I'm a bit confused tonight. I've been watching a bit of the television news, and many of the guests seem to believe that Mark Felt did something dishonorable by leaking information about Watergate to the press. Leaving aside the fact that most of these speakers were officials in the Nixon administration, the question still remains: was Felt wrong for going to Bob Woodward?

Let me step back for a moment. I have always thought Richard Nixon was a good President, perhaps even a very good President. The EPA was created under his watch, and the Clean Water and Clean Air acts -- among other major environmental bills -- were passed while he was in office. On the domestic front, he also wanted to greatly expand Welfare, among other things. Internationally, his policies towards China and Russia undoubtedly helped lead to the end of the Cold War. So even when Watergate is taken into account, I still believe Nixon was a good President.

This all having been said, I cannot fathom how anyone could think Felt was wrong to serve as Deep Throat. For all of the good Nixon was able to accomplish, his criminal acts within the White House threatened the very fiber of the American Democracy. The country was on the line, and in a time of great need, Mark Felt did what he deemed necessary to save the Republic. Even if he also had ulterior motives, it doesn't take away from the fact that he helped save America. It is that black and white. So as I said before, I hope history gives him the honor he deserves for doing as much as any other person in American history to protect and uphold the Constitution.

The battle to win federal and statewide campaigns in 2006 could hinge on the West, and there's plenty of news from the region these days. To begin with, CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) passes on news that Montana Senator Conrad Burns (R) is in a desperate battle for his political life.

The Billings Gazette reports that Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., “leads trial matchups against potential Democratic opponents for the 2006 election.” A May 23-25 telephone survey of 625 likely Montana voters showed Burns leading state Auditor John Morrison “by a 49 to 34 percent margin, with 17 percent undecided.” Burns led Senate President Jon Tester “by a 50 to 26 percent margin, with 24 percent undecided.” He also led former Missoula Mayor and ex-House Speaker Daniel Kemmis by 53-23 percent, with the rest undecided.

Any long-time incumbent barely cracking 50% against relatively unknown competition is in some serious trouble. In other interesting data from the poll, the Billings Gazette's Allison Farrell writes,

Montana voters, by a 51 to 31 percent margin with the rest undecided, oppose President Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, a new Gazette State Poll shows.

The poll results also found that Montana candidates for the U.S. Senate or House might suffer political consequences if they back Bush's plans. Bush visited Great Falls in February to pitch his plan to Montanans.

[...]

Montana voters are also less likely to vote a candidate for the U.S. House or the Senate who supports Bush's Social Security plan, the poll shows. Thirty-nine percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports Bush's plan, while 20 percent of voters said they would be more likely to vote a supporter of the president's plan.

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., and Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., are both up for re-election in 2006. Burns said Friday he doesn't feel comfortable with the Bush plan, and said he's continuing to work with his colleagues on a solution to Social Security. Rehberg believes Social Security needs to be fixed, but as far as the private accounts he's not convinced, said Rehberg's press secretary Brad Keena on Friday.

Montana's Republicans are not the only ones in retreat these days. As Kevin Yamamura reports for The Sacramento Bee, trouble is brewing in the Golden state.

Product placement is common in Hollywood. The movie producer puts a certain brand on film and the company kicks in some cash.

So it's not difficult to understand why a citizen watchdog group cried foul last week when products made by some of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign contributors showed up in a political ad.

The set for a 30-second spot about Schwarzenegger's budget-control initiative resembles a cafeteria and features a Pepsi, a bottle of Arrowhead water, a Dr Pepper and a rack of potato chips.

All are manufactured by companies that have given money to Schwarzenegger political committees, according to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. It demanded last week he return nearly $300,000 in contributions.

With Schwarzenegger at 40% in the most recent polling, this news can't make the Schwarzenegger people too happy. Perhaps this will make Warren Beatty begin to think seriously about a run for Governor...

In February, we began to hear whisperings about who Deep Throat was. Apparently, it wasn't Ben Stein, as some believed. William Branigin and David Von Drehle have the huge story for The Washington Post:

The Washington Post today confirmed that W. Mark Felt, a former number-two official at the FBI, was "Deep Throat," the secretive source who provided information that helped unravel the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s and contributed to the resignation of president Richard M. Nixon.

The confirmation came from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, and their former top editor, Benjamin C. Bradlee. The three spoke after Felt's family and Vanity Fair magazine identified the 91-year-old Felt, now a retiree in California, as the long-anonymous source who provided crucial guidance for some of the newspaper's groundbreaking Watergate stories.

The Vanity Fair story said Felt had admitted his "historic, anonymous role" following years of denial.

In a statement today, Woodward and Bernstein said, "W. Mark Felt was 'Deep Throat' and helped us immeasurably in our Watergate coverage. However, as the record shows, many other sources and officials assisted us and other reporters for the hundreds of stories that were written in The Washington Post about Watergate."

Hopefully Felt will be given the praise in the historical record that he is due.

I think I'm going to get the timing down in the next couple of days to figure out the most efficient way to keep this site constantly updated (pending an OK by my boss, of course). We might move back towards the analytical, rather than the opinionated this summer in an effort to legitimate. In theory, this should not constrain the blog; rather, I think it will improve it.

Anyway, just to give you an idea of my first day working for a DC newspaper, I spent eight hours pouring through Congressional record to find out Hillary's partisanship during the 107th Congress, as measured by the number of GOP bills she co-sponsored and the number of her bills were co-sponsored by GOPers. Heady stuff, I know. Anyway, time for the serious bloggery. Here goes...

The summer is upon us and so it is time for waves of fresh college students to head off to offices across D.C. and give away their labor for free. Oh, to be an intern!

This summer, I'll be working at The Hill newspaper here in Washington. The paper describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-ideological weekly newspaper that describes the inner workings of Congress, the pressures confronting policy makers and the many ways -- often unpredictable -- in which decisions are made." It is an important paper within the corridors of Congress, and I often cite it here on Basie!

I will primarily be writing and reporting for the paper, though I will also perform a number of other tasks ranging from transcripting (joy of joys) and fact-checking to xeroxing and "couriering."

I will also have to cut back on Basie! during normal business hours. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to deliver high quality content and look for other ways to continue the reporting on this site. I will also search high and low for interesting interviews (which should be easier here within the Beltway). Once again, thank you visiting Basie! and please come back soon and often.

When George W. Bush first ran for President in 2000, he pledged to be the education President. Much of this campaign relied on claims that he had helped fix the Texas education system. Lo and behold, five years after Bush ran for President and a decade after he became Governor of the state, Texas' education system is still in shambles, reports Ralph Blumenthal for The New York Times.

As they ended their biennial legislative session, Texas lawmakers on Monday earned an "F" from teachers and others for failing a third time in two years to fix a hard-pressed school financing system that a state judge has found unconstitutional.

Some legislators said Gov. Rick Perry should call another special session, as he did last summer after a failed 2003 effort, for a fourth try. Mr. Perry's predecessor, George W. Bush, met similar setbacks in efforts to restructure school financing.

[...]

Texas [ranks] last among the states in high school graduation rates and faring poorly on other education and social service indexes. [emphasis added]

As with many other aspects of the President's record, there is a strong dissonance between rhetoric and reality. Education President is actually an "F" from teachers; WMD in Iraq turns out to be no WMD; tax cuts won't create a deficit becomes tax cuts that in reality bankrupt the country; etc., etc.

This story underscores an important point, politics aside. The nation's education system is crumbling, and mandating testing without providing necessary funding is not the answer. The simple answer: allocate sufficient money to educate every student. If you want also want testing, so be it, but mone for required standardized tests must be above and beyond the increased money for schools.

This is not just an education issue. This is about economics and national security. Unless American students receive the best education in the world -- not only in colleges and post-graduate programs, but from pre-school on -- we risk falling behind Europe, India and China in my lifetime. The threat is that imminent. So if George Bush actually wants to be known as the education President -- and I believe that he sincerely does -- it's time for him, and the state legislatures across the country, to give our students the money they need to learn.

In the aftermath of the deal postponing the "nuclear" option, the constant spin of both sides has made it difficult to decipher the winners from the losers. For instance, although extreme right elements were livid becaue the nuclear option was not invoked, three of President Bush's most right wing nominees are on the path to the judiciary without the Republicans being slammed for overturning Senate tradition. Just the same, though many on the left are unhappy that the three nominees will become judges, the Democrats still have the right to filibuster -- in theory.

Today, the Los Angeles Times' political guru Ron Brownstein provides a more nuanced look at the ramifications of the deal that paints a fuller picture of the winners and losers of the battle.

Especially since Bush's reelection, Democrats have been divided on electoral strategy. One camp believes the key to revival is courting centrist swing voters (a la Bill Clinton's "third way"). The second says the party must emulate Bush and focus on mobilizing its base by stressing unity.

In different ways, the judicial deal is at least tolerable to both camps. Third-way types applaud it for promoting bipartisan compromise. The party-unity group likes it because it kept Senate Democrats unified against the filibuster ban.

By contrast, the deal threatens the ruling political paradigm among Republicans. Since 2001, energizing the conservative base, even at the price of straining relations with more centrist voters, has been the core of Bush's legislative and political strategy.

That approach has generated undeniable benefits for him. The massive turnout from the GOP base was the largest factor in Bush's reelection. His strength in culturally conservative areas has helped Republicans solidify their dominance of congressional seats in GOP-leaning "red" states.

But last week's deal reflected a fear among some of its GOP participants that the White House had pushed that polarizing approach to the point of dangerously alienating moderate voters. Bush's approval rating has tumbled below 50% and runs lower among independents and moderates. The numbers for Congress have been sinking like Nasdaq after the Internet stock bubble burst. In a CBS poll last week, Congress' approval rating among independents fell to an anemic 26%.

The defection (even temporarily) of seven Republican Senators on the "nuclear" option and 50 House GOPers on the stem cell bill are indeed indicative of the growing concern that 2006 will be a difficult year for conservative Republicans. More and more GOP members of Congress simply do not want to go down with the ship, so they are increasingly willing to abandon their party on key votes.

While this trend has yet to fully materialize -- Republicans still have higher party unity scores than the Democrats -- it must be discouraging for diehard conservatives to see their party fracturing just at the apex of its power.

Whenever I see a commercial for Wal-Mart or the big box store comes up in conversation, I'm become a bit puzzled. If Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world, why haven't I ever been to one? Am I missing out on something? Frankly, I don't even know where to find a store in Portland. The Oregonian's team of David R. Anderson and Catherine Trevison provide an answer on the front page of today's paper.

[T]he Portland area is nearly virgin territory for the Bentonville, Ark., retailer. The company has no stores in Washington County, with a population of nearly 500,000. It has two in Multnomah County, with a population of nearly 700,000.

[...]

Oregon has 20 discount stores and nine Supercenters -- a combination discount store and full-sized grocery. But Oklahoma, with about 30,000 more people, has nearly four times as many Wal-Marts: 49 Supercenters, 33 discount stores, 14 smaller Neighborhood Markets and 14 Sam's Clubs warehouse stores.

And how have we kept Wal-Mart out of the Beaver state?

Oregon was one of the first places where big-box developers encountered tighter codes regulating retail design, and many cities here have adopted them, said architect Timothy Huffman of Middough Consulting of Cleveland, which started working with Wal-Mart on urban projects around the country about four years ago.

My limited experience with Wal-Mart contrasts starkly with my long-time patronage of the largest U.S. warehouse-club retailer, Costco. Wherever I have lived -- Portland, Claremont, DC -- I have always made it my business to know where to find the nearest Costco. Why the big difference?

Although my propensity to shop at Costco came long before I knew about Costco's liberal-leanings (which I'll discuss in a moment), undoubtedly one of the reasons why I have frequented the retailer is because of its progressive treatment of its workers. Unlike Wal-Mart -- less than half of whose employees have health benefits and who greatly underpays its workers -- Costco goes to great lengths to ensure the happiness of its workers. By paying its employees fair wages, despite squawking from Wall Street, Costco ensures that its customers are always pleased. And the results are stunning, as Bloomberg reports:

Costco Wholesale Corp., the largest U.S. warehouse-club retailer, said third-quarter earnings increased 5.6 percent, helped by sales of home furnishings and electronics.

Net income rose to $209.8 million, or 43 cents a share, from $198.7 million, or 42 cents, a year earlier. Sales in the quarter ended May 8 rose 10 percent to $11.7 billion, the Issaquah, Washington-based company said today in a statement.

Sales of upscale products, such as $2,250 Denton leather sofas, helped Costco outperform Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s Sam's Club for 20 straight months. Profit rose the least in six quarters because Costco discounted gasoline to lure customers while its wholesale fuel costs increased. [emphasis added]

Bloomberg also notes,

• "Costco's membership renewal rate reached a record 86 percent in the quarter."
  
• "Same-store sales growth at Costco averaged 8.3 percent compared with 6.2 percent at Sam's Club over the last four quarters."

So perhaps Costco's policy of adequately paying its workers is not so ill-begotten after all.

Progressive thinkers have further cause to shirk Wal-Mart in favor of Costco, aside from the great prices and fair treatment of employees. BuyBlue.org, which tracks the political contributions of major corporations, notes that in the 2004 cycle Wal-Mart officials gave only 22% of their donations to Democrats whereas Costco executives gave 99% of their contributions to Dems. What's more, as Bloomberg's Michael Forsythe and Rachel Katz reported last summer,

Costco Chief Executive Officer Jim Sinegal, 68, is a Democrat who says President Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts unfairly benefit the wealthy. He opposed the Iraq war and supports Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts for president. And he's the only chief executive of a company in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index to donate money to independent political groups formed to oust Bush, Internal Revenue Service records show.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer and owner of Sam's Club warehouse stores, gives more money to Republican candidates than any other company does. Its top three managers, including Chief Executive H. Lee Scott, donated the individual maximum $2,000 to Bush, and Jay Allen, vice president for corporate affairs, raised at least $100,000 to re-elect the president, earning him the Bush campaign's designation of "Pioneer." [emphasis added]

A compelling argument for shopping at Costco instead of Wal-Mart? The proof will be in the pudding. Anderson and Trevison explain that Wal-Mart is changing the design of its stores in order to further break into the Oregon market, so it will be able to go head-to-head against Costco in my backyard. My hunch is that Oregonians, by and large, will continue to shop at Costco, however. And though Wal-Mart will do well in the state, Costco will continue to grow and flourish.

[Full disclosure: I own stock in Costco, though I don't really think that has influenced my opinion on the subject. Nevertheless, it's important for me to note my potential bias on the subject.]

Tomorrow we honor the thousands upon thousands who gave their lives to help create and defend this great country in which we live. With tens of thousands of soldiers still in harm's way all across the globe, let us take a day off from meaningless bickering to pray for their swift delivery from danger.

Jason Scorse has a great post up over at Voices of Reason dissecting Thomas Frank's popular treatise, What's the Matter with Kansas. It's an interesting piece that I recommend you check out.

John Edwards seems likely to make another bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008, but at least one key North Carolina Republican is concerned that the Breck boy is going to mke another bid for the United States Senate. Jim Morrill and Tim Funk have the story for The Charlotte Observer.

Does Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole expect a 2008 challenge from Democrat John Edwards? Or Gov. Mike Easley?

That's what she suggests in a new fundraising letter.

[...]

Dole goes on to say that Edwards, who left the Senate in January, "is conducting meetings throughout our state. Edwards is a multimillionaire who put millions of dollars of his personal wealth into his last campaign for the U.S. Senate and defeated a popular incumbent Republican."

While Easley might actually make a run for the Senate in 2008 (unless he too would rather run for President), it's highly unlikely that Edwards will. For John Edwards, who clearly aspires to the White House, there simply is no upside to a Senate run in 2008. It would preclude him from running against an open field and not significantly improve his resume for 2008.

There has been much talk that either Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki will challenge Hillary Clinton next year. Aside from the fact that Hillary would be extremely tough to beat, becoming a Senator would do little to advance the presidential aspirations of either Giuliani or Pataki. Likewise in Virginia, it is highly unlikely -- though quite disappointing -- that popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner is unlikely to run against Republican Senator George Allen. The same most likely goes for a Mitt Romney bid for a second term as Massachusetts Governor, where his approval ratings are an anemic 41 percent.

2006 will be a wild year with strong politicians on both sides of the aisle forgoing shots as important offices to keep their options open for 2008. How this will affect the national picture is yet unclear, but if enough incumbents begin to see the writing on the wall (a la 1994, when 50 House members retired), 2006 could bring a whole new generation into Congress and statehouses across the country.

There are a number of reasons why President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security is not good policy -- it exacerbates, rather than alleviates the problem; it drastically cuts benefits; it is a first step in destroying FDR's signature program. As the AP's Jeannine Aversa reports, the International Monetary Fund proposes yet another reason not to support the proposal.

The centerpiece of the Bush administration's Social Security overhaul — letting workers set up personal investment accounts — would "pose fiscal challenges," International Monetary Fund staff say.

[...]

While these accounts "hold the potential for raising the return on Social Security contributions, they would also imply a significant increase in federal deficits and debt in coming decades," the IMF staff report said.

The IMF staff are not the only ones concerned about the massive increase in debt that would occur as a result of private accounts.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has urged a go-slow approach in setting up the accounts, has expressed concern that the government's increased borrowing needs might boost a variety of interest rates.

If the IMF says private accounts are in effect bad policy and Alan Greenspan in effect says they are bad policy, shouldn't the Republicans pay at least a little heed?

Americas have discussed the issue of embryonic stem cell research for months without branching out into related areas. Now, one hard right Republican who has made signals about running for President in 2008 wants not only to block investment in further research but also curtail in vitro fertilizations that has brought life to thousands. The AFP has the story:

A prominent conservative US senator called for restrictions on the number of embryos that could be created during fertility treatments, hoping to lessen the number of unwanted embryos left over when the procedures end.

"In a number of countries, they limit the number of these in vitro fertilizations from outside the womb," US Senator Sam Brownback told ABC television's "This Week" program.

"They say you can do this, but you have to do these one or two at a time, so that they're implanted in that basis. And that might be the better way to look at this.

"That's a way that you can look at that, instead of going on this massive scale of what we've done here," Brownback said.

Not only are the Republicans against scientific innovations that could save millions of people's lives, but now some GOPers are against allowing married couples with trouble conceiving having children. Which party stands for the culture of life?

Well, I'm here in DC. Foggy Bottom, to be exact. Blogging should commence within the next little while.

"I think he's running for president."

-- Roberta McCain, 93, on her son Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to the New Yorker.

Link.

Well folks, these are hectic times around these parts. I'm off to DC in just a short few hours, though I hope to catch a few hours of sleep before then. I'll be able to write a little at PDX (which has free Wi-Fi) and perhaps in Chicago as well. As a result, tomorrow's posting might be a bit sparse. Things should be up and back to normal come Memorial Day, and certainly the Tuesday after that. Thanks for bearing with me and I'll talk to you in a few hours.

I'll be flying back to DC for my summer gig (which I'll let you know about in due time) on a 6:00 AM flight, but for those not relegated to cramped seats and excessive yet relatively ineffectual security checks...

NBC's MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT

Former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN); Former NJ Gov. and 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean and former Indiana Rep. and 9/11 Vice Chair Lee Hamilton; and former Sen. and Law and Order DA Fred Thompson (R-TN)

ABC's THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sam Brownback (R-KS); Palestinian PM Mahmoud Abbas; Danica Patrick (Indy 500 racer); and the panel of Terry Moran, Linda Douglass and George Will

CBS' FACE THE NATION WITH BOB SCHIEFFER

Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA); sportswriter John Feinstein; and Colbert King

FOX NEWS SUNDAY WITH CHRIS WALLACE

Gen. Richard Myers (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff); Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT); and the panel of Brit Hume, Ceci Connolly, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams

CNN's LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Iraqis and other denizens of the Middle East

[For more, check out Sunday Morning Talk]

stay tuned...

I have a new piece up over at The Moderate Voice on America's impending oil crisis. Check it out if you're interested in the politics and policies of energy in the 21st century.

Can President Bush be forgiven for passing along false information about Iraqi WMD to the American people? Many would argue "yes." But should he be allowed to reward those who doctored the intelligence in the first place? This question and others have been raised by this exceptional piece of reporting by The Washington Post's Walter Pincus.

Two Army analysts whose work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq -- the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets -- have received job performance awards in each of the past three years, officials said.

The civilian analysts, former military men considered experts on foreign and U.S. weaponry, work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), one of three U.S. agencies singled out for particular criticism by President Bush's commission that investigated U.S. intelligence.

The Army analysts concluded that it was highly unlikely that the tubes were for use in Iraq's rocket arsenal, a finding that bolstered a CIA contention that they were destined for nuclear centrifuges, which was in turn cited by the Bush administration as proof that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts' work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq's military. The panel said the finding represented a "serious lapse in analytic tradecraft" because the center's personnel "could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question."

Pentagon spokesmen said the awards for the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job over the course of each year. But some current and former officials, including those who called attention to the awards, said the episode shows how the administration has failed to hold people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence.

It is unacceptable not to hold parties responsible for faulty intelligence, but it's something much worse to reward the very people who helped usher America into a war based on untruths. If ever the President had an opportunity to make right by the American people, he could simply fire these individuals. Instead, he's promoted them. So much for personal responsibility...

Republicans might believe that they have a monopoly over the support of the military, but Democrats won't give in that easily. A Memorial Day weekend one-two punch from Wes Clark and House Dems hammers the GOP for hypocrisy and a failure to support our troops, reports the Associated Press.

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark used the Democrats' radio broadcast Saturday to insist that Reserve and National Guard members and their families should receive the same health insurance as the active force does.

"And just as importantly, we have got to keep our promises to veterans and provide them the medical care they need," Clark said. "That means fully funding the Veterans Administration system."

[...]

Also timed for Memorial Day, the House Democratic campaign committee is rolling out an advertising campaign this weekend accusing House Republicans of failing to support National Guard and Reserve troops.

Radio commercials paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are planned for a dozen House districts.

The ads criticize Congress for rejecting a plan to extend health care coverage permanently to National Guard and Reserve members and their families. It would have given them similar benefits as active-duty troops through TRICARE, the military's health care system.

Is it pro-military to underfund healthcare for reservists and national guard troops? Does is improve our national defense? Does it strengthen America? Clearly, the answer is no. The sooner the Democrats can show the American people that the Republican are weakening, rather than strengthening the military (and Wes Clark is just the man to deliver such a message), the better shot they will have at a big win in 2006.

The field of rare coin dealing can be fickle, especially when millions in dollars in coins simply disappear. When you combine shady numismatics with politics, though, you get a whopper of a scandal. The AP's Andrew Welsh-Huggins has the scoop.

The director of Ohio's workers' compensation bureau resigned under pressure Friday over the disappearance of at least $10 million worth of rare coins that the agency had bought as an investment.

Gov. Bob Taft announced the departure of James Conrad, once hailed as state government's "Mr. Fixit" for his ability to overhaul troubled agencies.

[...]

The announcement came a day after it was learned that $10 million to $12 million of the state's $55 million rare coin investment was believed to be missing — dramatically more than the previous estimate of $400,000.

State officials said they plan to sue the man hired to manage the coin investments, coin dealer Tom Noe, and seek criminal charges. Noe has resigned, and a judge has ordered possession of the remaining coins transferred to the state.

Where's the scandal, you might ask. Sure this was a poor investment that wasted taxpayer money. But how could this possibly have political ramifications? The answer comes in paragraph 14.

Noe, 50, a leading GOP donor who operates a coin shop near Toledo, was hired by the bureau in 1998, the year before Taft took office. Democrats have alleged that he won the job in return for campaign contributions to Republicans, who control most of state government. [emphasis added]

This scandal threatens to upend any efforts by second-term GOP Governor Bob Taft, whose approval ratings are an anemic 19%. More importantly, the close ties between Noe and Ken Blackwell -- the leading Republican gubernatorial candidate for 2006 -- could provide six-term Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland with a real shot at winning the statehouse. Should Strickland -- or Jerry Springer or another Democrat -- win in 2006, Ohio would have its first Dem Governor in sixteen years. And who would have ever thought a few coins could make such a large difference?

After the "group of fourteen" hammered out a cease fire in the impending "nuclear" battle between Senate Republicans and Democrats, much discussion was made about which side had gained the upper hand. Although neither side can claim a decisive victory, The Economist opines that the big losers were the Republicans.

Democratic hardliners have lost less than Republican hardliners. In particular, there are three big losers from the peace deal: Bill Frist, the White House and the religious right.

Mr Frist is a much diminished leader. He had argued that he had done everything possible to avert a showdown, only to be frustrated by Democratic intransigence. But a group of mavericks and backbenchers succeeded in cobbling together a peace deal behind his back. He had hoped to present himself as the leader of a united Republican Party against a stonewalling Democratic opposition, an image that would have positioned him as the champion of social conservatives in any future presidential run. But now he is just one of many generals in a disorganised army.

The White House is also deeply frustrated. Mr Bush's political strategy has long depended on using a narrow Republican majority to push through broad changes. This worked well when the Republicans were willing to walk in lockstep behind the president. But the Senate deal is one of a number of indications that lockstep is no longer the height of Republican fashion. Last week, 46 Republican senators defied the threat of a presidential veto to vote in favour of a pork-stuffed highway bill. This week 50 Republicans from the normally pusillanimous House also defied the threat of a presidential veto to vote in favour of a bill to expand federal funding for stem-cell research. Add to this the lagging fortunes of his Social Security reforms even among Republican voters and Mr Bush looks much less formidable.

The religious right has good reason to be apoplectic. For social conservatives the filibuster fight was always a fight about the Supreme Court. Social conservatives calculated that it would be much easier to get one of their own on to the Court if they could deprive the minority of their power to use the filibuster; indeed, they hoped to sneak one or even two Clarence Thomases to the Court by as early as this summer. But the 14 senatorial peacemakers have not only left the Democrats with the filibuster, they have also sent a signal that they might be willing to break ranks with the White House if the fight gets too acrimonious.

I couldn't have said is better myself.

An email from the good general...

On Saturday, I will be delivering the Democratic response to the President's weekly radio address. I'll be thanking all of our brave men and women in uniform for their service. And I'll be urging Congress and the White House to honor their service - by providing our soldiers and their families with all of the support they deserve, in and out of battle. It's the least we can do - and it's high time that we do it.

I invite you to listen to Saturday's radio address on a local station near you. You can also check back at SecuringAmerica.com Saturday afternoon, where we'll post a link to my remarks online as soon as they become available.

I'll look forward to listening to the address and letting you know how it went through later on Saturday afternoon.

The AP's Kimberly Hefling passes on an extremely troubling piece of news out of Capitol Hill regarding the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. She writes,

Two days before Sen. Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the National Weather Service, his political action committee received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading provider of weather data.

The disclosure has renewed criticism of the measure, which Santorum, R-Pa., maintains would allow the weather service to better focus on its core mission of getting threatening weather info out in a "timely and speedy basis."

Opponents say the bill would endanger the public by preventing the dissemination of certain weather data, and force taxpayers to pay for the data twice. The bill would prevent the weather service from competing for certain services offered by the private sector.

This news cannot help Santorum, who is engaged in a pitched battle for his political life. Futher, it doesn't come at a particularly good time for the Republican Party as it tries to shrug off charges of hubris and corruption. Lastly, it doesn't help AccuWeather, as buying influence -- or even the perception of an attempt to do so -- is not generally regarded as acceptable business practice in this country (at least when it's publicized).

With Congress in recess, this will be a tough period for Santorum. Coming home to Pennsylvania -- where a large proportion of his constituents are elderly -- his views on partial privatization are highly unliked. What's more, his failure to protect military bases in the state has not endeared him to many voters. Now, with this scandal hanging over his head, I'd be surprised to see if he didn't just try and lay low for a while. If he does stay out of the limelight, though, his Democratic challenger Bob Casey will have that much more of an opportunity to hammer him in the press. It's a tough time to be in the Republican Congressional leadership...

Hillary Clinton has never been particularly loved by the American people. Her overreach on healthcare in 1993-94 helped the Democrats lose control of Congress, and the ultra-right's hatred of her husband has led to a revulsion, among some, of her. Just the same, Hillary is becoming more and more popular, reports Susan Page of USA Today.

For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

Clinton commands as much strong support — but more strong opposition — as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998.

[...]

Her strong support has risen by 8 percentage points, and her strong opposition has dropped by 5 points since the same question was asked in June 2003.

These number are highly surprising; I would never have thought Hillary capable of garnering the support of a majority of Americans. And though this does little to diminish my apprehensions about her possible candidacy, it is nevertheless enlightening to see that someone can actually rehabilitate her political image in this day in age.

Electricity news abounds in the Northwest these days. The still cash-strapped Enron Corporation is looking to sell the profitable Portland General Electric, two of the largest bidders for which are the city of Portland and the state of Oregon. More recently, billionaire Warren Buffett has made a move to buy out PacifiCorp. And on Thursday, as Felicity Barringer reports for The New York Times, a federal judge in Portland delivered a ruling that could have serious ramifications for the region's power supply.

A federal judge in Oregon ruled Thursday that the Bush administration had arbitrarily limited and skewed its analysis of the harm that 14 federal dams cause to endangered Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead.

As a result, Judge James A. Redden of Federal District Court ruled, the administration had shirked its duty to ensure that government actions were not likely to jeopardize the survival of the species.

The ruling came in a challenge by environmentalists, fishing groups and Indian tribes to the administration's determination that the harm the hydropower dams were posing to the young salmon and steelhead could be remedied over the next 10 years by $6 billion in improvements to the dams, including spillways designed to get the fish through safely.

While this ruling is just a preliminary step in the adjudication process -- the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court could choose to trump Redden's decision -- it nevertheless raises a number of important issues for the Northwest.

I am an environmentalist. But on the issue of breaching dams in the Northwest, I find myself diverging from the liberal orthodoxy. Although the lives of the salmon are extremely important -- and the regulations by the Bush administration clearly do not do enough to protect the species -- the environmental consequences of breaching dams in the region would be significantly more disastrous than keeping the dams in place.

Should Oregon, Washington et. al. turn to nuclear power? Coal? Oil? The region needs electricity, and clean hydroelectric power -- though it has its major drawbacks -- is undoubtedly better than the aforementioned alternatives. Should more solar and wind power plants be built? Absolutely. But can the region run on solar and wind power alone? Questionable.

If a number of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers were breached, the Trojan nuclear power plant thirty miles or so north of Portland would almost certainly be reopened to meet demand. The biproducts of such a plant would be extremely harmful to the environment, and the specter of a meltdown is simply too much for the region to handle if it is not necessary. Indeed, it's not. So before the die-hard environmentalists call for the destruction of dams throughout the great Northwest, I urge caution and, above all, a little bit of common sense.

Tom DeLay's woes never seem to end. One day he raises his profile in fighting stem cells, the next day his statewide political action committee is found to have broke the law. Reuters' Mark Babineck has the story:

A political committee formed by U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay broke Texas law by not disclosing more than $600,000 in mostly corporate contributions, a judge ruled in a case that adds to ethics questions swirling around the powerful Republican.

State District Judge Joe Hart in Austin made the ruling on Thursday in a lawsuit filed by five Democratic candidates defeated in 2002 by Republicans who received money from Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee founded by DeLay to help his party capture the Texas Legislature.

Hart awarded the Democrats a total of $196,660 in damages.

Although DeLay was not named in the case, today's news is further proof that he is politically radioactive. As Taegan Goddard notes, a majority of House Republicans would prefer the embattled Majority Leader not campaign for them. These are rough times for the exterminator, indeed.

The newest poll from Quinnipiac University finds that President Bush's approval ratings are tanking.

American voters disapprove of the job President George W. Bush is doing 50 - 44 percent, his lowest approval rating since becoming President. This compares to a 48 - 45 percent disapproval in a March 9 Quinnipiac University poll. [emphasis added]

Ouch.

If you take a look at the trend graph produced by Pollkatz, you can clearly see that President Bush is moving in the wrong direction. One poll, you can write off. Two polls, you can write off. But every poll showing the same trend is almost irrefutable.

There is more cause for concern for Republicans across the polling. The approval ratings for George W. Bush -- like almost every other President in the modern era -- has correlated quite closely to the price of gasoline. Unfortunately for the President, the most recent downturn in his numbers has come at a time when gas prices have actually been falling (as you can see in this other great graph from Pollkatz). This disconnect shows that the President is treading on some fairly this ice these days as a result of his policies, not just outside occurrences.

So there can be no more blaming of gas prices or shoddy methodology for the lagging numbers for Bush in recent polling. He, and the Republican Party, are simply not favored by the American people these days. The Democrats have yet to capitalize on this trend, but if (or when) they do, there could be a real partisan swing.

Over the past few months, former Democratic presidential candidate cum four-star General Wes Clark has worked hard to maintain his profile in the national media. In March, Clark relaunched his grassroots website, and in April, Clark spoke to me and other bloggers before his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. And just this last weekend, Clark appeared on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer to square off against Richard Perle.

Clark is not just working the media, however. The good General has also begun to cultivate his role as a major Democratic advisor, a move that Roll Call's Chris Cillizza says could have ramifications for the 2008 race [subscription reqd.].

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has taken a high-profile role, both on and off Capitol Hill, as a Democratic spokesman and foreign policy adviser, stoking speculation that he is planning another national campaign in 2008.

Clark has emerged as a regular presence on Capitol Hill in the last few months.

His allies paint him as a "go-to guy" for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) on foreign policy matters, pointing out that he has been repeatedly invited by the duo to address their respective caucuses on the handling of current military situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[...]

All of this activity has created the impression in Democratic circles that Clark is actively weighing a bid, pending how the field ultimately shakes out.

Erick Mullen, a spokesman for Clark, said it was "ridiculous" to assume that the general was running for president but did little to deny that it is under consideration.

"All options are on the table," Mullen said.

Watching the video of Clark's appearance in front of the CA Democratic Convention last month, one gets teh clear impression that the General still harbors aspirations for higher office. But would he accept the number two spot on the Democratic ticket? Said former Clark advisor Chris Lehane:

"I've always thought a Clinton-Clark ticket had a nice ring to it."

Was I Clark supporter in 2004? Yes. Would I like to see him run in 2008? Yes. Is it a little early for me to throw my support behind any potential candidate? Yes! So although I still consider myself a Clarkie, you'll have to wait some time before I'm willing to tell you who my pick is for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

Last month, when California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's approval ratings hit an all time low of 40% (with 50% disapproving), there was an assumption that he would quickly be able to turn things around. Apparently, this belief was unfounded, as the Public Policy Institute of California finds.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s approval ratings are considerably higher than the state legislature’s. However, they remain at the low point they reached in April. In the current survey, 40 percent of residents approve of the way he is handling his job, while 49 percent disapprove.

[...]

Since January, when his original budget plan was released, his overall approval ratings have dropped from 60 percent to 40 percent. They have dropped even lower than a year ago, when 64 percent approved and 26 percent disapproved of his performance as governor.

It just goes to show that a movie star can run as an outsider, but once he begins to govern just like any politician -- with a real contempt for the truth and a cynicism as black as any Beltway boy -- voters will get tired of the charade.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"

-- President George W. Bush

Courtesy of the White House.

Despite efforts of the Republican Party to sidestep the issue, the House's passage of a bill securing funding for embryonic stem cell research has only piqued the interest of the millions of supporters of the science and the small minority that stringently opposes it. As The Hill's Peter Savodnik reports, it is an issue that will not likely go away before the next election.

Many members of Congress say staking out a position on embryonic-stem-cell research is a personal issue, often shaped by family tragedy that defies the standard, abortion-rights divide.

But to conservative activists angered by Republicans who backed Tuesday night’s measure to increase federal funding of stem-cell research, voting yes for the bill was little more than betrayal. Democrats, too, suggested the vote could influence tight races in 2006.

“I think it will affect a number of congressmen who previously were thought of as pro-life, and now you’re going to find groups like ours that send out scorecards … and they’re no longer 100 percent,” Tom McClusky, director of government affairs at the Family Research Council, said yesterday.

Groups on the fringe right were not the only ones paying attention yesterday. Savodnik further notes,

But a Democratic leadership aide said at least two Republicans — Reps. Dave Reichert of Washington and Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — could face some trouble for opposing the measure.

“I think at the end of the day it is going to end up being one of the more politically important votes that are taken this Congress,” the aide said.

Though the bill clearly has the votes for passage in the Senate, the Republican leadership has been dragging its feet. As a result, Patrick O'Connor reports for The Hill that conservative Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- who actually supports the bill -- went to the floor today to goad his party into action.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) implored his colleagues yesterday to take up a bill that would expand federal funding for research into embryonic stem cells.

[...]

“I respect President Bush’s views on this issue,” Hatch said in his statement. “But I know, as a long-standing pro-life Senator, that it is possible to be both anti-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research.”

As The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports in tomorrow's paper, stem-cell supporters claim to have a margin in the Senate could even override a veto by the President.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican and chief sponsor of a bill to expand federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research, issued a stark challenge to President Bush on Wednesday, saying he had enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto of the measure.

"I don't like veto threats, and I don't like statements about overriding veto threats," Mr. Specter said, speaking at a news conference where the House backers of the measure presented him the legislation, which passed the House on Tuesday, topped with a red bow.

"But if a veto threat is going to come from the White House, then the response from the Congress is to override the veto, if we can," Mr. Specter added. "Last year we had a letter signed by some 58 senators, and we had about 20 more in the wings. I think if it really comes down to a showdown, we will have enough in the United States Senate to override a veto."

Down the line, this is a winning issue for the Democrats. By defending science that could save millions of lives against a small minority swayed by an orthodox dogma, Democrats can show that they indeed have a strong sense of morality. Come 2006, it will be very interesting to watch the Republican leadership and President Bush try to defend this position.

“I’ll compare my life with his any time. [...] I don’t think he knows what a life is.”

-- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), age 71, on fellow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who previously asked, "Why would you want to be here when you’re 68 years of age? If you have any type of life, this is the last place you’d want to be.”

Link.

"Not to have the availability of the best of medical care is simply atrocious."

-- Sen. Arlen Specter, on President Bush's vow to veto future funding for embryonic stem cell research

Link.

Two weeks ago, Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) had dinner with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama over at Bob Rubin's house; now, as the AP's Beth Rucker reports, Ford has made his bid to succeed Bill Frist as Tennessee's Senator in 2006.

Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. filed the federal paperwork Wednesday to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist.

The five-term congressman from Memphis is the second Democrat to enter the 2006 race. Frist has said he does not plan to seek a third term.

"I'm excited. I'm ready to go," Ford said in telephone interview from Washington. He said his top issues will be energy reform, national security and education.

Ford, 35, is a member of a Memphis political dynasty. He delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2000, unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Nancy Pelosi for the post of House minority leader in 2002 and served as a national campaign co-chairman for John Kerry's presidential run in 2004.

The polling on the race isn't great these days, but the Democrats must be pleased that they've recruited the strongest possible candidate. What's more, Tennessee is not always the safest place for Democrats seeking federal office. George W. Bush won the state by nearly 15 points in 2004.

That all having been said, Tennessee has a relatively popular Democratic Governor, Phil Bredesen, who will top the ticket in 2006, a Democratic state House and nearly split state Senate (Rs hold a 17-16 advantage this term). So while Harold Ford might have a bit of trouble beating out former Republican Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary and former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker to replace Sen. Frist, he's not a long shot by far and could prove to be the surprise of 2006.

Three weeks ago, Montana state Senate President Jon Tester began testing the waters for a challenge to incumbent Republican Senator Conrad Burns. The DSCC began polling the race and found Burns to be quite vulnerable. Now, as the Helana Independent Record's Charles S. Johnson reports, Tester is making his candidacy official, greatly strengthening the Democrats' chances in the state.

Driving his tractor-trailer rig to various campaign stops on Tuesday, Democrat Jon Tester, a Big Sandy farmer and state Senate president, launched his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Conrad Burns.

Joined by his family and Sen. Ken ''Kim'' Hanson, D-Harlem, who helped with the driving, Tester drove to Havre and then to Billings on Tuesday. He plans stops in Bozeman, Butte and Missoula today and in Helena and Great Falls on Thursday.

Tester, 48, said in a cell phone interview from his truck that he is seeking the U.S. Senate seat because he believes many Montanans have been overlooked by the federal government.

''I just feel small business, family farmers, agriculture, working people have been kind of under attack for the last 15 to 20 years,'' Tester said. ''I think the federal government needs top make these people a priority. The middle class has built this country, and we need to make them whole.''

By making this race about state issues, rather than major national trends, Tester could give Burns quite a bit of trouble. And considering Burns' connections to embattled conservative lobbyist Jack Abramoff, this race is quickly turning into one of the few Senate races that's actually competitive.

I'm enjoying this exchange:

Do you have a solution for Medicare, Medicaid, and SS?

-- pete

Isn't it enough to know that private accounts are not the solution? We don't have a solution for many medical diseases either, but it seems to me that killing the patient to cure the disease is the wrong way to go.

-- Eric Kodesch

In a much less artful answer, Pete, no. But that's not really my job. I can tell you that to fix Medicare and Medicaid, a combination of big cuts and big tax increases will need to be passed to keep the programs alive through the next decade (should the American people want to continue them). Social Security, which already underwent such changes in 1983, only needs minor fixes.

But Medicare and Medicaid are not the only programs that need a combination of cuts and tax increases. The federal deficit is untenable these days, and it will only get worse in the years to come. Neither party really wants to tackle this fact. But the Republicans control Washington these days, and with great power comes great responsibility.

If the Republicans want Americans to continue to vest a great deal of power in them in future years, they will have to start making some tough decisions. The American people expect their leaders to actually fix the country's problems rather than pass them on to later generations.

This doesn't let the Democrats off of the hook. They, too, will need to come up with some solid plans. But there is no incentive for them to release many details until late summer 2006 (and in fact there are many disincentives to them doing so). My hunch is that the Democrats will come up with some gagly 17-point proposals that don't resonate with voters. But should they actually figure out a way to explain what they believe in and why they believe it in three or four points, the Republicans will be in for a mountain of trouble.

The Democratic caucus in the Oregon House of Representatives has become the first legislative caucus in the nation (to my knowledge) to participate en masse in a group blog. This is certainly a brave new world in which we live! No longer will constituents be forced to watch a fifteen second segment on the six o'clock news or a watered down article in a local paper. Now, Oregonians can get it all straight from the donkey's mouth. Check it out at OregonHouseDemocrats.com.

Fewer and fewer Americans are approving of the job Congress is doing these days, according to the most recently released data from CBS News.

In the wake of the Senate's filibuster fight, Congress' job approval stands today at just 29 percent, down from the 35 percent measured last month following Congress' dispute over the Terri Schiavo case, and now at its lowest level in this poll since 1996.

Today a majority of Americans, 55 percent, disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. Most of the interviews for this poll were conducted before the filibuster compromise deal was announced Monday night.

Less than three in ten Americans approve of Congress? Before the "nuclear" option? I sincerely wonder how low the Republicans can take Congress before moderating just a little.

Courtesy of the newspaper of the New Hampshire Republican primaries, the Manchester Union Leader:

Frist has again showed that he is no match for Senate Democrats. If he cannot effectively lead 55 Republican senators, how can he be trusted to lead the party and the country three years from now?

And the second guessing begins within the GOP...

Now that they have seemingly forced a deal averting the nuclear option upon their colleagues, the Senate's gang of fourteen Senators might soon turn to Social Security. The Hill's team of Jackie Kucinich and Jeffrey Young report.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wasted little time in touting the group’s clout. In an interview with Chris Matthews on “Hardball” on Monday night, Graham said, “Watch this group of 14 to come out with some deal for Social Security.”

“Really?” said Matthews.

Graham responded, “Keep watching.”

[...]

Graham has introduced a Social Security reform bill that has been strongly criticized by conservative groups because it would increase taxes on people making more than $90,000.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) characterized the Graham plan as a blend of the White House principles, including private accounts, with other features designed to entice Democrats to support it.

Pryor said that he has spoken to Graham about Social Security more than once outside of the judicial-nominees negotiations but that he is not ready to sign off on the South Carolina Republican’s approach.

Why any Democrats -- even moderates and institutionalists -- would be willing to bail out the President and the Republicans on the issue of Social Security is beyond me. It simply makes no sense.

I am a strong proponent of growing the political center of American politics, but the Bush plan to partially privatize Social Security would not only not help rebuild the middle, it would do much to undercut it.

The Democrats, rightly, maintain very little trust of the Bush administration. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) consistently supported the President, then he campaigned against her in 2002. The same has happened to many moderate and conservative Dems throughout the South and the Midwest.

What's more, in the past, President Bush has feigned bipartisanship in order to shephard a bill out of committee before allowing his conservative allies in the House to gut bills in conference. Ted Kennedy surely rues the day he agreed to back Bush on No Child Left Behind.

Every Democrat must continue to stick to the script on Social Security, regardless of ideological belief. The American people don't want private accounts (no matter what the White House calls them), and even more importantly, they're bad policy. Consequently, the Democrats simply must not talk with the Republicans until the accounts are of the table. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Ben Nelson is a great man, as is Mark Pryor. Joe Lieberman is a great representative of his state, and I've enjoyed my few conversations with him. If one of them -- or any other Democrat -- caves on Social Security, giving President Bush a major boost and penning the obituary for Roosevelt's great legacy, it will be difficult for any serious Democrat to support their bid for reelection.

Although not all Americans are following what Congress has been up to the last few weeks, by and large, those that have are siding with the Democrats on almost every major issue. According to the most recent CBS News poll, Americans not only oppose the "nuclear" option, they also overwhelmingly believe that judicial nominees should have the support of at least three fifths of all Senators to win appointment.

Most Americans think it should take a larger majority of votes in the Senate to move ahead to confirm a federal judge or a Supreme Court judge. For federal judges, 63 percent think it should take 60 Senate votes to move ahead with confirmation, while 35 percent think 51 votes is acceptable. Similarly for Supreme Court judges, 64 percent think it ought to take 60 votes to move ahead, and 31 percent think 51 votes are sufficient.

By a wide margin, the public also wants the two parties to agree on judges, rather than allowing the majority party to decide. 79 percent think both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have to agree that a person should become a judge, even if that takes a long time. 14 percent think that because Republicans have the most Senators, Republicans should get to decide whether a person should be a judge, even if Democrats disagree.

When party names are omitted from the question, the results are similar. 74 percent think both parties need to agree on judges, while 17 percent think the party with the majority in the Senate gets to decide.

More Democrats would like to see 60 votes needed for judges, while a larger number of Republicans would be satisfied with 51 votes. Majorities of Democrats and Republicans would like to see Senators from both parties agree on judicial nominees.

Likewise, on the issue of embryonic stem cell research -- federal funding for which was just approved by the House -- majorities of both parties believe Washington should be providing money for further research.

58% of Americans approve of medical research using embryonic stem cells, while 31% disapprove. Approval is higher now than it was last August; then, 50% approved and 31% disapproved, but 19% had no opinion.

Republicans are less likely than Democrats to approve of it, although half do. Approval of stem cell research among Republicans has risen significantly since last year; then, 37% approved of it, now 50% do. Approval has risen among Democrats as well, although less dramatically, from 57% to 65% now.

It simply boggles the mind to consider that conservative Republicans actually believe that their positions on these two issues are politically tenable -- leaving aside the merits of their stances (which I of course question). It is a long way before the 2006 midterm elections, so the complete repercussions of these Republican moves are unclear. Nevertheless, the short-term consequences will become more evident as Republicans try to push forward with CAFTA, the Bolton nomination and other key issues -- the success of which are all still in doubt.

The results are in on the House vote on funding embryonic stem cell research, and for the second time in as many days, President Bush, James Dobson and the Republican leadership of the Congress suffered a highly symbolic loss. The AP's Laurie Kellman reports:

Ignoring President Bush's veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to loosen limits on embryonic stem cell research, approving a measure supporters said could speed cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.

Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

[...]

Majority Leader Tom DeLay said the embryonic research bill would force taxpayers to finance "the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings."

The rhetoric didn't sway many Democrats.

"I don't need a lecture from the majority leader on moral and ethical leadership," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., referring to questions that have been raised about DeLay's travel, fundraising and associations with a lobbyist now under federal criminal investigation.

Any hope that the fringe right will be able to rebound in the Senate is misplaced.

In the Senate, Arlen Specter, R-Pa. and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, asked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to immediately bring the stem cell issue to the Senate floor. Backers of embryonic stem cell research said the measure was supported by 60 senators, enough to break a filibuster by opponents, and could even get a two-thirds majority to that would be enough to overpower a presidential veto.

The business interests that make up one of the pillars of the Republican Party are quickly growing tired of the GOP's sharp move to the right on social issues in this Congress, and embrynic stem cell research is supported by a majority of Republicans. Nevertheless, the President seems poised to veto the bill to appease the most Christianist elements of his party.

If this the way the President believes he will be able to regrow his lagging poll numbers, I'll make no complaints. The more he and the Republican Congress pursue unpopular policies, the better the chances of the Democrats making significant gains come November 2006.

The man might be despicable for allegedly taking money from Saddam Hussein, but you can't say he doesn't come up with a good zinger from time to time.

“You’re a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay.”

-- George Galloway to Christopher Hitchens before Galloway’s May 17 Senate appearance.

Link.

This I like:

Since the election, Washington Republicans resemble the German military during World War I, opening new fronts before old battles are resolved, said John E. Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp. and a former top GOP economist for the Senate Banking Committee and the Joint Economic Committee. One week it's Social Security, the next week it's Schiavo, then steroids, then judges, he said.

"It's an unbalanced domestic agenda," Silvia said. "If you're going to go to the wall on one particular issue, you're telling me you're going to sacrifice other issues, and history is full of stories of battles won at the cost of missing issues that have lost the war."

As a part of the wide reform of telecommunications law in 1996, networks were given a wide swath of spectrum for the development of high definition television. The belief at the time was that if the spectrum were put up for auction at a price range in the tens of billions of dollars, the networks would not be willing to invest the necessary funds into the HD technology.

As a condition of the bill -- which as noted gave the networks billions of dollars worth of spectrum for free -- the networks were given a soft deadline of Dec. 31, 2006 to give back the VHF spectrum, which could potentially be used for cell phone-like high speed internet access. However, they have been fighting tooth and nail to keep both spectra for as long as possible. Apparently, they have been successful, as Drew Clark reports for National Journal's insider update on the telecom act.

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee late Friday released draft legislation setting a so-called hard date for the transition to digital TV broadcasts. But committee Democrats said they had not agreed to the bill, which was the subject of bipartisan negotiations in recent weeks.

The draft legislation includes a cutoff date of Dec. 31, 2008 for analog spectrum broadcasts -- two years later than the Dec. 31, 2006 date that has been pushed by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas. But it does not contain any provision to subsidize set-top converter boxes -- which, at a cost of about $50 each, are necessary for over-the-air television viewers with current analog TV sets to receive signals after analog broadcasting ceases.

"If there is no subsidy program, the bill cannot pass," declared Energy and Commerce member Rick Boucher, D-Va. -- who represents the type of rural district where the analog-to-digital transition is expected to be particularly difficult. "There are too many members who would feel a severe political backlash from their constituents if they all had to pay $50 to keep their analog television sets in operation." A DTV bill that does not include subsidies also would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate, according to a Senate Democratic aide.

Noting that there are 73 million analog television sets now in use, Boucher said Monday that adding a subsidy for converter boxes is "inevitable" if the sponsors want to pass their bill. "I'm confident that at some point in the process, when the legislation goes to markup, an amendment will be offered that would contain an adequate subsidy if an agreement is not reached [beforehand]," he said.

Not only have the Republicans managed to give the networks another two years to sit on this prime real estate of spectrum for free, now they also expect the poorest Americans to dole out $50 for a converter just to be able to watch TV. Why not use some of the $28 billion that "could be generated by the sale of the 60 megahertz" in auction to provide converters for working class Americans? Or does Rupert Murdoch need more pork flowing into his pockets?

Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota's wunderkind Republican Governor, has looked to many on the fringe right to be a perfect dark horse candidate for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination. But as the St. Paul Pioneer-Press' Bill Salisbury reports, the situation is rapidly changing.

A prominent national conservative leader appears ready to scratch Gov. Tim Pawlenty's name off his list of possible 2008 Republican presidential candidates following the governor's proposed 75-cents-a-pack "fee" on cigarettes.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative strategist with close ties to the White House, on Monday said Pawlenty's cigarette proposal "is a tax increase," and national Republicans are looking for potential standard bearers who oppose tax increases.

Just last week, Americans for Tax Reform named Pawlenty "Hero of the Taxpayer" for May because he had promised to veto any tax increases.

While Norquist stopped short of taking Pawlenty off his list of rising stars, he said the emerging 2008 Republican national field consists of about 10 governors and senators who have fought against tax increases.

"Republicans look for some sign that the elected people they run for president or vice president will hold the line against pressure" to increase taxes, he said.

The right wing's fetish of constantly cutting taxes and fighting even the most minimal revenue increases borders on the comical. Pawlenty can no longer be supported because of his advocacy of a cigarette tax increase? Please. I'm no fan of Pawlenty, but this is just ridiculous. If the Republicans want to cannibalize their own on a regular basis, far be it from me to complain. Just watch out in 2006, though, because if the anti-taxers do enough damage, they could prevent Pawlenty from serving another term as Governor -- let alone blocking a possible 2008 bid.

"Cannoli is not the same thing as canoodling."

A Senate aide, explaining that an Italian dinner between Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and former Sen. Bob Toricelli (D-NJ) was not a date.

Link.

From the AP's Omar Sinan:

A car bomb exploded Tuesday near a Baghdad junior high school for girls, killing six people, and eight American soldiers were killed in two days of insurgent attacks in and around Baghdad, the military said.

In the last two days, the military announced that 13 American troops have been killed since Sunday. Those reports came as insurgents carried out a string of explosions, suicide attacks and drive-by shootings around the country that also killed 49 Iraqis.

At least 620 people, including 57 U.S. troops, have been killed since April 28, when Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced his new Shiite-dominated government. Washington hopes his government will eventually train police and an army capable of securing Iraq, allowing the withdrawal of coalition troops.

When will this insurgency end?

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, still reeling from the many ethics-related scandals surrounding him these days, has once again decided to step into the middle of a debate over the "culture of life." And once again, he's on the opposite side of the issue from the vast majority of Americans. The Hill's Patrick O'Connor reports:

Tom DeLay is back.

After months fending off negative press, the embattled House majority leader will thrust himself back into the national debate today as a vocal opponent of a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research.

Rep. DeLay (R-Texas) has kept a lower profile since March, when he orchestrated an emergency Sunday vote to reconnect a feeding tube to Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman at the center of a heated ethical and legal debate.

That episode was followed by a steady stream of reports questioning three trips DeLay took abroad and examining his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

While these tactics might help DeLay reconnect with the extreme right base of the Republican Party, it's not clear that this move will actually help him in the long run.

As we've noted here numerous times, Tom DeLay's great quality as leader was that he -- unlike Newt Gingrich -- was unknown to most Americans. Thus, his far right policies would largely go unnoticed. With the ethics scandals finally hitting the national news, DeLay jumped into the middle of the Terri Schiavo case, alienating millions of Americans. Now, by working to block embryonic stem cell research, DeLay is moments away from offending millions more. If he continues these tactics, his party won't just be down eleven points in polling of generic Congressional ballots...

I have a new piece up over at Western Democrat. Check it out if you're interested.

Bob Dole was right. This month, the former Senate Majority Leader told me his beliefs on what would happen with the nuclear option, saying, "I think I may be wrong, but I still think there’s going to be some kind of a deal struck where both sides can interpret it the way they want." Indeed, a deal has been struck (and you can read it as a PDF courtesy of Political Wire). (To read about the dealings of the middle 14, check out Sheryl Gay Stolberg's very interesting piece in The New York Times.)

To begin the roundup of the days events, we turn to Geoff Earle of The Hill.

A group of 14 Republicans and Democrats have reached a deal that will avert the use of the so-called "nuclear option" to end the judicial filibuster - at least for a time.

The deal would "pull this institution back from the precipice," according to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who helped broker the deal.

The senators - seven from each party, mainly centrists - signed on to the agreement after a meeting in McCain's office Monday evening.

The deal commits the senators to voting for cloture to cut off debate on the three best-known and most-controversial nominees: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor.

[...]

The deal, however, appears to stop short of Frist's demand that all judicial nominees get an up or down vote. Signatories make "no commitment" to vote for or against cloture for two other stalled nominees: William Myers, and Henry Saad.

Kevin Drum reports that at least one of the three nominees -- Owen, Brown or Pryor -- will be voted down by a bipartisan majority. The New York Times' Carl Hulse adds this tidbit about the deal.

Democratic officials said an unwritten aspect of the pact is that two nominees not named in the deal - Brett Kavanaugh and William J. Haynes - would not be confirmed and would be turned aside either at the committee level or on the floor.

Richard W. Stevenson, also writing for The Times, declares the deal "a modest victory for Bush," but notes that

by explicitly exempting from the agreement two additional judges opposed by Democrats, it did not meet Mr. Bush's oft-stated demand that all his nominees get a vote, and it did not foreclose the possibility that Democrats could block an eventual nominee to the Supreme Court, a matter of intense concern to the White House.

Lindsey Graham came out looking great, and John McCain was also a big winner. The Democrats, while not getting everything they wanted, must be pleased by the deal simply for the fact that Frist had backed himself into a corner in which victory could only occur if every judge was confirmed. To get an idea of this, check out Crooks and Liars' roundup oif the response of the right and left blogosphere.

[Update 8:53 PM Pacific]: The Washington Post's Dan Balz calls the deal "an extraordinary moment for the moderates in Congress," but also says that "[a]t best the group produced a cease-fire in the judicial wars."

So much for the theory that the Republicans received a mandate to privatize Social Security and further consolidate power at the detriment to America's two-party system. As USA Today's Susan Page reports, as the GOP continues this course of action, more and more Americans are becoming alienated. Page ledes,

President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

Congress doesn't fare much better. Solid majorities of those surveyed say congressional leaders in both parties, heading toward a Senate showdown today over the confirmation of judicial nominees, are "acting like spoiled children," not responsible adults.

[...]

By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since Republicans won control in 1994.

[...]

Bush's overall job approval rating was 46%, down 4 percentage points since early May but higher than the 45% low he held in March. On specific issues, 40% approved of the job Bush is doing on handling Iraq and the economy; 33% approved of him on Social Security.

More polling data from the survey is available here.

George W. Bush and the Republican Congress have a choice to make at this juncture. Clearly, their policies -- from Terri Schiavo and threatening judges to privatizing Social Security to pushing for a free trade with Central America -- are not resonating with the American people. The Republicans can either move further to the right (it would be tough, but nonetheless possible), stay the course, or moderate. My guess is that they won't choose the latter, and a result, they will continue to falter in the polls throughout the summer.

This isn't election season, so the repercussions of their unpopularity are not clear. Nevertheless, for the first time in years, it is evident that the Democrats are on safer political ground than the dominant Republicans. And who would have predicted that just six months ago?

As we've reiterated a number of times, the only way for the Democrats to retake Congress is to run strong candidates in every state and district across the country, especially those that even nominally competitive. In Minnesota, it appears the Democrats are one step closer to filling up the ticket, as the AP's Frederic J. Frommer reports.

A former FBI whistle-blower who urged the agency to investigate terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui in the weeks before Sept. 11, 2001, is considering a race for Congress in Minnesota.

Coleen Rowley told The Associated Press on Monday she will make a decision by early next month on whether to run as a Democrat against incumbent GOP Rep. John Kline in next year's election.

[...]

Rowley was named one of Time magazine's people of the year for 2002 after criticizing the agency for ignoring her pleas to investigate Moussaoui more aggressively. He was the only person charged in the United States in the attacks.

Rowley said she would run as an "independent-minded Democrat," focusing on issues such as international security and civil liberties.

Few potential candidates from either party can boast the resume of Rowley. Certainly there's no way of portraying her as soft on defense; she was one of the few who wanted to actively fight terrorism before 9/11. It will be tough for the Democrats to replicate their success in fielding candidates like Rowley in districts across the country, but this is a heck of a start.

Although the 2008 Presidential election is still far away, two Republicans have recently begun to make noises about bids at the GOP nomination. To begin, US News and World Report's Washington Whispers has news out of Foggy Bottom:

Political associates of Secretary of State Condi Rice are stirring the 2008 presidential pot on her behalf. While she takes the high road, they're pushing her name out there. "She definitely wants to be president," said one. But, the friend added, Rice isn't planning on quitting to run. "She wants to be drafted," he said.

Rice isn't the only Republican with friends spreading word of her name. An Arkansas Governor seems poised to make a bid for the White House, according to John Brummett of the Arkansas New Bureau (from Blue State Republican via Political Wire). And he's even from Hope*.

Mike Huckabee really is going to run for president, a person close to him told me matter-of-factly at an accidental lunch meeting the other day.

For the moment, Huckabee wouldn't be among the top 10 prospects mentioned if you asked a supposed national political expert to assess the likely field of Republican candidates for president in 2008.

You'd hear first about Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, George Allen, Chuck Hagel, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, George Pataki and Condoleezza Rice.

Huckabee might be next in line only because he's on a book tour and getting interviewed every time he turns around about losing a third of himself and running a marathon.

But even when he's mentioned, it tends to be condescendingly and incorrectly. Charles Cook, a leading political handicapper, wrote the other day that Huckabee would be a potential beneficiary if Santorum, the Pennsylvania senator who is the most polarizing right-winger in the prospective field, didn't run.

The number of Republicans running for President (or thinking about running for President) is growing by leaps and bounds. They could make the Democrats' gang of 10 from 2004 look like nothing.

As America's massive trade deficit continues to grow, prospects for GDP growth continue to shrink, as the AP's Jeannine Aversa reports:

The economy, as measured by gross domestic product, is projected to expand by 3.4 percent in 2005, compared with an earlier estimate of 3.6 percent, according to the latest outlook from the National Association for Business Economics.

The lower forecast mostly reflects economists' beliefs that the trade picture will worsen. The U.S. trade deficit, which ballooned to a record $617 billion last year, is a politically sensitive subject for the Bush administration.

"Virtually the entire reduction in the panel's estimate of GDP growth in 2005 was due to a much deeper projected trade deficit of $662 billion this year," Carl Tannenbaum, who oversaw the survey, said in an interview.

[...]

On the inflation front, consumer prices are expected to rise this year by 2.8 percent, compared with a previous forecast of 2.2 percent.

Despite claims by this Republican administration and some Democratic leaders that completely unregulated free trade is always good for the American economy, this new report shows that this belief is not wholly true. That is not to say that the United States should revert to isolationist business practices to shelter inefficient industries. However, it's clear that by allowing American jobs to be shipped to China and India, the Bush administration is not strengthening America.

Deficits, both budgetary and trade, do matter. And it's time for President Bush and his Republican allies to do something about them. The GOP controls all levers of government these days, so the onus lies squarely on its members. Should the Republicans be unable to restore days of fiscal and trade balance, they should be held to account.