In an important piece of reporting for Knight Ridder newspapers, Seth Borenstein talks with some of the leaders in disaster management, each of whom came to the same conclusion: the government was not nearly prepared enough for Hurricane Katrina.

The federal government so far has bungled the job of quickly helping the multitudes of hungry, thirsty and desperate victims of Hurricane Katrina, former top federal, state and local disaster chiefs said Wednesday.

The experts, including a former Bush administration disaster response manager, told Knight Ridder that the government wasn't prepared, scrimped on storm spending and shifted its attention from dealing with natural disasters to fighting the global war on terrorism.

The disaster preparedness agency at the center of the relief effort is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was enveloped by the new Department of Homeland Security with a new mission aimed at responding to the attacks of al-Qaida.

"What you're seeing is revealing weaknesses in the state, local and federal levels," said Eric Tolbert, who until February was FEMA's disaster response chief. "All three levels have been weakened. They've been weakened by diversion into terrorism."

[...]

[I]n the 1990s, in planning for a New Orleans nightmare scenario, the federal government figured it would pre-deploy nearby ships with pumps to remove water from the below-sea-level city and have hospital ships nearby, said James Lee Witt, who was FEMA director under President Clinton.

Federal officials said a hospital ship would leave from Baltimore on Friday.

"These things need to be planned and prepared for; it just doesn't look like it was," said Witt, a former Arkansas disaster chief who won bipartisan praise on Capitol Hill during his tenure.

Read the whole piece. The deficit of planning and in fact the gutting of money for preparedness might just shock you.

Visit the Red Cross' donation center to offer your financial support to those hit by Hurricane Katrina. Even small amounts will help.

Oregon's Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski is proving to be quite the environmentalist these days. Just this week the "Big Kulongoski" helped enact tougher emission standards for Oregon's cars. Now, as The Oregonian's Michael Millstein reports, the Governor is getting ready to go to the mat against the Bush administration over logging.

Pushing back hard at the Bush administration, Gov. Ted Kulongoski sued the U.S. government Tuesday for abandoning protections that had barred roads and logging in nearly 2 million acres of remote Oregon national forests.

He argued that building roads in the isolated reaches that have escaped development so far would undermine the state's water quality and wildlife, including troubled salmon runs.

Kulongoski, a Democrat, joined with the Democratic attorneys general of California and New Mexico in the lawsuit. It asks a federal court to reinstate safeguards the Clinton administration had applied to 58.5 million roadless acres nationally just before leaving office in 2001.

The state lawsuit is a blow to the Bush administration, which had billed its approach as friendly to the states. In place of the Clinton safeguards, Bush officials want governors to submit individual petitions within 18 months specifying which lands in their states should be protected.

So much for those who don't believe Kulongoski can show a progressive streak from time to time.

There are a number of Representatives around the country who have set their eyes on becoming governors of their states -- Ted Strickland in Ohio, Jim Nussle in Iowa, Jim Davis in Florida. Now a Nevada Congressman has joined the ranks, as the Associated Press reports.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, a conservative Republican, announced Wednesday he will run for governor next year with an agenda emphasizing education and government restraint.

"We can always do better and we will by making sure government respects the wishes of those who fund it — the hardworking taxpayers," Gibbons told supporters.

Polls indicate Gibbons is the early GOP front-runner to succeed Gov. Kenny Guinn, a moderate Republican who will leave office at the end of 2006 after two, four-year terms.

Gibbons' pending retirement from the House will leave the Democrats with an opportunity to pick up a seat from a state that is increasingly palatable to their views. Although Bush carried Gibbons' district with 57 percent of the vote in both 2000 and 2004, this is by no means an insurmountable margin for the Dems to overcome. Now they just have to come up with a strong candidate...

Katherine Harris is finding it quite difficult to gain any momentum in the Florida Senate race -- positive momentum, that is to say. Quinnipiac University has the latest polling between Rep. Harris (R) and Democratic Senator Bill Nelson.

Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson has widened his lead over U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, the leading Republican challenger in the 2006 Florida U.S. Senate race, to 57 – 33 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 50 – 38 percent Nelson lead in a June 29 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University.

Democrats back Sen. Nelson 87 – 9 percent, while Republicans back Rep. Harris
66 –24 percent and independent voters go with Nelson 58 – 29 percent.

No wonder the White House wanted someone else to jump into this race instead of Harris.

"I've been a Republican since Reagan. I voted for Bush and his father. I don't tell a lot of people, because I live in a city where somebody who voted for Bush is really an outcast."

-- Dennis Hopper

Link.

Panic engulfed thousands of Shiites marching across a bridge in a religious procession Wednesday after rumors spread that a suicide bomber was about to attack, triggering a stampede that killed at least 695 people.

Scores of pilgrims jumped or were pushed to their deaths into the muddy Tigris River about 30 feet below, but many also were crushed in the crowd, which had jammed up at a security checkpoint on the western side of the Azamiyah bridge. Most of the dead were women and children, Interior Ministry spokesman Lt. Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman said.

It was the single biggest confirmed loss of life in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

Link.

President Bush has seen his approval rating reach a new low in yet another poll. Richard Morin and Dan Balz have the story for The Washington Post.

Rising gas prices and ongoing bloodshed in Iraq continue to take their toll on President Bush, whose standing with the public has sunk to an all-time low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found Bush's job approval rating at 45 percent, down seven points since January and the lowest ever recorded for the president in Post-ABC surveys. Fifty-three percent disapproved of the job Bush is doing.

The war has been a drag on Bush's presidency for many months, but his Iraq approval ratings in the new poll were little changed from two months ago, despite widespread violence, a rash of U.S. casualties, antiwar protests outside the president's Texas ranch and a growing debate about reducing U.S. troop levels.

What may have pushed Bush's overall ratings down in the latest poll is pervasive dissatisfaction over soaring gasoline prices. Two-thirds of those surveyed said gas prices are causing financial hardship to them or their families. Gas prices stand to go even higher after Hurricane Katrina's rampage through the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico.

More ominously for the president, six in 10 Americans said there are steps the administration could take to reduce gas prices. Slightly more than a third say the recent run-up has been due to factors beyond the administration's control.

[...]

Dissatisfaction is not limited to the president. Fewer than four in 10 Americans -- 37 percent -- approve of the way the Republican-controlled Congress is doing its job, the lowest rating for lawmakers in nearly eight years.

This is nothing new for the President, but just the same, it must be disheartening to drop to new lows with almost every survey released.

Paleoconservatives might be on the outs in American politics these days, but that won't stop their leading voice Pat Buchanan from letting us know what he's thinking. This week Buchanan says it's time for Republicans to begin thinking about impeachment for failure to stop the tide of illegal immigration.

Why is a Republican Congress permitting this president to persist in the dereliction of his sworn duty?

George Bush is chief executive of the United States. It is his duty to enforce the laws. Can anyone fairly say he is enforcing the immigration laws? Those laws are clear. People who break in are to be sent back. Yet, more than 10 million have broken in with impunity. Another million attempt to break in every year. Half a million succeed. Border security is homeland security. How, then, can the Department of Homeland Security say America is secure?

[...]

[W]e are being invaded, and the president of the United States is not doing his duty to protect the states against that invasion. Some courageous Republican, to get the attention of this White House, should drop into the hopper a bill of impeachment, charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against "invasion."

Buchanan might not have the largest following these days, but he clearly maintains a constituency on the right. And if enough voters in the anti-immigration crowd stay home next November or vote for third party minute men, the GOP might have a difficult time maintaining its Congressional majority in the 110th Congress.

There is no question that America's economy is growing, especially when compared to the stagnation being experienced in Europe. But as the US Census Bureau reports today, the growth is not improving the standing of many -- if not most -- Americans.

Real median household income remained unchanged between 2003 and 2004 at $44,389, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.5 percent in 2003 to 12.7 percent in 2004. The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained stable, at 15.7 percent in 2004. The number of people with health insurance increased by 2.0 million to 245.3 million between 2003 and 2004, and the number without such coverage rose by 800,000 to 45.8 million.

Some at the top are clearly benefiting from the growth in the economy, but this report makes clear that there are many who are not gaining. And this is no liberal think tank, either; the census bureau has no reason to skew the results to show poor growth among the lower and middle classes. So one question clearly emerges: is this really the best economy we can create?

Reuters' Allyn Fisher-Ilan reports that the main center-right party in Israel is heading for an historic schism.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bitter rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, launched a bid on Tuesday to topple him as Likud party leader in a power struggle sparked by the evacuation of Gaza settlers.

Likud polls show ex-finance minister Netanyahu would rout Sharon in a primary if it were held soon, stirring speculation Sharon may break away from rightists and forge a new centrist party to run in an election due before November 2006.

[...]

While many in Likud see Netanyahu as truer to party principles than Sharon, cross-party polls have consistently shown Sharon to be the most popular and respected Israeli leader and more likely to win the next election at the party's helm.

As David Remnick explains in this week's issue of The New Yorker, the move by Netanyahu could eventually lead to the creation of a new centrist coalition in Israel.

In order to survive, Sharon will have to either regain the lead or, perhaps, take the “big bang” option, bolting Likud and isolating it as a bastion of the far right, while creating a centrist coalition led by the three “patriarchs” of Israeli politics: Sharon; Shimon Peres, of Labor; and Tommy Lapid, of the secularist Shinui Party.

Wouldn't it be amazing if great leaders in America were willing to consider forgoing the extremes of their parties to create a more moderate centrist coalition? Just even consider it?

Despite the fact that Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) granted amnesty to his associates under investigation for hiring improprieties, the Lexington Herald-Leader's trio of John Cheves, Ryan Alessi And Jack Brammer report that the state Attorney General is not yet ready to give up the fight.

Attorney General Greg Stumbo last night said the special grand jury can continue to investigate Gov. Ernie Fletcher's merit hiring, but it might choose to end its work in coming weeks, issue a detailed report and share its evidence with federal prosecutors.

[...]

Stumbo said his office has talked briefly about the case with FBI agents.

Once the grand jury is done, Stumbo said, its evidence could go to federal court for possible prosecution of Fletcher officials on charges of political discrimination. The Transportation Cabinet, where much of the allegedly illegal hiring took place, receives federal funds. And gubernatorial pardons are no shield against federal charges.

Similarly to his case against Fletcher, Stumbo noted, federal prosecutors in Chicago are currently investigating alleged political discrimination in that city's civil-service hiring.

In a separate article, Alessi And Brammer report on discussions of the big "I" word: impeachment.

State Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, D-Louisville, said the House should consider all possible responses, ranging from a committee investigation to impeachment proceedings.

"Clearly we can't just sit here and do nothing," Marzian said. "He wasted taxpayer money by hiring political cronies in violation of the merit law, and now he has obstructed justice by trying to cover it up."

Make sure to check out the Bluegrass Report for continuing coverage of the scandal, which we'll cover as well from time to time.

Two days ago, the Los Angeles Times' team of Joel Havemann and Warren Vieth wondered in print what had happened to President Bush's talk of Social Security. The New York Times's Anne E. Kornblut provides a bit of an answer.

Five years after delivering a major campaign address here [Rancho Cucamonga, CA] about the need to revamp Social Security, President Bush returned on Monday with a similar message, urging an overhaul of the retirement system as he celebrated changes to Medicare that will take effect at the beginning of next year.

In a speech at the James L. Brulte Senior Center, Mr. Bush began laying the groundwork for a return to domestic issues when Congress reconvenes next week.

"I haven't changed my mind since I came here to talk about Social Security," Mr. Bush said.

In a nod to the political hurdles that have stalled his proposed changes to Social Security and to predictions that he may have to jettison his plans for individual retirement accounts altogether, Mr. Bush added, "I'm going to keep working this issue."

Today has been a hit or miss day for the DSCC, the Democrat's Senate campaign committee. News leaked out of Missouri that favored candidate Claire McCaskill would actually step into the Senate race. At the same time, though, The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear reports that Virginia's popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner has decided not to run against freshman Republican Senator George Allen.

Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) plans to announce Tuesday that he will not challenge Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) next year, leaving the popular Democrat free to explore a presidential bid, several close associates said Monday.

Warner, who leaves office in January, will announce his decision on his monthly radio show on WTOP, said Virginia Democratic Party Chairman C. Richard Cranwell, a Warner confidant.

[...]

The announcement would rob Virginia of what could have been a blockbuster political confrontation in 2006. Allen, a former governor who is ending his first term in the Senate, remains popular at home and is also considering a run at the presidency in 2008.

I suppose this means the Democrats' only shot at picking up Allen's seat is if Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine loses his gubernatorial bid this fall and decides to turn around and run for the Senate, though I don't think that's a particularly positive thing to hope for.

Kentucky's Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher has been coming into some heat recently. Last week, hiring improprieties within his administration became apparent with the indictment of nine former and current officials within his administration. Today, as the AP's Mark R. Chellgren reports, Fletcher has granted all nine amnesty in the case.

Gov. Ernie Fletcher Monday granted amnesty to everyone who might be charged in connection with the investigation of violations of personnel laws in his administration, but said he would not pardon himself.

Fletcher said anyone responsible for violating the law would face the penalties that could be imposed by two administrative agencies that are also investigating.

Fletcher repeated his accusation that Democratic Attorney General Greg Stumbo has been carrying out a political vendetta. He also compared most of the charges that have been brought to minor violations of fishing laws.

Fletcher will appear Tuesday before the special grand jury that has charged nine current and former members of his administration with misdemeanor crimes. But he said he would not answer questions.

If this does not scream "conflict of interest," I'm not certain what would. I don't even think Richard Nixon did something like this during Watergate (nor did Reagan during Iran Contra [Bush 41 did that later] or Clinton during his myriad scandals).

While today has been marked by discussions of Senate Republican recruitment woes, the Democrats have just gotten their desired candidate to challenge first term Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO). The National Journal Hotline has the story (from a blogger at MyDD.com).

Multiple Hotline sources are confirming '04 GOV nominee/Aud. Claire McCaskill (D) will enter the race 8/30 (8/29).

St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Mannies writes: "sentiment is divided. The view is that she is either: Preparing to emulate" Sen. Jim Talent (R), who won a SEN '02 race after losing for GOV '00. Or she's: "About to commit political suicide by abandoning a seemingly secure re-election bid to listen to" Dem leaders who say she has to run "or doom the party's statewide ticket."

Should this story prove true, the Missouri Senate race automatically becomes a top-tier race for 2006. Although I might not move it from the leans Republican rating given to it by Congressional Quarterly, this is nonetheless a major development -- placing Missouri as the Democrats' fourth best shot at picking up a Senate seat (behind Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and possibly Montana).

The Associate Press is reporting that with the recent move by Governor Ted Kulongoski, Oregon will join Washington and California in creating a trifecta on air quality.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski moved ahead Monday with plans to have Oregon adopt tougher state auto emission standards, a step that will give the three West Coast states the strongest restrictions in the nation.

The governor announced the members of a panel that will plan for Oregon to implement stricter tailpipe emission standards in an effort to reduce global warming. He also directed the state Department of Environmental Quality to prepare to adopt regulations.

[...]

The stiffer requirements would mean new cars sold in the state would have to emit 30 percent less carbon dioxide, 20 percent fewer toxic pollutants and up to 20 percent fewer smog-causing pollutants than the established federal standards.

The Democratic governor announced earlier this year that he wants the state adopt the tougher California-type emission standards. Washington state has approved the stricter rules, which take effect once Oregon follows suit.

The new rules would mean by 2016, all new cars, SUVs and light trucks sold in the West Coast states would have to comply with the tougher standards.

I didn't catch Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) yesterday on "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," but apparently he had a few words to say about the situation in Iraq. Matthew Yglesias passes on the transcript along with a little analysis.

ANOTHER FOR A TIMELINE? I didn't watch the broadcast, but reading over the transcript of Senator Ron Wyden's appearance on Late Edition yesterday, it seems that the Oregon Democrat is creeping toward timetableism:

The administration, Wolf, tries to portray this as just one of two approaches. You can either stay the course with them, or in effect cut and run.

I think there are other alternatives that ought to be pursued. For example, one that I'll be exploring in our intelligence committee is we've set deadlines for the Iraqi's on a constitution. We set deadlines with respect to elections. I think we ought to be asking about setting a deadline with respect to training their security forces. That is a prerequisite to being able to bring our troops home. I think -- I want to be constructive. I think that's the kind of issue we ought to be looking at ...

It's one thing to talk about an immediate troop withdrawal. I've said deadlines can be useful. We set them for the constitution. We set them for the elections. Why not say in an area where we don't seem to be making a lot of progress in terms of training the Iraqis for their own security, let's set a deadline there. You've got to get them trained to get to the question Russ Feingold wants to explore.

I think there are constructive alternatives in between what the administration is saying, just stay the course, continue to accept their assessment of what's going on, and in effect what they try to say is a cut and run strategy. I've suggested an alternative.

On the one hand, Wyden seems to be trying to say he holds a middle-ground position. On the other hand, his middle-ground position of setting a deadline for the training mission sounds a lot like what Russ Feingold and others of us have been saying. Obviously, Democrats are looking for some kind of political sweet spot here. Unfortunately, it's not clear that whatever middle ground Wyden's looking for is really there. It does seem to me that it makes sense politically to try and avoid the appearance of defeatism, which I take to be what he's trying to do, but on the other hand clarity has political virtues that this position seems to lack.

Very interesting.

You already have an idea of how I view the 2006 Senate races and Congressional Quarterly's 2006 ratings. Now Bob Novak offers his views of where the race for the Senate stands currently in the Chicago Sun-Times.

Mired in August's dog days, the National Republican Senatorial Committee last week released a four-page opposition research paper on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. The female Democratic senator deserving greater scrutiny, however, was Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. A vulnerable Stabenow appears headed for a second term, pointing to broad GOP failure.

The hard truth is that the NRSC's 2006 recruitment under Sen. Elizabeth Dole's chairmanship has mostly failed. The remote possibility of Rudy Giuliani running was the only conceivable threat to Clinton. Stabenow offered a more realistic target, but recruitment of a viable challenger fell short. That has been such a familiar pattern in this election cycle that once-high hopes for expanding the Republican Senate majority have given way to apprehension about losing seats.

[...]

When Dole made a late run after the 2004 elections to overcome Sen. Norm Coleman's lead for the NRSC chairmanship, Coleman backers expressed doubt she would succeed at recruiting. But it would be unfair to make Dole the scapegoat. Recruiting responsibility is shared by the White House and the Republican National Committee. Beyond a recruiter's skills is widespread fear that 2006 will not be a good year to run as a Republican. That mind-set should worry strategists more than Hillary Clinton's ideological aberrations.

Novak is largely correct in his views on the recruitment woes of the Senate GOP. Republicans have thus far missed opportunities in Washington, Michigan, Nebraska and Florida to sign up top challengers, and the window is also closing in West Virginia and North Dakota. How different 2006 might have been if the GOP could have fielded a complete slate of powerful contenders.

Josh Marshall has pulled in a whopper of a guest blogger over at TPM Cafe. Check out Wes Clark's first blog entry here.

The Seattle Times' Lornet Turnbull reports on this strange, but somewhat unsurprising development.

Starbucks says it was hoping to inspire old-fashioned coffee-house conversations when it introduced a campaign this year featuring the words of notable Americans on its coffee cups.

But at least a few of those words are sparking more discord than discussion.

A national Christian women's organization is accusing the Seattle-based coffee maker of promoting a homosexual agenda because of a quote by author Armistead Maupin, whose "Tales of the City" chronicled San Francisco's homosexual community in the 1970s and 1980s.

Maupin's quote — one of several dozen in "The Way I See It" promotion — says his only regret about being gay is that he repressed it for so long.

[...]

Concerned Women for America, which promotes itself as the antithesis of the National Organization for Women and boasts 8,700 supporters in Washington, says most of those quoted on the coffee cups are liberal.

The group believes corporations have a responsibility to reflect the diversity of their customers by taking a balanced approach — or staying out of divisive social issues altogether.

If cultural conservatives are really so offended by the perceived liberalism of Starbucks and other corporations, why don't they try an approach like the folks at BuyBlue.org, which directs liberals to Democratic-friendly companies.

Ohio

Republican Governor Bob Taft, who was recently convicted on four misdemeanor counts related to state ethics laws, is not ready to resign, even though a plurality of his constituents believe he should. Mark Naymik of the Cleveland Plain Dealer has the story.

Ohio voters are split over whether Gov. Bob Taft should resign for his ethics violations, but a majority of voters think he is doing a poor job in office, a Plain Dealer Poll shows.

Forty-six percent of Ohio voters surveyed say the governor should quit, while 44 percent say he should not. Ten percent of voters say they are undecided.

[...]

Asked to rate Taft's performance in office, voters surveyed were more together in evaluating his performance as governor: 57 percent say he's doing a poor job, 27 percent say he's doing a fair job and 15 percent say he's doing an excellent or good job.

The response from the Taft administration: "The governor has never governed by polls."

Oklahoma

The Republicans lost one of their favored candidates to challenge Democratic Governor Brad Henry when former Congressman J.C. Watts decided to forgo a run. Now, as Michael McNutt of The Oklahoman reports, the GOP might have just found a palatable candidate.

U.S. Rep. Ernest IstookR-Warr Acres With two of the top possible Republican contenders not entering the gubernatorial race, U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook said Thursday he is considering running for governor.

"I've had a lot of people ask me to consider it, and I'm listening to them," said Istook, R-Warr Acres.

[...]

Istook said he is concerned about the state's leadership, saying its creation of the lottery and allowing gaming at Indian casinos is not the best way to improve the state's economy. Both ventures were supported by Gov. Brad Henry. At least 60 percent of the voters approved proposals during November's election establishing the lottery and legalizing casino gaming.

I'm not certain that telling 60% of voters that they are wrong is the right way to begin a campaign against a fairly popular incumbent governor.

Massachusetts

I have long hypothesized that Republican Governor Mitt Romney would not run for reelection next fall. As The Boston Globe's Michael Levenson reports, Romney is no closer to making his decision on the race public, but he is making some interesting posturing.

Despite polls showing him trailing potential Democratic rivals, Governor Mitt Romney is confidently predicting that he would trounce the competition if he decides to run for reelection next year.

''Well, I win by a landslide in Massachusetts if I run for reelection. And that's very possibly what I'm going to do," Romney said in an interview with Chris Matthews that was televised nationally yesterday on the MSNBC political talk show ''Hardball."

Romney's remarks were the latest in a string of mixed signals in recent months. He traveled the country elevating his national profile and raising cash for Republicans earlier this year and explicitly acknowledged in June that he was testing the waters for a 2008 presidential campaign. But this month, he has emphasized to several reporters that he is focused on his job and that he has not made a decision whether to run for reelection.

Yesterday, his main Democratic rival, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, issued a one-sentence response: ''Whenever the governor makes up his mind, I'm ready."

There is a possibility that Romney will be able to pull a rabbit out of his hat and eke out a reelection victory next year in this overwhelmingly Democratic state. But to say he could win in a landslide is just pure spin.

California

With his approval rating lagging, GOP Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to change the focus of his environmental policy. Jordan Rau and Miguel Bustillo have the story for the Los Angeles Times.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who enthused activists and unnerved business leaders with many of his early appointments to top environmental slots, is increasingly favoring industry officials for key jobs protecting California's forests, air and water.

Schwarzenegger's effort to be a green Republican has been one of the principal ways the governor has depicted himself as being above Sacramento's traditional partisan divides. But in a reversal from the beginning of his tenure, it is now environmentalists who are objecting that Schwarzenegger has bent too far to one side.

The complaints mirror a larger one that has been leveled against the governor all year: that he has become too closely aligned with the business interests that are underwriting his November special election.

I'm not entirely certain how tacking to the right will help Schwarzenegger regain the support of California's independents, but far be it from me to tell him how to run his administration.

At this point, all we can do is pray for the safety of the many thousands of residents of New Orleans.

In another great article in today's issue of The Washington Post, Susan Schmidt reports that the Abramoff probe might be going in an entirely new direction.

Indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff claimed in e-mails sent in 2002 that the deputy secretary of the interior had pledged to block an Indian casino that would compete with one of the lobbyist's tribal clients. Abramoff later told two associates that he was trying to hire the official.

A federal task force investigating Abramoff's activities has conducted interviews and obtained documents from Interior Department officials and Abramoff associates to determine whether conflict-of-interest laws were violated, according to people with knowledge of the probe. It can be a federal crime for government officials to negotiate for a job while being involved in decisions affecting the potential employer.

[...]

Gun Lake was not the only casino that Abramoff tried to derail through his departmental contacts. The Post has reported on e-mails indicating the lobbyist enlisted [then deputy interior secretary J. Steven] Griles to stop a Louisiana tribe's proposed casino, which threatened another Abramoff client.

Griles, who left the Interior Department earlier this year to form a consulting firm, "said he never had anything to do with the Gun Lake casino issues," a spokeswoman at his company said. He did not comment on any job discussions with Abramoff. A spokesman for Abramoff also declined to comment. Greenberg Traurig, citing the ongoing investigation, had no comment on possible job talks with department officials.

[...]

The task force also is examining Abramoff's relationships and influence with officials of the Bush administration, as highlighted by the previously undisclosed Gun Lake e-mails. The e-mails show how Abramoff relied on the president of a conservative group, Italia Federici, to intercede with Griles, who was her friend.

Copies of Abramoff's e-mails referencing Griles and Federici were obtained from a variety of sources, including the Interior Department. Some e-mails involving Gun Lake were read to The Post by a person who declined to release them because of the federal probe.

The Abramoff probe is one of a number of ongoing investigations that could play a large role in the 2006 and 2008 elections. While the media no longer focus on this probe, the investigation into the leaking of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, the money laundering trials of Tom DeLay's associates, and to a lesser extent the Ohio Coingate affair, government prosecutors are. Don't be too surprised if one or more of these cases makes a huge splash within the next year.

This morning, Jonathan Weisman has a very interesting article for The Washington Post reporting that Republicans will likely see no end to difficult votes when Congress comes back into session in September.

Lawmakers are drafting proposals that would cut billions of dollars from the growth of Medicaid, slice into student loans just as students return to college, pare back food stamps and trim farm price supports in the midst of a midwestern drought.

The raft of bills, due out of 16 committees in the House and Senate by Sept. 16, will present the Republican Party its toughest test of fiscal austerity in nearly a decade. For years, the party has embraced the rhetoric of small government while overseeing legislation that has helped boost federal spending by more than a third since the GOP took control of Congress 10 years ago. Now, Republican lawmakers will be faced with the tough votes needed to slow that growth and enact the first cuts in entitlement spending since 1997.

Among the proposals listed by Weisman are:

• A $7 billion cut to student loans
  
• A $10 billion cut to Medicaid
  
• Authorization of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve

While all of these votes will be politically difficult, I will be especially interested to hear how the GOP will attempt to spin the cuts to student loans, which hit middle class and lower class alike.

The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Brian Faler have the story.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) may be the most popular politician in the country. But no one, it seems, has told his local Republican Party.

The GOP committee for Arizona's 11th legislative district, where McCain resides, has passed a "resolution of censure and shame" accusing the lawmaker of drifting to the left on issues ranging from immigration to the filibuster -- and is urging Republicans everywhere to oppose him if he runs for president in 2008.

"We are ashamed of John McCain's betrayal of the trust Republican voters placed in him," said the resolution, passed earlier this summer. "We further state that only under extremely extraordinary circumstances will we support the candidacy of John McCain for President of the United States. We urge other Republican organizations to likewise convey to Senator McCain that they will not support his candidacy."

Rob Haney, the head of the organization, said McCain already has begun campaigning for the office and said he felt compelled to speak out now. "He's obviously running for president," Haney said. "If he gets a two-year head start, then it's almost a done deal. We have to start with him."

The state Republican Party rejected the measure as the work of a small, unrepresentative faction. McCain's office, meanwhile, issued a statement noting that the senator was reelected to a fourth term last year by more than 50 percentage points. "Senator McCain is the largest vote-getter in Arizona. He was just reelected by the highest vote margin of his career," said Mark Salter, his chief of staff. "He is grateful for the overwhelming support of Arizonans."

And who says there aren't any divisions within the Republican Party?

Well, I moved in to school yesterday for my final year at Pomona. Naturally I forgot a heap of my clothes back in the desert, so I got to make extra hour and a half trips to and from Palm Desert. Lovely. Then, of course, when I finally was unpacked into my room, the internet was not accessible (for a number of reasons I will not enumerate at this time). Suffice to say yesterday was a long day. Anyway, I'm in a computer lab ready for bloggery, so here goes...

The Los Angeles Times' duo of Joel Havemann and Warren Vieth raise an interesting question with their article in today's paper: what happened to the President's push to overhaul (or partially privatize, given your political slant) Social Security?

In July and August, Bush has made one appearance to plug his Social Security proposal, which he's described as the top domestic priority of his second term. In the first six months of the year, by contrast, he made 36 appearances focused primarily on restructuring Social Security — a dozen such events in March alone.

When Bush met with his economic advisors at his Texas ranch Aug. 9, Social Security was the last issue he raised, behind trade and tax overhauls and medical malpractice and healthcare costs. In his July 30 radio address recounting legislative victories and the challenges ahead, he did not mention Social Security.

Similarly, when Social Security, the granddaddy of government benefit programs, turned 70 on Aug. 14, there was lavish recognition of the anniversary from those who would keep Social Security's guaranteed benefits pretty much as they are and from those who want to transform the program.

Bush confined himself to a two-sentence statement in which he vowed to "keep the promise of Social Security for future generations."

The two political parties read this conspicuous absence in very different ways.

Democrats have been quick to conclude that the lack of presidential attention to the private accounts reflects what they say is the chilly response from Congress and the general public to his plan. And they have seized on the opportunity to trumpet their defense of the present system.

"As we celebrate Social Security's 70th birthday, Democrats renew our commitment to its founding principles and protect it from the disastrous Bush privatization plan," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in marking the anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's signing of Social Security into law.

[...]

But members of the Bush administration insist he has not given up. "The president is totally committed to Social Security reform," Al Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council, said after Bush met with his economic advisors this month.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the lull merely reflected the congressional recess, which ends Sept. 6. "This is one of our priorities when Congress returns," he said.

Heritage Foundation analyst William W. Beach, also a proponent of individual accounts, said it was reasonable for the White House to scale back its campaign. "There's a limit to how many times you can go out and make your pitch before it becomes so dull and repetitive," Beach said. "I suspect they feel like they're almost there."

And Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C), the chief congressional author of legislation to finance individual accounts out of surplus payroll tax revenue, said the White House was silently in favor of his bill. "I think we're in a pretty good spot," DeMint said.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), one of the few remaining vestiges of the liberal "Rockefeller" wing of the of Republican Party, appears headed for the political fight of his lifetime. But before he is even able to square off against a moderately popular Democratic challenger in this overwhelmingly "blue" state, he might have to face a well-funded challenge from the right in the Republican primary. David Freddoso has the scoop for Human Events online, a conservative weekly.

We report in this week's Evans-Novak Political Report (sorry, no link, we're too expensive) that Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey (R.) will jump into the U.S. Senate primary against Lincoln Chafee (R.) next month -- the date will probably be September 15. Laffey's been holding off since May, but now he's hired a campaign manager.

Laffey will be challenging Chafee from the Right. It's questionable whether he would win the general election, but his odds are not significantly worse than Chafee's.

Laffey is really crossing swords with the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the RNC by doing this. Elizabeth Dole and Ken Mehlman have been begging him for months not to run. Bad, bad news for Dole, who may preside as NRSC chairwoman over a loss of three or four Senate seats, no small part of it her own fault. This only complicates matters.

The Club for Growth, a major player within conservative politics, will likely go all out on behalf of Laffey. In 2004, the Club's candidate in the Pennsylvania Republican Senatorial primary, Rep. Pat Toomey (now the head of the club) nearly defeated the moderate (and so-called "RINO" -- Republican in Name Only) Arlen Specter, holding the three term Senator to just over 50 percent of the vote. One could argue, however, that in the case of Specter, the primary challenge from the right actually helped him as it made him appear more moderate and mainstream during the general election -- just look at the Kerry-Specter signs plastered around Philadelphia last October.

While the possibility remains that the Laffey challenge would greatly aid Chafee in the general election, Chafee is in a much more tenuous spot than Specter was last year. Specter had the full backing of both the White House and his junior Senator, Rick Santorum, who is extremely popular among Pennsylvania conservatives. Chafee doesn't have a similar benefactor in the state.

Additionally, the Republican majority at the time only stood at 51-48-1, so the GOP could not afford risking the seat (had Toomey won the nomination, the Dems would have been favored in the general). With the GOP now holding a 55-44-1 margin in the Senate, they have much more breathing room -- thus much more of a reason to support Laffey.

The possibility remains that Chafee will be able to weather this storm. At this point, I wouldn't be willing to put money down either way, however.

Governors in a number of states facing cuts to their National Guard bases have gone to great lengths to inhibit the Pentagon from following through with its relocation plans. Now, as Joann Loviglio reports for the AP, a Federal Judge has given an important victory to these governors.

In a blow to the Pentagon's plan to shake up National Guard units, a judge ruled Friday that the Defense Department does not have the authority to dissolve a Pennsylvania Air National Guard division without the governor's approval.

U.S. District Judge John R. Padova said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should have gotten consent from Gov. Ed Rendell before moving to deactivate the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard. The judge said the Pentagon's recommendation to close the unit is "null and void."

The ruling came as a base closing commission wrapped up its work in deciding the fate of military bases around the nation. The commission voted Friday to close the Pennsylvania's Willow Grove station, which is home to the fighter wing and Air Force and Navy reserve units, along with other military units. But the commission did not deactivate the 111th.

It was not immediately clear how the ruling might affect the fate of other guard units targeted by the Pentagon.

Several other states have filed or are considering filing similar lawsuits.

[Update 6:01 PM Pacific]: I examine the impact this decision might have on Oregon over at BlueOregon.com. In related news, the Oregon Air National Guard was spared the loss of 15 F-15 fighter planes today.

The military base closure process can be a hairy process for some -- just ask those Senators and Represenatives who have been burned by the loss of a base in their state or district. When bases are saved, however, the rewards can be extremely positive. Such is the case for two Senators, John Thune (R-SD) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), as bases in their respective states were spared today. The AP's Liz Sidoti reports.

Struggling to finish a politically thorny task, the base-closing commission tackled a shake-up of the Air National Guard on Friday after — in a setback for the Pentagon — it voted to keep open Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota.

[...]

The decision to spare Ellsworth Air Force Base was a blessing for South Dakotans, who feared losing some 4,000 jobs, and a victory for Sen. John Thune and the state's other politicians, who lobbied vigorously against closure. Thune, a freshman Republican, unseated then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle partly on the strength of his claim that he would be better positioned to help save the base.

"This fight was not about me," Thune said just after the vote. "This whole decision was about the merits. It had nothing to do with the politics."

[...]

Rejecting another Pentagon proposal, the panel also decided to keep open Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. However, the base would lose all of its aircraft and face the possibility of closure in 2010. By that date, the panel said the Pentagon must find other missions for the facility or Cannon will shut down.

The vote was a compromise among commissioners who struggled to balance national security interests with fear that closing the base entirely would devastate the economy around tiny Clovis, N.M. Some commissioners said the fate of Cannon was the most difficult decision to make so far.

Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., portrayed the outcome as a "partial victory

For Thune, this was a make-or-break issue, even though he is not up for reelection for another five years. The decision also helped Bingaman; though he does not at yet face strong competition, next year he nonetheless faces voters of a state that went for George Bush in 2004.

George Bush has seen his approval among the American people diminish to the lowest point of his Presidency in recent weeks. The latest poll from Gallup only confirms this already-reported trend.

A new Gallup Poll reflects further erosion in President George W. Bush's job approval rating, continuing the slow but steady decline evident throughout the year so far. The poll -- conducted Aug. 22-25 -- puts Bush's job approval rating at 40% and his disapproval rating at 56%. Both are the most negative ratings of the Bush administration. Bush's previous low point in approval was 44% (July 25-28, 2005) and his previous high point in disapproval was 53% (June 24-26, 2005).

[...]

The current poll finds a drop in support for Bush among independents, and a small drop in support among Republicans to the lowest level of his administration.

In two July polls in which Bush averaged an overall 49% approval rating, an average of 46% of independents approved. In the subsequent three polls (July 25-28, Aug. 5-7, and Aug. 8-11), Bush's overall approval average dropped to 45%, and his average support among independents fell to 37%. Now, in the current poll, 32% of independents approve. (An average of 41% of independents have approved across all 2005 polls to date, excluding the most recent poll.)

Bush's support among Republicans -- although still very high -- is now at the lowest level of his administration. His current 82% approval rating among Republicans is down from the 85%, 86%, 87%, 87%, and 86% recorded in the last five polls prior to this one, and is below the 89% Republican approval rating he has received across all 2005 polls before the most recent poll. He has averaged a 92% approval rating among Republicans for his entire presidency.

Bush's approval rating among Democrats remains very low. His current 13% is down slightly from his 2005 average (excluding the current poll) of 17% and down from his administration average among Democrats of 35%.

The analysis for this poll falls squarely in line with that of the most recent ARG poll that showed the President at 36% approval. Bush sees a small decline within his own party, but much of the pain comes from independents moving ever closer to the Democrats in their view of his Presidency.

While this might not have an extremely large effect on Bush's ability to govern on international matters or on the fate of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the President's eroding numbers could give more pause to Congressional Republicans the next time a major piece of legislation -- say Social Security reform, for example -- comes to the table. There is already evidence available that some within the GOP are distancing themselves from the President; this latest poll won't further endear him to them.

On a somewhat separate note, Gallup compares President Bush's approval at this point to that of the other two-term Presidents since polling became widely accessible during the Truman administration.

Only Richard Nixon, then embroiled in the Watergate scandal, had a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency (34%). The next lowest numbers belonged to Harry Truman -- who in June of 1949 stood at 58%.

Today, as the price of a barrel of oil nears $68 and gasoline prices often top $3 per gallon, let's survey the current oil situation. The Economist has a couple of interesting articles on the rising oil consumption around the world in this week's issue, including "Counting the Cost."

According to the IMF's model, an increase of $10 a barrel in oil prices should knock three-fifths of a percentage point off the world's output in the following year. Thus the increase of $30 over the past year or so should have reduced global growth by almost two percentage points. However, all such ready-reckoners are based on previous oil shocks, when the main cause of higher prices was a disruption to oil supplies: the OPEC oil embargo in 1973-74; the Iranian revolution in 1979; and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

The current episode, however, has its origin in increasing demand, notably in China, the rest of Asia and the United States. Last year's increase in global oil consumption was the biggest for almost 30 years. The old rules of thumb based on supply shocks do not work for price increases driven by rising demand. If oil prices rise because of a shortfall in supply, they will unambiguously cause GDP growth to fall. However, if higher oil prices instead reflect strong demand, then they are the product of healthy global growth. They will therefore be less damaging.

The downside is that, if prices are high because of strong demand rather than a supply shock, they are likely to stay high for longer. In past oil shocks, a rise in price as a result of a temporary supply disruption caused oil consumption to decline, so that when supply returned to normal prices promptly fell. But if oil prices are being pushed higher largely by rising demand in China and other emerging economies, a sudden collapse is less likely.

In "The Oiloholics," The Economist explains that there are real consequences to the excessive consumption of oil, particularly on America's part.

... America remains the biggest consumer, using one-quarter of the world's output of the black stuff. America uses 50% more oil per dollar of GDP than the European Union, largely because consumers pay less. As petrol prices have hit $3 a gallon in some cities, there has been an outcry from motorists. Even so, petrol remains dirt cheap in America, compared with Britain or Germany where prices are above $6 a gallon. America's heavy dependence on oil not only leaves the economy more vulnerable to a supply shock, it also pushes prices higher for the rest of the world.

So what possible solutions do the folks at The Economist posit?

The best long-term solution—for America as well as the world economy—would be higher petrol taxes in the United States. Alas, there is little prospect of that happening. America, unlike Europe, has preferred fuel-economy regulations to petrol taxes. But even with those it has failed abysmally. These regulations have been so abused that the oil efficiency of its vehicles has fallen to a 20-year low. This week, the Bush administration announced proposals for changing the fuel-economy rules governing trucks and sport-utility vehicles, but failed to close loopholes that allow these gas guzzlers to use more petrol than normal cars, a shameful concession to carmakers.

The Oregonian's Jonathan Brinckman discusses another alternative in this morning's issue of the paper.

Biodiesel, a domestic, renewable fuel for diesel engines derived from vegetable or animal oils, is growing in popularity. The Department of Energy said more than 25 million gallons of biodiesel were sold in the United States last year, up 25 percent from 2003. That's a fraction of the more than 39 billion gallons of diesel and more than 134 billion gallons of gasoline consumed in 2003. What is biodiesel? Vegetable oil or animal fat with glycerin removed and replaced by alcohol.

What can use it? Any engine, including in cars and trucks, or furnace that normally burns diesel.

What's the benefit: Proponents say it releases fewer pollutants than regular diesel, including unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulates. It can be made from used cooking oil.

Where to get it: There are stations in 12 cities in Oregon that sell biodiesel either for cash or for cardholders. For addresses of locations or deliveries near you, visit www.sqbiofuels.com/locations_pricing.htm.

It might not be much, but it's imperative to start implementing alternatives today with the hope that they will help alleviate tomorrow's problems. At least one Democrat, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, is coming forward with a plan. Let's see what some other brilliant minds in both parties can come up with.

To begin with, there is a new AP-Ipsos poll on Americans' perceptions of the situation in Iraq. The big question:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq? 8/22-24 (6/20-22)

Approve: 37% (41%)
Disapprove: 58% (56%)

From inside Iraq, Knight Ridder's Tom Lasseter offers this highly informative report on the situation in Fallujah.

Insurgents in Anbar province, the center of guerrilla resistance in Iraq, have fought the U.S. military to a stalemate.

After repeated major combat offensives in Fallujah and Ramadi, and after losing hundreds of soldiers and Marines in Anbar during the past two years - including 75 since June 1 - many American officers and enlisted men assigned to Anbar have stopped talking about winning a military victory in Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland. Instead, they're trying to hold on to a handful of population centers and hit smaller towns in a series of quick-strike operations designed to disrupt insurgent activities temporarily.

"I don't think of this in terms of winning," said Col. Stephen Davis, who commands a task force of about 5,000 Marines in an area of some 24,000 square miles in the western portion of Anbar. Instead, he said, his Marines are fighting a war of attrition. "The frustrating part for the (American) audience, if you will, is they want finality. They want a fight for the town and in the end the guy with the white hat wins."

That's unlikely in Anbar, Davis said. He expects the insurgency to last for years, hitting American and Iraqi forces with quick ambushes, bombs and mines. Roadside bombs have hit vehicles Davis was riding in three times this year already.

This news is far different from the generally positive news forwarded by the administration. If Colonels on the ground do not expect victory, should the President still promise it to the American people?

Finally, many claim that the Democrats only complain about the administration's Iraq policy without offering any alternatives. Today, however, one leading Democrat, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, offers up his vision on how to move forward on the Op-Ed page of The Washington Post.

With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces.

Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.

On the political side, the timeline for the agreements on the Constitution is less important than the substance of the document. It is up to American leadership to help engineer, implement and sustain a compromise that will avoid the "red lines" of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and Iraq's neighbors can support. So no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias.

In addition, the United States needs a legal mandate from the government to provide additional civil assistance and advice, along with additional U.S. civilian personnel, to help strengthen the institutions of government. Key ministries must be reinforced, provincial governments made functional, a system of justice established (and its personnel trained) and the rule of law promoted at the local level. There will be a continuing need for assistance in institutional development, leadership training and international monitoring for years to come, and all of this must be made palatable to Iraqis concerned with their nation's sovereignty. Monies promised for reconstruction simply must be committed and projects moved forward, especially in those areas along the border and where the insurgency has the greatest potential.

On the military side, the vast effort underway to train an army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices. Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist. Neighboring states should also provide observers and technical assistance. In military terms, striking at insurgents and terrorists is necessary but insufficient. Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions. Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters. A better effort must be made to control jihadist infiltration into the country by a combination of outposts, patrols and reaction forces reinforced by high technology. Over time U.S. forces should be pulled back into reserve roles and phased out.

The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.

In an interesting article for The Washington Times (yeah, I know), Bill Sammon examines the degree to which Republican presidential hopefuls have distanced themselves from President Bush and his actions and policies.

Republican senators with White House ambitions have begun to break with President Bush on a variety of issues to prove their independence from the second-term president.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee staked out his own ground on the issue of stem-cell research. Sen. George Allen of Virginia publicly disagreed with Mr. Bush's refusal to meet a second time with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska compared the war in Iraq to the Vietnam War, an analogy that is anathema to Mr. Bush. Sen. John McCain of Arizona has long disagreed with the president's tax cuts and confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

With the prospect of never appearing on the ballot again, President Bush has lost one of his greatest sources of power within the Republican Party: his ability to aid down-ticket candidates.

The AP's Elliot Spagat reposts the latest news regarding the embattled San Diego Congressman.

The federal government revealed publicly in court for the first time Thursday that it is seeking to seize a California congressman's home because prosecutors believe it was purchased with ill-gotten gains.

A government complaint had previously been filed under seal, but an amendment to that complaint became public when it was filed Thursday in federal court in San Diego.

The government alleges Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., sold his previous home at an inflated price to a defense contractor whose company was seeking federal contracts. Cunningham, a member of two committees involved in military issues, then used that money to buy his current home for $2.55 million, according to the complaint.

"Cunningham demanded and received this money in return for being influenced in the performance of his official acts as a public official," the complaint says.

Between this story, the conviction of Governor Bob Taft (R-OH) and the legal cases surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), it appears the Democrats might actually be able to make a comprehensive case against GOP improprieties next fall.

In Friday's paper, the Los Angeles Times team of Richard Simon and Mary Curtius examine the distinct possibility that the rising price of gasoline could further weaken Republicans across the country.

As consumers feel pain at the pump, record high gas prices are registering as a political problem with congressional Republicans.

[...]

And a growing number of GOP officials worry that, as the party in power, Republicans will pay their own high price — at the ballot box. They are scrambling to find ways to respond.

[...]

[I]t is unclear what lawmakers can do to reduce gas prices in the short term — and whether voters will accept the argument that they have few tools to provide immediate relief.

"We should be nervous," said Kingston, vice chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Polls show that the public blames politicians — after oil companies and foreign oilproducing countries — for the high prices. A Harris Poll released Wednesday found that Americans ranked gas prices among the top five issues for the government to address. Compounding the problem for the GOP, Democrats are spotlighting fuel costs in their campaign to wrest control of Congress.

Republican candidates facing tough races in 2006 should be worried, said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican political consultant.

If Republicans are unable to reign in the cost of a gallon of gasoline -- and it's not clear that any short-term policy short of emptying the strategic petroleum reserve could do it (not to say this would be a good policy) -- this could be yet another issue upon which the Democrats can hit them.

The Democrats have one, according to Reuters' Adam Tanner.

Montana's governor wants to solve America's rising energy costs using a technology discovered in Germany 80 years ago that converts coal into gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel.

The Fischer-Tropsch technology, discovered by German researchers in 1923 and later used by the Nazis to convert coal into wartime fuels, was not economical as long as oil cost less than $30 a barrel.

But with U.S. crude oil now hitting more than double that price, Gov. Brian Schweitzer's plan is getting more attention across the country and some analysts are taking him very seriously.

Montana is "sitting on more energy than they have in the Middle East," Schweitzer told Reuters in an interview this week.

"I am leading this country in this desire and demand to convert coal into gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. We can do it in Montana for $1 per gallon," he said.

"We can do it cheaper than importing oil from the sheiks, dictators, rats and crooks that we're bringing it from right now."

The governor estimated the cost of producing a barrel of oil through the Fischer-Tropsch method at $32, and said that with its 120 billion tons of coal -- a little less than a third of the U.S total -- Montana could supply the entire United States with its aviation, gas and diesel fuel for 40 years without creating environmental damage.

It's about time someone began talking about energy independence in this country. Gas prices are among Americans' top concerns; while filling up at a gas station yesterday, I was even accosted by a local television station to give them an "anyman" perspective on the oil crunch. Come the fall of next year, the Democrats would be wise to forward Schweitzer and his ideas to ease gas prices front and center.

Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is embroiled in what many see as the most difficult race for any incumbent Senator in the country these days, but today's news from The Philadelphia Enquirer's Carrie Budoff isn't likely to help out his campaign.

Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's office acknowledged yesterday that it cannot locate public statements of the senator questioning the Iraq war, despite the senator's claim last week that he has publicly expressed his concerns.

But Santorum said that doesn't mean he hasn't made the comments.

In an interview last week, he said he had publicly and privately raised questions about efforts to contain the insurgency and to limit Baathist involvement in the new Iraqi government. He made his remarks in response to a charge by his leading Democratic challenger, Robert P. Casey Jr., that Santorum has failed to "ask the tough questions" about Iraq.

In related news, Financial Times' team of Peter Spiegel and Demetri Sevastopulo report that the United States might just be preparing to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq sooner than you might have expected.

The US is expected to pull significant numbers of troops out of Iraq in the next 12 months in spite of the continuing violence, according to the general responsible for near-term planning in the country.

Maj Gen Douglas Lute, director of operations at US Central Command, yesterday said the reductions were part of a push by Gen John Abizaid, commander of all US troops in the region, to put the burden of defending Iraq on Iraqi forces.

He denied the withdrawal was motivated by political pressure from Washington.

He said: “We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the . . . coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward.

“You have to undercut the perception of occupation in Iraq. It's very difficult to do that when you have 150,000-plus, largely western, foreign troops occupying the country.”

And lastly, Salt Lake City's mayor is asking for an apology from his state's senior Senator for calling the thousands of anti-war protesters in the area "nutcakes." The Deseret Morning News' Brady Snyder reports.

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson wants an apology from Utah's senior senator after Orrin Hatch said Monday that anti-President Bush protesters, led by Anderson, were "nutcakes."

The call for an "I'm sorry" was rebuffed by Hatch's office Wednesday, with the senator saying it was the mayor who should be contrite.

Anderson told the Deseret Morning News Tuesday that Hatch should apologize, ticking off a list of influential anti-Bush protesters who were "among the people that Orrin Hatch referred to as nutcakes."

The leader of one of Salt Lake City's largest Jewish congregations was there, as was a representative of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City. Also, Anderson noted, several mothers, whose sons had lost their lives in Iraq, were in attendance. There were lawyers, architects and even several veterans, including one who wore his green beret.

"This was a very broad range of great people who came out with heart-felt concern about the direction which our nation has been taking," Anderson said. "I don't think calling people names, especially by a United States senator, has any place in civil dialogue."

Hatch's response: "If any apology must be given, it should come from Mayor Anderson to the president and Mrs. Bush."

The official company line, as reported by The San Bernardino Sun's Edward Barrera.

Almacy said the reason that Bush is in Crawford, Texas, is due to the renovation of the West Wing of the White House.

"He's operating on a full schedule; he's just doing it from the ranch instead of from the White House," Almacy said. "The only week he had officially off was this last week." [emphasis added]

From Jon Stewart, last night on "The Daily Show."

"He keeps saying 'sacrifice' and the 'war on terror' and you turn around and he's in a field of poppies with Lance Armstrong."

As Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) heads into what could be the political fight of his career -- the battle over his slate of referenda, which includes a mid-census redistricting plan -- his numbers are down in the doldroms. The Public Policy Institute of California has the latest polling results.

Heading into an election that bears heavily on the future of his political career, Governor Schwarzenegger’s approval ratings are at a low point. Currently, over half (54%) of Californians disapprove of the way he is handling his job, while only one-third (34%) approve (among likely voters, 50% disapprove, 41% approve). In his effort to reform state government, the governor receives similarly poor reviews – 35 percent approve but 50 percent disapprove of his performance. This is a sharp decline from earlier this year when 58 percent approved and only 30 percent disapproved of his reform efforts (see PPIC Statewide Survey, January 2005). Among residents, Latinos are especially negative in their assessment of the governor’s overall performance (73% disapprove, 17% approve). And overall, nearly six in 10 Californians say the state is generally going in the wrong direction.

Schwarzenegger's numbers are actually lower than those of President Bush in the state. Go figure.

"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement."

-- Pat Robertson, backing away from previous statements calling for the assassination of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez

Link.

Although Oregon's Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski might seem vulnerable due to lackluster support from within his own party and a seeming lack of major legislative victories, new polling indicates that the Governor still maintains double-digit leads against the top Republican challengers. Looking at the data from Riley Research Associates, a non-profit Portland-based pollster, we find:

• Among Democrats, Kulongoski leads with 53%, followed by Vicki Walker at 3% and Peter Sorenson at 2%.
  
• Among Republicans, 2002 GOP Gov. nominee Kevin Mannix receives 31% support, 9% back Ron Saxton, while a surprising 13% pick Kulongoski as their top choice.

In head-to-head matchups,

• Kulongoski 48%, Mannix 33%
  
• Kulongoski 43%, Saxton 20%

No incumbent wants to stand with reelect numbers in the forties, but just the same, any incumbet would be happy to lead his top challengers by 15% and 23% respectively. Kulongoski might not be the strongest gubernatorial candidate in the nation, but he's certainly not the weakest either.

To start out with, in a mostly unsurprising development, Lynn Bartels of the Rocky Mountain News reports that U.S. Senator Ken Salazar, a Democrat, is not going to enter the race to become Colorado's next governor.

Rookie Sen. Ken Salazar told his inner circle of trusted advisers and friends he won't run for governor next year.

"Here's how I put it to them," Salazar said Tuesday. "I said, 'I have no intention to run for governor. There are other candidates out there who can do a great job as governor of Colorado.' "

In Ohio, the "I" word is starting to come up in relation to embattled and convicted GOP Governor Bob Taft. The Toledo Blade's James Drew and Steve Eder report.

If Gov. Bob Taft lied about when he first knew of the state's $50 million investment in rare coins with Tom Noe, lawmakers would pursue impeachment, the top House Democrat said yesterday.

"The legislature as a whole would demand accountability,'' said House Minority Leader Chris Redfern (D., Catawba Island). "Lying to the people of the state of Ohio would rise to such a level that most legislators would agree the governor should be held to account for that."

Mr. Redfern made his comments at a news conference after House Democrats met for 2 1/2 hours to discuss the possible impeachment of Mr. Taft. No decision was made, but the nonpartisan Legislative Service Commission provided Mr. Redfern with a draft copy of articles of impeachment for "Robert Alphonso Taft II for misdemeanors in office."

Threats of impeachment can often hurt the impeachers more than the impeachee -- just think of Newt Gingrich's attempt to rid the country of Bill Clinton. I have a sneaking suspicion that this case might play out differently, however.

The Democrats apparently have another new candidate willing to make a challenge in an overwhelmingly Republican congressional district. The Omaha World-Herald's Robynn Tysver reports that 30 year old Democrat Scott Kleeb intends to seek the Democratic nomination to succeed retiring Rep. Tom Osborne (R) in a district President Bush won with 75% last year.

A Democrat finally has joined the race for Congress in Nebraska's 3rd District.

[...]

Kleeb, who opposes abortion and the death penalty, said that as a congressman he would work to improve agriculture markets and the district's infrastructure, including its schools, roads and hospitals.

He also said he supports ethanol, the Iraq war and efforts to find alternative energy. "Wind in the 3rd District is wonderful, it's huge and it's an untapped resource," Kleeb said.

[...]

In the fall of 1999, he enrolled in graduate school at Yale University, where he earned master's degrees in international relations and history.

He finished his doctoral thesis this summer - on the history of cattle ranching - and expects to earn his doctorate in history later this year.

There is no question that this race would be a long shot. Just the same it's never a bad idea to keep the other party on its heels by running a non-conventional candidate -- like a pro-life rancher with an M.A. -- and possibly Ph.D -- in the history of cattle ranching.

Finally, New London Submarine Base has been saved -- and thus so have the careers of Connecticut's three moderate Republican Representatives? Liz Sidoti has the story for the AP.

Overruling the Pentagon on two of its biggest requests, a commission reviewing base closings voted to keep open a shipyard and a submarine base in New England that military planners wanted to shut down.

The panel also spared three other major facilities, in Texas, California and Louisiana, against the Pentagon's wishes.

But it was New England that got arguably the biggest victories of the day: the commission voted to save two of the Navy's oldest facilities — the Portsmouth shipyard at Kittery, Maine, and Submarine Base New London in Connecticut. Together, the bases are considered economic engines of their region and elected officials from Maine, New Hampshire and Connecticut lobbied intently for months to save them.

"Yahoo!" said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. "Submarine base New London lives, and I think that it will live forever."

The latest Harris poll shows President Bush teetering near the precipice of an approval rating in the 30s, reports the Wall Street Journal.

President Bush's job approval ratings are at their lowest point of his presidency as only 40% of U.S. adults have a favorable opinion of his job performance and 58% have a negative opinion, according to a Harris Interactive poll.

This is a decline from just two months ago in June when the president's ratings were 45% positive and 55% negative. Much of this decline can be tied to the public's opinion on important issues. The war in Iraq has climbed to the top of a list of issues Americans say it's most important for the U.S. to address and the economy is now viewed as the second most important issue, according to the poll.

The President's approval rating is by far the lowest ever recorded by Harris. What's more, Congressional Republicans, who had previously been slightly favored over their liberal counterparts, find their numbers have also fallen five points since the last poll to 32% approve, 64% disapprove.

There are few shows on 24-hour cable news that I am actually able to watch. Aside from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," neither of which actually fits into the category, I can watch MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on a regular basis and CNN's "News Night with Aaron Brown" from time to time. Now there is a new host I can watch -- at least when Larry King is unable to perform his duties. The New York Times' Bill Carter has this to say about Larry's usual replacement, Bob Costas.

For Bob Costas, the issue was not complicated.

The longtime NBC sports and talk show host, who signed on this year to be an occasional substitute for Larry King on CNN, resisted a request last Thursday to be the host of a King program devoted to interviewing guests about the already widely covered Natalee Holloway missing-person case in Aruba.

When he could not get the show's topic changed, Mr. Costas said he respectfully decided not to participate.

"I don't believe there was a single American who was sitting around saying 'I'd really like to see Bob Costas's take on this,' " Mr. Costas said in telephone interview.

[...]

Mr. Costas, who agreed to fill in for Mr. King on 20 occasions, said that no bridges were burned by his decision to steer clear of the Holloway case. It was "completely amicable," Mr. Costas said. He is expected to continue filling in for Mr. King when his schedule allows.

For those who have yet to see Costas fill in for King, I highly recommend you trying to check him out. Costas asks tough and informed questions that keep the show interesting. He does a really great job, and I'd love to see him eventually take over for Larry -- even if that would mean giving up his posh gig over at HBO.

I'm not certain if this is what the anti-war crowd has been looking for with its protests of the administration's Iraq policy, but The Washington Post's William Branigin reports that America could soon send more troops into harm's way in the Middle East.

Anticipating an increase in insurgent attacks, the United States plans to send more troops to Iraq in advance of an Oct. 15 referendum on a new Iraqi constitution, which is considered unlikely to halt the country's violence, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today.

Rumsfeld's plan: sending at most a couple thousand more troops to the country. Will it make a drastic difference? I'm not an expert in military issues, but a 1%-1.5% increase in troops is not earth-shattering.

The situation in Iraq is improving in some ways and worsening in others. Clearly, the steps towards a constitution bring hope; should a moderate Democracy eventually emerge in the country, there is no question that it would be an enormous positive for the region.

But gauging just the numbers, there is still cause for concern. American casualties aren't really changing; indeed, August has been the bloodiest month since January. And what's more, the monetary cost of the war is simply not dimishing.

So is it time to drastically increase the troop levels in the country? It's tough for me to say. But America's Iraq policy is not working as well as it could or should, so some change must occur. And soon. Because far too many Americans and Iraqis are losing their lives for a mission that seemingly has no end in sight.

Recognizing that the excessive consumption of gasoline in this country is a problem, President Bush pressed for new fuel efficiency standards for S.U.V.s. However, as we noted last week, the AP's Ken Thomas reports that the largest gas guzzlers like Hummer H2s will not be covered by the new regulations.

With gas prices continuing to rise, the Bush administration on Tuesday proposed new rules to compel auto manufacturers to make pickup trucks, minivans and some sport utility vehicles more fuel efficient. Environmentalists said the plan would do little to wean the nation from its dependence on foreign oil.

The proposal would require the auto industry to raise standards for most vehicles other than cars beginning in 2008. All automakers would have to comply with the new system by 2011.

[...]

But the plan would not apply to the largest SUVs, such as the Hummer H2. Passenger cars, already required to maintain an average of 27.5 miles per gallon, also would not be covered by the changes.

It's time for America and Americans to get serious about the gas crunch in this country. This is an issue of both economic and national security, and every day we neglect to address it we hasten the moment at which the crisis becomes a calamity.

If you don't pay enough attention to the Lone Star state, you just might miss something. Like today, for instance, as The Houston Chronicle's team of Samantha Levine and Michael Hedges report that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is bringing in the big guns from the administration to raise some money for his reelection bid.

Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to appear at a campaign event for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay at a Houston hotel in mid-September.

[...]

One Houston-area executive said she received an invitation and put the details in her calendar.

"It is just a fundraiser to show that Mr. DeLay has got the support of the administration," she said.

The White House has offered cordial words for DeLay over the past several months despite questions about whether lobbyists paid for some of DeLay's overseas travel, a violation of House rules.

If this event is as it seems -- a show of support by the administration -- it is a clear indication that the President and Vice President condone the actions taken by DeLay and his associates, not long after the Texas Republican was chided by the Federal Elections Commission. If the GOP truly wants the Democrats to stop crying foul over electoral irregularities and interest peddling, perhaps the Republican administration should stop standing up for the people who most egregiously abuse the system.

While Tom DeLay is garnering new found support in his bid for another term to the House, another Texas Republican is finding some new opposition. According to Damon McCullar over at Burnt Orange Report -- a Democratic blog out of Texas -- House Energy and Resources Chairman Joe Barton has a new challenger -- another Democratic Iraq War veteran.

That's right folks, you heard it hear first. David Harris is exploring a race to take on Smoky Joe Barton up in Tarrant County. David is a father of three and husband of 7 years. He has served his county in Iraq where he received a Bronze star for actions in Iraq. His current gig is Assistant Professor of Military Science/Training Officer, University of Texas at Arlington. Previous to that he severed in the United States Army on active duty until the end of 2002, where he transferred to the reserves. He was called back to active duty in January 2003 to serve in Iraq. He came back March of 2004 David and his wife have served as interns for the State and Local Democratic Party and were delegates from Texas to the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Mass.

His website will tentatively launch on October 15th, 2005. The web address will be www.followmetodc.com.

The key issues to David's campaign will be threefold. They are a strong defense, strong families and protecting the rights of all Americans.

David needs 500 signatures to get on the ballot. He is well on his way to that. If any of you folks up in Tarrant County are interested in helping David out, feel free to drop him a line at fm2dc@aol.com or Follow Me To DC, PO Box 1408 Fort Worth, TX 76102.

This is a district that George W. Bush carried with 66 percent of the vote in both 2000 and 2004, so it won't be an easy win for Democrats by any stretch of the imagination. But Paul Hackett nearly won a district this month that President Bush carried with 64 percent of the vote in 2004. Anything is possible these days.

Down in Florida, new GOP polling shows U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris (R) still trailing U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D) by nine points. The data, from Strategic Vision.

If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Katherine Harris, the Republican?

Bill Nelson 47%
Katherine Harris 38%
Undecided 15%

If Harris can't break 40 percent in a partisan poll, one can only imagine how she would fare in a non-partisan survey.

In South Carolina, the Columbia State's Lee Bandy reports that the Democrats have just lost their number one (and perhaps only) politician on the statewide level.

Inez Tenenbaum is expected to announce today she will not run for a third term as state superintendent of education.

Tenenbaum has scheduled a 3 p.m. news conference to make what was described only as a major campaign announcement.

However, the Lexington Democrat began making phone calls to friends and allies Monday evening to advise them of her decision not to seek re-election.

[...]

Tenenbaum’s future plans were unclear Monday night. She did not return phone calls. However, her decision not to seek re-election removes the Democratic Party’s strongest statewide vote-getter from the ballot.

The Democrats aren't the only ones losing their favored candidates. In Oklahoma (I know it's technically the old Southwest, not the South, but eh...), the AP's Richard Green writes that everyone's favorite conservative African-American Republican has decided to forgo a bid for governor.

Former Congressman J.C. Watts said Tuesday he will not run for governor in Oklahoma next year.

"I have determined that the timing for such an adventure is not right at this point in our lives," he said in a statement.

He said he spent more than two months talking to voters across the state before reaching his decision.

Watts is the second Republican to decide against making the race; Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin has announced she will run for re-election instead of running for governor. Their moves leave the GOP without a proven vote-getter with wide name recognition to challenge Gov. Brad Henry, the popular Democratic incumbent.