 1 and issue a final report for comprehensive restructuring in December 2006.

I'm not even sure why I'm surprised by this. Perhaps I expected Smith to act on his moderate statements rather than his conservative voting record. Today provides yet another piece of proof that Oregon's Dems must find a strong candidate to run against Gordon Smith in 2008.

The Economist's Lexington columnist [subscription reqd.] has a lot to say about Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and not much of it is good. Here's a key section:

Mr Frist's problem is not just with his politics (which are clearly malleable). It is with his personality (which is less so). In his move rightwards, the good doctor has tried to ape the younger George Bush; too often, however, he has seemed more like Al Gore. Like that other patrician Tennessean, Mr Frist feels a constant need to prove himself. “With the family emphasis on self-worth,” he once wrote, “I longed to be first in everything, to be king of the hill, the grammar school capo di capo.” Like Mr Gore, he is a robotic speaker; and like Mr Gore, he has discovered radical ideology rather late in life, giving the distinct sense that he is trying to prove too much.

Mr Frist is clearly an extraordinarily talented man. If he could rein in his ambition, he might yet become a great leader of the Senate. But his longing to be “king of the hill” and “first in everything” could be his undoing. It is not only forcing him through an embarrassing ideological makeover. It is also conjuring up a high-stakes political battle that may end up harming himself and the Republican Party, and the country too.

Traditional conservatives -- like those who read The Economist -- are getting increasingly fed up with Frist's tendency to side with the religious right over the economic right. If anything will split the GOP coalition, it will be an overreach by Christian zealots that will force economic conservatives (who tend to be social moderates) to either stay at home on election day or defect to the libertarians. Frist is nearing that precipice rapidly. Let's hope he takes that step over the edge.

You've got to hand it to Gordon Smith. One day he's maintaining FIW (finger in the wind) status in Josh Marshall's Social Security Conscience Caucus, the next day he bucks his national leadership on the budget, as The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports:

Congressional negotiations to break an impasse over the federal budget hit a major stumbling block on Wednesday, when an influential Republican senator walked away from the talks amid a dispute with the White House and the Republican leadership over Medicaid spending.

The senator, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, has told the leadership that he is now prepared to vote against the budget, a spokesman said. The majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, had hoped to bring the $2.57 trillion budget measure to the Senate floor for a vote on Friday; a spokesman said Wednesday evening he planned to stick to that schedule.

"We intend to go forward," the spokesman, Bob Stevenson, said.

But whether the measure can pass the Senate without Mr. Smith's support is unclear. When the budget came before the Senate last month, Mr. Smith spearheaded a drive to eliminate reductions in the growth of spending on Medicaid, the federal government insurance plan for the poor, and instead to create a commission to study the future of the program. His proposal passed, 52 to 48, drawing support from six other Republicans. [emphasis added]

While it would be nice to see Gordon Smith stand up to his party on privatization of Social Security and especially on the nuclear option, if he is able to help block a GOP budget, he can be credited with:

• Stopping drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve
  
• Preventing the Republicans from driving the country further into debt
  
• Blocking significant cuts to Medicaid, student loans and farming subsidies

Although his voting record shows he's not the most moderate GOP Senator by far, if Gordon Smith blocks the budget, he must win serious respect from progressive community (along the lines of a Linc Chafee, perhaps).

You know George W. Bush is mired in tough times when his approval ratings fall in a Fox News poll. Perhaps that's why reporter Dana Blanton relegates the President's numbers to the ninth paragraph of her write up of the poll.

President Bush’s job approval sits at 47 percent, with 43 percent disapproving. His approval rating is down 2 percentage points since last month (March 29-30) and down 5 points from his 52 percent approval rating at the beginning of the year. While approval among groups that have traditionally been strong supporters of the president — like men and Republicans — are holding fairly steady, Bush has lost ground with women and independents in the last few months.

Tom DeLay doesn't fare any better.

Looking at some other names in the news, 21 percent of the public have a favorable view of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, 34 percent have an unfavorable view, 25 percent are unsure, and the remaining 20 percent say they have never heard of the Texas congressman.

Despite any claims that the President is gaining traction, his approval rating has fallen five points in the last two months -- and in a Fox News poll, to boot. More and more people are meeting Tom DeLay, and more and more people disapprove of his actions. Isn't it about time they thought about moderating?

So much for talk about running for President in 2008 (leaving aside the constitutional issues, of course). California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has seen his approval rating drop precipitously in recent months, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Today, 40 percent of Californians approve and 50 percent disapprove of the way Governor Schwarzenegger is handling his job overall, a substantial change since January when a strong majority (60%) approved of his performance. Schwarzenegger’s approval ratings have also dropped below a majority among likely voters (45% approve, 47% disapprove). On education, the governor’s disapproval ratings (51%) remain unchanged since January. As with his overall ratings, there are sharp partisan differences: A majority of Democrats (69%) and 50 percent of independents disapprove, while 50 percent of Republicans approve of the governor’s handling of education.

Republicans reveled in the notion that the dissonance between Schwarzenegger's posturing (moderation) and his actual governing (conservatism) was being overrided by his celebrity status. Apparently, the people of California have finally woken up to the fact that their governor is significantly to the right of center, a political death sentence in a "left coast" state.

Jeff Birnbaum's headline in The Washington Post tomorrow morning says it all.

Now that it's clear that his controversial private-paid trips abroad will be put under a microscope in Congress, Tom DeLay is in serious danger of being declared in violation of House ethics rules, legal experts say.

Lawyers who specialize in ethics cases believe that the Republican House majority leader from Texas might be in technical breach of at least a few congressional regulations. According to published reports, a registered foreign agent paid for one of DeLay's overseas trips and a registered lobbyist used his credit card to pay for another foreign airfare -- actions the rules prohibit. DeLay may also have accepted gifts that exceeded congressional limits, taken an expense-paid trip overseas for longer than the rules allow and not disclosed all of the benefits he received.

"It appears from news reports that there were aspects of his trips that did not comply with the ethics rules," said Jan W. Baran, a lawyer and ethics expert.

[...]

"DeLay's gotten himself in a terrible predicament," he added. "At the very least, he's been taken advantage of by lobbyists. He has a lot of explaining to do."

How do the Republicans respond to news that their leader will most likely be admonished, and perhaps even censured, in the near future? Blame the Democrats, of course! Alexander Bolton and Patrick O'Connor have the story for The Hill:

Republican lawmakers who met yesterday to discuss a proposal by Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to reverse changes to House ethics rules said it is inevitable that their colleagues will file complaints against Democrats once the ethics panel is again operational.

Republicans said that not one of their colleagues has volunteered to file a complaint against a Democrat but that they have no doubt that will in fact happen.

Some GOP legislators are upset that they were forced to back down on the ethics rules, handing House Democrats a huge political victory. Others, including Hastert, believed that keeping the rules in place would have inflicted significant, long-term damage on House Republicans.

“They’re angry about it,” Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) said as he walked out of the meeting.

It will be very difficult for the Republicans in the House to spin their way out of this predicament. Regardless of the small infractions of some lesser-ranking Democratic members of Congress, the fact is that their Majority Leader acted unethically -- and perhaps illegally. Should DeLay be indicted (still a real possibility), 2006 will play as 1994 redux. As it is, even the specter of ethics violations surronding DeLay scares the GOP witless, and you don't want to be a scared party. The scared party can't legislate. The scared party can't govern. Above all, the scared party can't win elections.

"What are you doing endorsing my 2008 presidential opponent?"

-- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) admonishing his colleague Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) for backing Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.

Link.

It was not long ago that a cigar became the subject of discussion in Washington (enough said!). Today, Karen Tumulty reports for Time that another cigar is entering the political fray.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, according to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a cigar is an economic prop to a brutal totalitarian regime. Arguing against loosening sanctions against Cuba last year, DeLay warned that Fidel Castro "will take the money. Every dime that finds its way into Cuba first finds its way into Fidel Castro's blood-thirsty hands.... American consumers will get their fine cigars and their cheap sugar, but at the cost of our national honor."

DeLay has long been one of Congress' most vocal critics of what he calls Castro's "thugocracy," which is why some sharp-eyed TIME readers were surprised last week to see a photo of the Majority Leader smoking one of Cuba's best—a Hoyo de Monterrey double corona, which generally costs about $25 when purchased overseas and is not available in this country. The cigar's label clearly states that it was made in "Habana." The photo was taken in Jerusalem on July 28, 2003, during a meeting between DeLay and the Republican Jewish Coalition at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

[...]

Asked about the Majority Leader's consumption of a Cuban cigar, his spokesman Dan Allen replied there has been "no change in our Cuban policy."

The Majority Leader is having a tough time these days. More and more Americans are coming to know him by face, and more and more of them are coming to disapprove of him. The last thing Tom DeLay needs to do now is provide the late night shows with more fodder for jokes.

[Update 4:46 PM Pacific]: Judd over at Think Progress notes that DeLay has previously proclaimed "[e]very dime that finds its way into Cuba first finds its way into Fidel Castro’s blood-thirsty hands." To this, Judd says,

To be fair, Tom DeLay may not have put any money “into Fidel Castro’s blood-thirsty hands.” There’s always a chance Jack Abramoff bought the cigar for him.

Zing.

Oregon's purportedly "moderate" Senator Gordon Smith (he voted to the right of eleven of his colleagues in the Senate GOP caucus in 2004 according to National Journal -- some moderate, indeed) is finally being pressured by his constituents to show a little spine on the issue of Social Security, report Edward Walsh and Jim Barnett of The Oregonian.

The Democratic Party's radio ads began running Tuesday in Portland, Eugene, Medford and Smith's hometown of Pendleton. Kelly Steele, the state party's spokesman, said Smith's voting record on Social Security indicates that he will support the Bush plan "unless Oregonians force his hand."

"Gordon Smith's current nonposition on Social Security suggests he is either ignorant or he is deliberately misleading the public," Steele said. "Gordon Smith needs to take a position on Bush's plan, and it needs to be 'no.' "

[...]

About 150 people attended the Portland rally, where they waved yellow and black signs reading, "Hands Off My Social Security." The rally was sponsored by a coalition made up largely of labor unions.

In an interview before the rally, Oregon AFL-CIO President Tim Nesbitt said Smith is being targeted because "Gordon Smith's vote is critically important." His membership on the Finance Committee "really puts Senator Smith in an important position, not only for Oregon but for the country," Nesbitt said.

The only way Gordon Smith is going to explicate his position on privatization is if his constituents raise their voices loud enough. The grassroots activists have done what they needed to do -- inform the public through ads and rallies about the danger of privatization -- so it's now up to normal Oregonians to let Senator Smith know that they are against contracting out Social Security.

Real questions about America's ability to prosecute a successful war on international terrorism have been raised by data released yesterday by the State Department. As Susan B. Glasser reports in The Washington Post, terrorist activity grew at a nearly exponential rate last year, undermining any pledge by the administration to curtail worldwide terror.

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.

Glasser reports that more than 1,000 people died in terrorist attacks last year -- not including those in Iraq. For America to become truly safe, the federal government will have to begin to spend significant money outside of Iraq on combating terrorism. If the folks in Washington don't do this, then the American people should seriously consider a change of leadership.

The New York Times' David E. Rosenbaum and Robin Toner take a hard look at the privatization plan's chances of even reaching the Senate floor. In two words: not good.

The Senate Finance Committee's first full-scale debate on Social Security raised new doubt Tuesday about whether a majority of the committee would vote for President Bush's proposal for individual investment accounts.

All the Democrats on the panel who spoke said they were resolutely opposed to the president's plan. And the reservations of Republicans were more ominous for the White House.

As a last resort, some administration officials have said, they might be able to keep their plan alive by pushing a private accounts bill through the Finance Committee on a party-line vote rather than in a bipartisan manner. But at the hearing, one Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, said she did not want to tamper with "the foundation for our seniors," and another, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, expressed concern over the amount of borrowing that proposals like the president's would require.

The committee has 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. If only one Republican joins a solid bloc of Democrats, the measure will fail for lack of a majority and will not be sent to the full Senate.

While it's good to see The Times imply that the privatization plan is all but dead, but isn't it about time that the pundits began to shift their "conventional wisdom" as well. I'm ready to see the talking heads over at Fox discuss the death of the President's plan for hours upon end... but I'm not holding my breath.

In January, House Republicans rammed through a rules change to severly restrict the ethics process in an attempt to shield their leader Tom DeLay from being punished for his improprieties. Now, with Americans finally realizing what the Republicans have actually been up to for the last ten years, the GOP has been forced to rescind the DeLay rule. The Washington Post's Mike Allen has the story:

House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee, according to officials who participated in the talks.

Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs.

Democrats rebelled against that and other changes -- saying Republicans were trying to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) from further ethics investigations -- and blocked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is officially known, from organizing for the new Congress.

The Republicans backing down? The Democrats forcing the Republicans' hand? The political climate in Washington and the country must be shifting rapidly if the GOP actually follows through with this. Who'd have ever thunk it? The Democrats have the momentum these days.

Shouldn't he be more concerned about trailing by 14 points right now in his bid for reelection? The Hill's Bob Cusack reports that despite the fact that he's sinking quickly in his bid for another term in the Senate, Rick Santorum is nonetheless looking forward to a possible presidential bid in 2008.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has “no intention” to run for president in 2008, but a media communications firm that represents him has registered a slew of relevant domain names in case the senator changes his mind.

New Media Communications, an Ohio-based Internet strategy company that runs Santorum’s 2006 reelection website, has bought domain names such as ricksantorum2008.com, ricksantorum2008.net and santorum2008.org.

Those purchases could play a role in Santorum’s tough reelection race. One of the questions that is expected to surface throughout the 2006 campaign is whether Santorum would serve a full six-year Senate term if he is elected to a third term.

[...]

Casey spokesman Marc Farinella said, “This is just more evidence that serving the people of Pennsylvania is not Rick Santorum’s top priority. I think it’s safe to say that Pennsylvania would be better served having a senator focused on doing a good job for Pennsylvania than by a senator focused on becoming president. In any case, after he is defeated in 2006, Mr. Santorum will have plenty of time on his hands to pursue his presidential ambitions.”

I am puzzled at how Santorum could possibly think that he would have a shot at the White House, his anemic polling numbers aside. When combined with the fact that he very well might lose his reelection bid, I see no reason whatsoever for him to have registered these domains. It's amuzing to see him dream, though.

I have a new column up over at Singer's Song today entitled "Becoming Unwired" on the roadblocks to high speed wireless internet. Check it out, if your interested. In related news, Drew Clark of National Journal's Technology Daily reports that America is falling rapidly in access to broadband internet.

The United States has dropped even further in the international high-speed Internet race.

Statistics released this month by the International Telecommunication Union show that U.S. global broadband penetration dropped last year from 13th place to 16th. The ITU figures show the United States at 11.4 broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants as of Dec. 31, 2004. That percentage of broadband is less than half of what South Korea boasts; the latter country is the global leader with 24.9 broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants.

Behind South Korea, filling out the top five nations are Hong Kong at 20.9 broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants; the Netherlands, with 19.4 per 100; Denmark, 19.3; and Canada, 17.6. Canada dropped two slots -- from third place in 2003 to fifth place in 2004. South Korea and Hong Kong ranked first and second, respectively, in both 2002 and 2003.

[...]

In 2001, the United States ranked fourth among OECD member nations. In 2003, it ranked 10th. The group has not finalized its December 2004 ranking – but, in June 2004, the United States ranked 11th. "When we finalize [statistics] to the end of 2004, it should be about 12th or 13th," said OECD telecom unit head Dimitri Ypsilanti. Hong Kong, Taiwan, Israel and Singapore are not OECD nations -- so a 16th place ranking in the ITU survey would translate into a 12th place ranking in the OECD list.

This is an unacceptable development in this country, and Congress must do something about it. American students have already fallen behind their competitors around the world in the applied sciences, much to the detriment of our nation's economy. What happens if they also fall behind in technological development?

The stakes are too high for the Republicans to allow telecommunications reform turn into another porkbarrel frenzy. Perhaps they can for once take the high road and simply pass a piece of good legislation that fixes the problems without giving away the bank to their big corporate donors. Most likely this will not occur, of course, and America will slip further and further behind the rest of the world in high speed internet access.

The latest polling shows that Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the second most conservative member of the Senate (according to National Journal's 2004 vote rankings, he had a composite conservative score of 90.8), is in some deep trouble. CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) reports:

According to the Associated Press, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who is up for re-election next year, has seen his job approval ratings drop to 42 percent from 49 percent in January in the latest Rocky Mountain Poll by Behavior Research Center. President Bush’s job ratings also declined, as did those of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who dropped to 61 percent approval from 73 percent in January. “Twenty-one percent of those polled believe Kyl is doing a fair job while ten percent say he’s doing a poor job.” The survey of 682 Arizonans was conducted April 12-17 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points. [original story here]

If only the Democrats could field a viable candidate, Arizona would look like a prime pick-up opportunity for 2006. Former Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) suggested to me that state party chairman Jim Pederson would be the ideal candidate to run against Kyl. Perhaps this new polling data will help him decide to jump into the race and give Kyl a run for his money.

It looks Tom DeLay will have a top-notch challenger next fall. Roll Call's Chris Cillizza reports that a former four-term Congressman has decided to enter the fray [subscription reqd.].

Former Texas Rep. Nick Lampson (D) has decided to challenge embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R), filing papers Monday with the Federal Election Commission.

In addition, 2004 Democratic nominee Richard Morrison removed himself from the race Monday, citing family considerations in an e-mail to past supporters.

[...]

Lampson is clearly viewed as a strong contender by national Democrats. Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, called him a "fantastic candidate who is hitting the ground running."

Lampson will hold his first fundraiser on Thursday evening in Washington, D.C. A copy of the invite urges donors to "welcome Nick Lampson into the race against Tom DeLay in TX-22!"

Just how vulnerable is Tom DeLay? Before the majority of these ethical issues hit the press, he ran significantly behind George W. Bush in his district -- against a relatively unknown opponent.

By the numbers, the seat remains a Republican stronghold. President Bush won 64 percent in the 22nd in 2004 even as DeLay defeated Morrison 55 percent to 41 percent.

With a real challenger and real scrutiny from the press, it will be extremely difficult for Tom DeLay to win reelection -- that is if he makes it to election day...

"It has now been revealed that a Washington lobbyist personally paid for DeLay's trips using his own credit card. Even more embarrassing, the lobbyist also put the purchase of Tom DeLay on his credit card."

-- Jay Leno (NBC's "Tonight Show")

Link.

---

"It's a sign of respect and affection -- nothing sexual whatsoever."

-- Nail Jubeir, spokesman for the Saudi embassy, on the scene of President Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah

Link.

These are tough days in the office of the House Majority Leader. The Washington Post's Mike Allen writes that "House Republican aides said yesterday for the first time that they believe they will have to reverse or modify the ethics rules that were passed on a party-line vote in January and have caused Democrats to refuse to allow the ethics committee to organize." Feeling the heat, yet another GOP staffer is leaving the hill for the more comfortable environs of K Street. The Hill's Jonathan E. Kaplan has the story.

Juliane Carter Sullivan, a senior aide to Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), has joined Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

She is the fifth DeLay aide to leave since the start of the 109th Congress. Stuart Roy and Jonathan Grella, DeLay’s spokesmen; Carl Thorsen, his counsel; and Deana Funderburk, a policy analyst, all left earlier this year.

[...]

Sullivan played a role in one of the transgressions for which the House ethics committee admonished against DeLay. [emphasis added]

DeLay's aides are jumping ship left and right. Do they forsee tough times ahead? Tough to say. It could be that they just want to cash in by becoming corporate lobbyists. Just the same, they might suspect that their boss' days are numbered and want to get out while they still can. Either way, it's not measure of confidence when five of your senior staffers leave in the course of just a few months.

We now know a little bit more about Zell Miller's famous challenge to Chris Matthews in September thanks to Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour of The Hill. They write,

Former Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) had a beef with “Hardball” host Chris Matthews before he ever appeared on the show immediately after his fiery speech at the Republican National Convention last year.

The famously disloyal Democrat reveals in his new book, A Deficit of Decency, that before telling Matthews he wished he could challenge him to a duel, he had long “detested” Matthews’s “know-it-all attitude and his bullying way of interviewing.” And earlier that evening, Matthews’s fellow MSNBC pundit Ron Reagan called Miller “kind of weird,” while Matthews himself had referred to Miller as an “old-time seggy,” meaning segregationist — a characterization Miller vehemently disputes.

How surprising! Zell Miller had a preexisting beef with Chris Matthews when he went on his show and challenged him to a duel. Who'd have ever expected that.

People For The American Way (a group I always think is nativist but is in fact in favor of the separation of church and state) has a great new ad -- based on a 25 year old ad -- out on television today. Check it out, if your interested.

As promised, here is the data from today's Washington Post/ABC News poll. On Bush's approval, the polling finds:

General Approval

Approve 47 (lowest since August)
Disapprove 50

Soc. Sec. Approval

Approve 31
Disapprove 64

Iraq Approval

Approve 42
Disapprove 56

Economy Approval

Approve 40
Disapprove 57

Terrorism Approval

Approve 56
Disapprove 41

Energy Approval

Approve 35
Disapprove 54

Support for allowing individuals to invest part of their Social Security contributions in the stock market is down eleven points in the last month. In other interesting news from the poll...

Whick political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you think better represents your own personal values?

Dems 47
Reps 38

Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?

Support 26
Oppose 66

In a not entirely surprising development, Drudge got this poll wrong. 66 percent of Americans oppose ending judicial filibusters, a striking figure given that the term "nuclear option" was not used. It will be interesting to see how this polling will effect the weakhearted like Smith, Warner, Hagel, etc.

Per Drudge (so consider the source):

WASHPOSTABCNEWS poll finds 60% of Americans side with Dems in saying Senate rules shouldn't be changed to make it easier to confirm Bush's judicial nominations... Developing...

The tide is turning.

It seems Harry Reid has figured out a way to challenge the Republicans on the nuclear option without being labeled "obstructionist." CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) has the story:

Senate Democrats today unveiled a new strategy for action if Republicans successfully execute the so-called nuclear option to end filibusters against judicial nominees.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said for months that his party may employ little-used and often-waived Senate rules to virtually shut down floor business if Republicans force an end to filibusters of judges.

But today Reid outlined a different approach, saying he will use a variety of approaches to force floor votes on Democratic legislative priorities. That could trigger roll call votes Republicans might prefer to avoid.

Bills on the Democrats’ list include a veterans’ benefit increase (S 845), a pay-as-you go budget bill (S 851), a minimum wage increase (S 846), education funding increase (S 848); suspension of crude oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (S 847) and a family planning funding bill (S 844).

It might be safe to say that the reason Reid has backed off his threats to shut down the Senate stems from the fact that he simply does not have the votes to follow through with it.

I argued a month ago that the Democrats would not suffer the same fate as Newt because the entire government would not be shut down, only the Senate (a sentiment echoed by Josh Marshall this week), so I would still like to see the Democrats go ahead and stop the Republicans from forwarding their radical agenda in response to their nuclear option. Nevertheless, this new tactic from Reid should work for the Democrats as well, and it will be very difficult for the Republicans to label the Dems obstructionists if they are no longer slowing the Senate.

The latest Gallup poll finds George W. Bush at 48% approval, down two points in the last two weeks. I'll try to parse through the data from the poll when it is released later today.

"A president from Indiana. It kind of has a little resonance to it."

-- Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (D) joking about his possible run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Link.

Tom DeLay might be in some deep trouble now. The Washington Post's R. Jeffrey Smith scores the big scoop on page one of Sunday's paper.

The airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 for then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe, according to two sources who know Abramoff's credit card account number and to a copy of a travel invoice displaying that number.

DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip.

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists. DeLay, who is now House majority leader, has said that his expenses on this trip were paid by a nonprofit organization and that the financial arrangements for it were proper. He has also said he had no way of knowing that any lobbyist might have financially supported the trip, either directly or through reimbursements to the nonprofit organization.

The documents obtained by The Washington Post, including receipts for his hotel stays in Scotland and London and billings for his golfing during the trip at the famed St. Andrews course in Scotland, substantiate for the first time that some of DeLay's expenses on the trip were billed to charge cards used by the two lobbyists. The invoice for DeLay's plane fare lists the name of what was then Abramoff's lobbying firm, Preston Gates & Ellis.

Tonight I was watched KCAL news (my first news consumption in a couple of days -- I was in withdrawal). One of the three major stories teased throughout the broadcast was the newly-developing story that there were credit card receipts proving Tom DeLay had received a lobbyist paid trip. If that is big news for local stations -- albeit on a Sunday night -- DeLay is becoming a larger story than I had previously thought.

The most recent polling a few months ago showed most Americans didn't know who Tom DeLay even is. With news of his ethical violations reaching local stations, suffice to say most Americans will be ready to see him go in no time. The real question now is whether the Democrats will figure out how to use this for top effect.

Tonight, I find myself in Palm Desert after an enjoyable junket to Las Vegas. This is the longest I've spent away from Basie! in a few months (since I was in mainland China, I believe), buy I appreciate you bearing with me. Blogging should commence shortly.

I'll be off to Vegas in a bit before heading out to the desert for Passover. As a result, posting will most likely be sparse until Monday. I'll try to check in before then, but until then, have a wonderful weekend.

I would not have figured Gordon Smith to be one to stand up to his party and the President. Perhaps the teachings of his predecessors Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood have rubbed off on him. CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) reports:

Despite indications that the administration is on the verge of a deal with Sen. Gordon H. Smith, R-Ore., on Medicaid cuts, budget negotiators still must resolve a series of tough issues if they hope to produce a conference report before the Senate departs for a one-week recess April 29.

It appears that Smith has won agreement from the administration to appoint a commission to study how to implement the Medicaid cuts that would be assumed as part of a final budget resolution’s reconciliation instructions to the Senate Finance Committee.

According to a Senate GOP source, the Medicaid savings number would be below the $12 billion sought by Senate Budget Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. The full Senate voted against making any cuts in Medicaid this year.

Budget writers hope that a Medicaid deal will pave the way for an overall budget deal, but it remains unclear whether they can find enough savings in other programs to secure the $40 billion to $45 billion in mandatory savings they have been discussing.

Even though it is commendable that Smith is standing up to Bush on Medicaid cuts, wouldn't it be something if the Republicans actually considered cuts for the wealthy (slowing tax cuts for the extremely rich) instead of cuts for the poor?

Oregon is extremely lucky to have Intel's largest base of operation in Hillsboro (a suburb of Portland). Intel's high-paying jobs have truly enriched the community. That having been said, there is some troubling news out of the Beaver state these days as its counties and cities are forced to effectively bribe companies like Intel to stay. The Oregonian's Mike Rogoway has the story:

Washington County and the city of Hillsboro gave the state's largest private employer what it wanted in a 15-year package of tax breaks unveiled Thursday.

Intel would save almost $580 million in property taxes under terms of the tentative deal, as long as the computer chip maker continues to spend billions upgrading its Oregon factories.

The company employs about 15,500 at its seven Oregon campuses, more than at any other cluster of Intel facilities. The deal aims to keep the state in that leading position. It would extend until 2025 an agreement that exempts nearly all of Intel's high-tech equipment from property taxes that most businesses pay.

I certainly don't advocate Hillsboro letting Intel leave. This would only hurt the city, the county and the state. Nevertheless, the perceived requirement for localities to allow companies to pay little or no taxes is extremely troubling. The downward spiral hurts all areas of the country.

To be frank, I'm not sure what the answer is. Whatever is done must be national, otherwise there will be losers throughout the country. There is a problem, though, and if nothing is done to abate it, more of America's tax burden will fall on working and middle class families.

One of the leaders of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., the sect to which Senate Majority Leader Frist belongs, will speak out tomorrow against the Senator's upcoming appearance on Sunday's anti-Democrat telethon. David D. Kirkpatrick and Sheryl Gay Stolberg have the story for The New York Times:

As the Senate battle over judicial confirmations became increasingly entwined with religious themes, officials of several major Protestant denominations on Thursday accused the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, of violating the principles of his own Presbyterian church and urged him to drop out of a Sunday telecast that depicts Democrats as "against people of faith."

[...]

Religious groups, including the National Council of Churches and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, are planning a conference call with journalists on Friday to criticize Senator Frist's participation in the telecast. The program is sponsored by Christian conservative organizations that want to build support for Dr. Frist's filibuster proposal.

Among those scheduled to speak in the conference call is the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, a top official of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., in which Dr. Frist is an active member.

"One of the hallmarks of our denomination is that we are an ecumenical church," Mr. Kirkpatrick said in an interview on Thursday. He also said, "Elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."

By acusing the Democrats of being against people of faith, Frist and his ultra-right wing cronies in the Republican Party are showing the American just which party has a values problem. For Reverend Kirk to come out so forcefully against one of his parishioners is further proof that the Republicans have gone off of the deep end with their pandering to the far, far right (when a leader of the Presbyterian Church is concerned enough to speak out, it says something).

Yesterday Senator Rick Santorum cowered away from the nuclear option, admitting that the Republicans' own polling showed their voters to overwhelmingly oppose the measure. Today, the AP's Jesse J. Holland and David Espo have the results of that poll for everyone to see.

Private Republican polling shows scant support for a plan to stop minority Democrats from blocking judicial nominees, officials said Thursday, as two of President Bush's most controversial appointments advanced toward a possible Senate confrontation.

These officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a recent survey taken for Senate Republicans showed 37 percent support for the GOP plan to deny Democrats the ability to filibuster judicial nominees, while 51 percent oppose.

Additionally, the survey indicated only about 20 percent of Americans believe the Republican statement that Bush is the first president in history whose court appointees have been subjected to a filibuster, a tactic in which opponents can prevent a vote unless supporters gain 60 votes. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting the survey data has not been made public.

The Republicans can't even win a majority to their side in biased polls written by their own strategists? They can't get more than 20% on their push poll question of whether judicial filibusters had a precedent (a low figure regardless of the fact that there is precedent).

This poll can't make wavering members more likely to support the measure. Republican Senators Sununu of New Hampshire, DeWine of Ohio, Warner of Virginia, Collins of Maine, Smith of Oregon, and Specter of Pennylvania -- all of whom represent "purple" states and none of whom have come out in support of the nuclear option -- can't be reassured by these numbers.

It's becoming less and less clear that Bill Frist will be able to whip up the necessary 50 votes for the nuclear option. If he does, the Senate will be shut down by the Dems; if he doesn't, GOP control will be weakened and Frist's shot at the White House will be done. The stakes simply could not be higher for the GOP right now, and though this is what they have wanted for some time, no outcome looks particularly appealing for them now.

George W. Bush's major reasoning behind pushing for energy "reform" is that gas and energy prices are too high, so something must be done. Should the resulting bill actually raise energy prices, though? The New York Times' team of Elizabeth Bumiller and Carl Hulse take a gander at the situation in today's paper:

President Bush demanded on Wednesday that Congress send a long-stalled energy bill to his desk for signing by the summer, even as he admitted that the legislation would do nothing to lower the rising gasoline prices that polls suggest have cut into his approval ratings.

"I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow," the president told a gathering here of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The bill "wouldn't change the price at the pump today," he said. "I know that, and you know that."

[...]

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, estimated that the House bill would provide up to $22 billion to the industry over a decade in the form of tax relief and potential federal aid. He cited one Energy Department estimate that the measure would boost gasoline prices by 3 cents a gallon.

"That's right, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer," said Mr. Hoyer. "Apparently, this Republican majority believes you need to pay more for gasoline." [emphasis added]

Maybe the Dems can get their act together on this issue and produce an ad to the effect of Hoyer's comment. "Apparently, this Republican majority believes you need to pay more for gasoline." That's brilliant stuff. Now it's time to let all Americans hear about it, too, not just Times' readers.

Freedom is on the march, despite the best efforts of George W. Bush to stop it. Hartford Courant's Daniela Altimari has the story:

Connecticut became the third state to legally recognize same-sex couples Wednesday, signifying a new era in the gay rights movement and bucking a national trend.

The landmark law permits same-sex partners to enter into civil unions and grants nearly all of the rights and responsibilities available to married couples. Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed the bill late Wednesday afternoon, about an hour after the state Senate gave the measure final legislative approval. It takes effect Oct. 1.

Vermont is the only other state to recognize civil unions. Massachusetts allows gays to marry. But unlike Connecticut, those states were reacting to court rulings.

In the hallway after the 26-8 Senate vote, supporters chatted, smiled and hugged. "It's a great day," said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, the gay rights coalition that once dismissed civil unions as an unacceptable compromise. "We commend the legislature for supporting the expansion of rights for all of Connecticut's families."

Hopefully it will not take Oregon too long to join this list...

On Monday morning, I had the opportunity to speak with Jonathan Cowan, the founder and president of Third Way, "a Senate-focused progressive advocacy group." In 1992, he co-founded Lead...or Leave, which became the nation's leading Generation X advocacy group, and following the election of Bill Clinton became Senior Advisor to the HUD Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. In the late 1990s, Mr. Cowan served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. I spoke with Mr. Cowan from his office in Washington.

Jonathan Singer: Thank you so much for joining me this morning. It’s a real honor, a real pleasure. Byron York has proclaimed a vast liberal conspiracy. When we look at a comparison in pure numerical terms, Rob Stein has found that the conservative side has about $300 million per year to play around with. The progressive side has significantly less than that. Do you feel confident that there is a vast left wing conspiracy yet, or is it still a ways away?

Jon Cowan: Great question. The simplest way to put it is [that] the focus on whether there is a vast left wing conspiracy or a vast right wing conspiracy really misses the point. The central question is, What are both sides doing to prepare themselves to advance their long-term arguments and to win elections?

Right now, conservatives are simply doing a better job of preparing themselves to win the long-term arguments about the country’s future and to win elections, and progressives are not nearly as well organized to do so. Until progressives figure out a way to organize themselves and make a set of arguments that will connect with self-identified moderate voters in much greater numbers, we have absolutely no chance at building a progressive majority again.

Singer: There does seem to be a start of creating the infrastructure. Of course your organization, Third Way – your think tank – is affiliated with moderate Senate Democrats, and you have a budget, as reported in National Journal in February, of between two and three million dollars. John Podesta’s Center for American Progress has $11 million, the largest piece of the puzzle right now. Do you think you will be able to hit, eventually collectively, the same mass of hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on spreading the message, and creating the message, that the Republicans or the right wing has?

Cowan: Absolutely. Without question. Rob Stein and the Democracy Alliance have started to put together a very large collection of investors who are prepared to make the same kind of massive long-term investment in progressive politics that conservative donors have made into conservative politics.

I expect that because of the work of the Democracy Alliance that over the next number of years – five to ten years – we’ll see a dramatic increase in the amount of money going into multi-issue progressive causes. Not single-issue groups, because on our side they are already very well funded, but on multi-issue groups that take a long-term prospective for the progressive cause, both on issues that we work on as well as the messaging to sell those issues.

Singer: One of the jabs that right wing groups like Heritage have talking down to your organizations and others is that you guys are just the voice of the Democratic Party. You’re not creating ideas, you’re just packaging them to sell to a mass audience. Do you think that’s a fair attack? Or are you doing something different?

Cowan: No I don’t think it’s fair. What Third Way is doing is really unique. We’re looking at the group of self-identified moderate voters who make up 45% of the electorate, and we are thinking up both new ideas as well as the kind of messaging that will sell those ideas that will make the progressive cause relevant and modernized for the 21st Century.

For the 20th Century, without a doubt, progressives led the way. We did the New Deal. We did the Great Society. We were kind of the great reformers in the 20th Century. We won and fought multiple wars. We really pushed the envelope both on social progress and on protecting the country.

We have lost that mantle now, and somehow conservatives have become the ones who are seen as the true reformers and the protectors of the country. Unless we are able to flip that around, we have absolutely no chance of regaining the majority.

Third Way’s work is to really push the boundaries of what’s currently acceptable within the progressive cause, break with the traditional orthodoxies, and look for new ideas and the messaging to sell those ideas to connect with a much larger cut of voters.

Singer: You brought up an important point a couple of moments ago about appealing to the great moderate base of American voters. Looking at the CNN exit poll data, the breakdown is as follows: 21% of the electorate was liberal in 2004, 45% was moderate, 34% was conservative. So clearly there can’t just be a liberal majority. Within the moderates, John Kerry was able to win 54% to 45%, but how do you go about pushing that closer to 60 or 65% to ensure victory in the future?

Cowan: That’s a great question. Kerry was able to win moderates, but not nearly by enough. When you are behind by almost 50% in terms of the percentage of voters who identify as liberal versus conservative, you have to absolutely crush conservatives among self-identified moderates. That’s not what Kerry did, and it’s not what we’re doing in many of the twenty to thirty so-called “red states” where we’re losing. That’s the simple kind of electoral reality.

More importantly, there’s a huge opportunity there. Moderate voters are much more in synch with the long tradition of the progressive cause – of social justice, of economic opportunity, of strong national defense – they’re much more in touch with those values, and the conservatives are steadily being drawn further and further right by their right wing to a place, ultimately, where they’re going to turn off moderate voters.

We’ve got to be positioned so that we are ready to pick up those moderate voters that conservatives consistently turn off. That means we need new ideas and new messaging that will work with those voters and protect our progressive values.

Singer: There’s a careful balancing act that must take place, though. There’s a lot of animosity between some of the so-called “centrists,” led the DLC, and some of the bloggers. I know that Al From had some comments about the left wing of the party that may have been taken out of context by some and you see some of the bloggers come out and hammer at the moderates. How do you balance that and find a happy medium?

Cowan: Great question. The divide between the left and the center, or the moderates and the liberals, is really overstated and really beside the point. You need both parts. The party has to motivate and energize its base and it also has to expand that base and persuade new voters, swing voters, moderate voters to come our way.

The choice between one or the other is a completely false choice, and it’s one that will lead the party down a path at which we can do no better than maybe 40% – in between 35 and the low 40s in the electorate – and even worse in the 20 or 30 red states in which we’re struggling. So it’s a completely false choice, and only by rejecting that choice – finding a way to pull both the most moderate voters as well as self-identified liberal voters – do we have a chance of building a sustainable majority.

In fact, in the 20th Century, what you’ll see is that there was never a liberal majority in the United States, there was a Democratic majority. And the way we got that Democratic majority was that the liberals cut a deal with Southern segregationists, who were Democrats. Only by cutting that deal were they able to maintain a Democratic majority.

So in fact there was never a liberal majority. There was always tension between the left of the party and, at that point, the far, far right of the party. That tension is much less today than it was during the time of Southern segregationists.

What it really means is that instead of trying to recreate a liberal majority that once existed, we’re actually trying to create a progressive majority that never existed, and do it without having to cut the same kind of deal we cut with Southern segregationists 40 years ago.

Singer: We see your counterparts over at the Center for American Progress reaching out to the blogosphere through Think Progress, their blog. Do you foresee setting up something like that at Third Way to connect to the party base?

Cowan: I hope so. We’re so new and getting ourselves fully funded and underway, so it will probably take a little while. Podesta’s group was instantly funded. They had millions and millions of dollars. They just have a much larger capacity than we do.

Our hope is that as our capacity builds, we’ll be able to connect with folks much more widely, particularly out at the grassroots level. That’s almost completely dependent on how well we do in raising money.

Singer: Let’s talk about the South, where you have had a lot of background and focus. I was talking with Michael Dukakis a few weeks back and he brought up the fact that there were literally over ten thousand donors to the Kerry campaign in Alabama alone. There is a base there. How do you rally them to grow that base, because there are clearly activists there, even if some Democrats in Washington write off fighting in Alabama or Mississippi or states that haven’t been won in a long time?

Cowan: Third Way has an entire project on the New South to really take a hard look at how you build a new progressive majority in the South. Nobody really knows right now. Nobody has the answers. But there are elected officials like Senator Mark Pryor from Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas, Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, Governor Mark Warner from Virginia, and many others who have figured out how you can win in the South and be a progressive.

We’re going to be taking, over the next few years, a very close look at the work they do, figuring out what they do right that works, and then helping translate that to progressive elected officials and candidates up and down the ticket in the South.

Singer: There is a piece in the LA Times today by Mark Barabak comparing Democratic prospects in the West with the South. This is something we talked about when you were here at Pomona College a few months ago. When you look at states like Colorado – one of the vice-chairs of your organization, Ken Salazar, is from Colorado – and you look at Montana and some of those other states – Nevada, the Democrats have seen quite a bit of resurgence there. What do you think of the idea that the Democrats need to look west – still look at the South – but look at the West as the key to their resurgence?

Cowan: It’s a tricky thing. Democrats cannot write off the South. First of all, that would be an electoral disaster. Secondly, that would be wrong. The South is a vibrant place with significant pieces of the new economy, one of the most culturally interesting regions of the country. It would be foolish for Democrats to write off the South.

On the other hand, we don’t need to write off the South to actually go aggressively after the West and the Southwest. It should not be an either or choice. Certainly if you get beneath the Presidential level and look at the Senate and House and Governorships, it’s not an either or. We have to be able to do well in both regions. If we write one entire region of the country off, there is no way we get back a Congressional majority, and that would be a disaster, even if we were able to win the White House.

Singer: The exit polling data is a little rough, in terms of the Hispanic vote. Initially it was estimated that he did better than he actually did – his numbers are a little lower now. He seems to have done best in places like New Mexico and in Florida, where they have Hispanic communities that are a little different than the national community.

But you look at a state like Oregon, where I’m from, the Hispanic turnout quadrupled in four years and they voted over eighty percent for the Democrats. I know the Hispanic population in the South is also beginning to grow in places other than Florida, places like Georgia. Do you think it will be possible to co-opt their growth to help spur Democratic regrowth in the region?

Cowan: Very, very hard to say. The larger issue is, beyond any particular region, the all-encompassing issue is: are we willing to look at the progressive cause and think about how we modernize it in a way that does not have us hew to our orthodoxies but begins to try to generate fresh ideas as well as the messaging to sell those ideas. Unless we’re willing to question our orthodoxies and find new ways of achieving traditional ends, we’re not going to be able to regain majority status anywhere in the country except for the two coasts.

Singer: One of the ways you’ve challenged the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party is on Gun Control. If you look at Montana, a person like Brian Schweitzer – their Governor – trumpeted his “A” rating from the NRA. It’s not necessary for someone to get an “A” rating with the NRA, but what are some other creative ways of diffusing issues like guns and issues of religion that are big in many parts of the country?

Cowan: The answer is, in short, that you really have to show genuine respect for people with values. And if you don’t show genuine respect for people’s values, they’re not going to give you their vote.

On guns, my view is that – I grew up actually going to camp shooting guns, enjoyed them – I think that the 48% of the electorate that has a gun in their house, that’s their personal choice and I strongly support them for making that choice. It doesn’t mean guns are for everyone, but for many people it is, and I think it’s a great choice.

For example, people who are trying to respect the values of gun owners need to be strongly for the Second Amendment. They need to understand that people who make the choice to own a gun do that either out of a sense self-defense or love for hunting or sport, and they should deeply and genuinely respect that choice.

That applies to a wide range of other values and cultural issues in which for Democrats to appeal to moderates, we’ve got to return to what I think should be some of our core values: keeping in touch with mainstream values of the country, respecting the choices people make, which means, for example, not having a double standard around privacy. If we believe in privacy for choice, we should also believe in privacy for the Second Amendment.

Singer: One of the ways that Schweitzer and others around the country have been able to work on the gun issue is to turn it around to issues of conservation and the environment. They say to sportsman that President Bush is trying to give away the lands for hunting and other outdoor activities – fishing, and whatnot. That seemed to be successful. Should the Democrats try to push a similar theme across the country, not just in the West?

Cowan: Absolutely. Most hunters deeply love the land, are connected to it, and want to be good stewards of it. And there’s no question that there’s tension in the conservative coalition between people who support gun rights and love the land and people who would actually put the land in jeopardy. There’s no question there’s tension in their coalition, and we absolutely should be looking for ways to drive a wedge into that coalition, because frankly they shouldn’t be allowed to be so contradictory, so hypocritical about protecting the land for their hunting base but destroying the land for those who would want to pollute it.

Singer: Just one last question. What should we look forward to from Third Way in the next year and the longer term as well?

Cowan: You should look for Third Way to do two kinds of work. One is developing legislative, policy ideas that Senators and Senate candidates can carry and introduce that appeal to moderate voters that help them reach out to moderates. The second is Third Way will be doing a series of playbooks on the economy, on national security and on cultural issues to show progressive candidates and progressive elected officials how to handle and talk about these issues, and the messaging around them, in ways that connect to self-identified moderate and independent voters.

Singer: I hope that in the future we can continue the dialogue between the various parts of the Democratic electorate, and we’re as always glad to have you a part of it and help grow the coalition. It was a real pleasure to speak with you. Thanks so much.

Cowan: My pleasure. Any time.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Since when did Republicans make decisions based on polling? Since always, of course. Leave it to Rick Santorum, scared beyond his wits by his anemic polling numbers, to become the first GOP leader openly weak-kneed about the nuclear option. Alexander Bolton has the story for The Hill:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a leading advocate of the “nuclear option” to end the Democrats’ filibuster of judicial nominees, is privately arguing for a delay in the face of adverse internal party polls.

Details of the polling numbers remain under wraps, but Santorum and other Senate sources concede that, while a majority of Americans oppose the filibuster, the figures show that most also accept the Democratic message that Republicans are trying to destroy the tradition of debate in the Senate.

The Republicans are keeping the “nuclear” poll numbers secret, whereas they have often in the past been keen to release internal survey results that favor the party. David Winston, head of the Winston Group, which conducts Senate GOP polls, did return phone calls seeking comment.

[...]

“People see checks and balances as Democrats checking Republicans, not the legislative checking the executive or the judiciary checking the legislative,” Santorum said. Filibustering presidential nominees was not something the Founding Fathers envisioned as a tool for balancing power between the branches, he argued. In other words, Democrats have managed to convince the public of their right to check Republicans in the Senate. [emphasis added]

A number of progressives have complained about Senate Democrats' inability to block conservative legislation, like ANWR and the Bankruptcy Bill. This Bolton article shows, however, that Harry Reids tactics of strategically, but forcefully hitting the Republicans on key issues is working.

Even Republican polling shows this. Whether the sentiment of the American people is enough to sway Bill Frist away from invoking the nuclear option is unclear. Nevertheless, the Democrats have gotten their message out -- even Santorum admits as much -- and the American people are on their side.

Who'd have ever known it? In fact, about seven in ten voted in 2004, and a quarter were active in the electorate. Harvard University's Institute of Politics takes a look at how these students voted and finds that they break down into four categories:

Traditional Liberals (43 percent of college students): This group voted overwhelmingly for Kerry in the last election (76 percent), believes in health insurance and Social Security guarantees, and firmly disagrees with the statement "homosexual relations between consenting adults are morally wrong." In addition, 86 percent believe the U.N. should take a leading role in solving international crises. This group saw the largest growth in the past year, growing from 32 percent of the population to 43 percent.

Traditional Conservatives (14 percent of college students): Eighty-one percent of this group voted for Bush in the last election, and they are the group most likely to support the war in Iraq. They support Social Security reform, and are very concerned about the moral direction of the country, strongly opposing homosexual relationships and abortion.

Religious Centrists (21 percent of college students): Religious centrists split in the 2004 election: 47 percent voted for Kerry, 47 percent voted for Bush. They, too, are concerned about the moral direction of the country, and are more supportive of religious influence. However, they also believe that health insurance is a right and support school choice.

Secular Centrists (18 percent of college students): This group voted for Bush by a 59 to 29 margin. They feel the country is headed in the right direction, and generally support the war in Iraq and would tolerate further casualties for continued progress. This group is 11 percent smaller than last year.

The voting trends of the "centrists" are particularly interesting. While it might be commonly believed that the religious centrists would trend to the GOP and the secular centrists would lean to the Dems, in fact, this was not the case.

The silver lining of the poll for the Dems: Traditional liberals "saw the largest growth in the past year, growing from 32 percent of the population to 43 percent." Perhaps there's hope after all.

More connections to uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The AP's Suzanne Gamboa has this installment of DeLay-mania.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay treated his political donors to a bird's-eye view of a Three Tenors concert from an arena skybox leased by a lobbyist now under criminal investigation.

[...]

The skybox donation, valued at thousands of dollars, came three weeks before DeLay also accepted a trip to Europe — including golf with Abramoff at the world-famous St. Andrews course — for himself, his wife and aides that was underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients.

[...]

His defenders say the House leader did nothing wrong in the skybox case. Federal law at the time didn't require DeLay's committee to disclose or reimburse for the skybox gift, they note — though the law was changed to require such disclosure a few months later.

[...]

DeLay's boss, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, came to a different conclusion in recent days, reimbursing Abramoff for a political event two years after the fact. One of Hastert's political committees had used a restaurant partly owned by the lobbyist, and the Hastert committee decided recently to reimburse for the use.

Tom DeLay is stuck in an interesting news cycle in which old stories, under reported (or unreported) in the past, are finally seeing the light of day. Even if all of these actions were legal -- something unclear at this moment -- even the perception of corruption can take someone down. The more these stories come out, the tougher it will be for DeLay to shrug them off... and the less likely it will be that his Republican allies continue to shill for him

It's not Crawford, Texas... It's not 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue... The Austin American-Statesman's Ken Herman reports that...

President Bush and his wife, Laura, claim a Chicago post office box as their "home address."

On the 1040 they signed, which the White House released last week, the listed home address is "Northern Trust Co., P.O. Box 803968, Chicago, IL 60680."

Strange.

David Sirota sees a distinct possibility that Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will succeed Jim Jeffords in the Senate.

[Update 11:28 AM Pacific]: CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) has more on the race...

Speculation on a successor immediately centered on Vermont’s lone House member, self-proclaimed socialist Bernard Sanders, another independent first elected in 1990 who caucuses with the Democrats in his chamber. Two-term moderate Republican Gov. Jim Douglas would likely offer the GOP its strongest shot at the seat.

Though this seat certainly leans Democratic, it will be a race to watch in 2006.

The AP's Christopher Graff delivers a very disappointing piece of news out of Vermont today:

Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords, an independent who triggered one of the most dramatic upheavals in Senate history when he quit the GOP four years ago, intends to retire at the end of his term next year, officials in his home state and Washington said Wednesday.

Jeffords will make the announcement Wednesday afternoon in Burlington, three sources close to the senator told The Associated Press on Wednesday. They spoke on condition of anonymity.

No calls to Jeffords' press secretary or staff were returned Wednesday morning.

Jeffords, 70, has been adamant in saying he will seek re-election, but there have been increasing concerns voiced about his health in recent weeks.

Jeffords, who was one of the very last remaining liberal Republicans in the Senate, will be sorely missed. The Democrats will be able to hold the seat, but it is highly unlikely that they will find someone as intelligent, talented and decent as Jim Jeffords.

There is some brighter news from Pennsylvania, where new polling shows a surprisingly uncompetitive race at this early juncture. Peter Jackson has the story for the AP:

Democrat Robert P. Casey Jr. holds a 14-percentage-point lead over Republican Sen. Rick Santorum in the 2006 campaign for Santorum's seat, according to an independent poll released Wednesday.

Casey, Pennsylvania's state treasurer and son of the late governor, was favored by 49 percent of the respondents in the Quinnipiac University poll, compared to 35 percent for the second-term incumbent. Thirteen percent were undecided.

The widening of Casey's lead, from 46-41 percent in a Quinnipiac survey in February, comes on the heels of Santorum's high-profile advocacy of two controversial causes - President Bush's Social Security overhaul plan and congressional intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

If there is any silver lining today, it comes with the fact that Rick Santorum is sitting at 35% right now. While this doesn't mean he has lost the race, it certainly means his next year and a half will be hellish, at best.

[Update 11:01 AM Pacific]: Says Josh Marshall...

For Rick Santorum, phase-out may take on a whole new meaning.