Yesterday General George Casey, the top general in Iraq, indicated that despite combat readiness of only one Iraqi battalion, America might be able to begin withdrawing troops next year. But now, as the AP's Robert Burns reports, Casey is stepping back from that claim.

Sunni Arab opposition to Iraq's draft constitution has increased the potential for instability and called into question U.S. hopes for substantial troop cuts next spring, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Friday.

Gen. George Casey, speaking at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said his prediction in July that "fairly substantial" troop withdrawals could begin next spring was based on a key assumption: that satisfactory progress on the political and security fronts would continue.

"Now this constitution has come out, and it didn't come out as the national compact that we thought it was going to be," he said.

"And there's division there ... and that caused the situation to change a little bit," Casey said.

For some time there has been talk of popular North Dakota Governor John Hoeven (R) challenging three-term Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, which would have made for one of the races of 2006. But as the Associated Press reports, such a race is not to be.

Republican Gov. John Hoeven, who was considered the GOP's strongest candidate to challenge Democratic U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad, announced Friday he would not enter the 2006 Senate race.

The two-term governor said he and his wife decided against a Senate bid earlier this week to give the GOP time to recruit another candidate.

"We're very focused on serving as governor and first lady, and we think the state is making real progress," Hoeven said.

The Democrats' attempt at retaking the Senate just got slightly easier.

In the latest round of polling from Fox News (conducted before the indictment of Tom DeLay), President Bush's approval ratings are climbing -- but the Democrats are maintaining their advantage in the generic Congressional polling. Dana Blanton reports.

Voters are fed up. Majorities say they are tired of partisan fighting, high gas prices and the war in Iraq. A plurality thinks it would be better for the country if Democrats win next year’s congressional elections, though President George W. Bush has the edge over Democrats for having a better plan for handling Iraq. In addition, the president’s job approval rating is back up to its pre-Katrina level this week. These are just some of the finding of a new FOX News nation-wide poll of registered voters.

To gauge Americans’ mood, the poll asked respondents if they were "fed up with and tired of" several issues in the news these days. Top of the list: high gas prices. Almost everyone — fully 85 percent of respondents — say they are fed up with prices at the pump.

The public is also losing patience with elected officials, as 77 percent say they are fed up with partisan bickering in Washington, D.C. This may be why, at least in part, the public thinks it is time for a change: by 40 percent to 32 percent, voters today say they think it would be better for the country if Democrats win next year’s mid-term elections. Last month, 38 percent said they wanted Democrats to win and 35 percent said Republicans (30-31 Aug 2005).

Although the President's numbers are bouncing back up this month, it must be disconcerting to see his party faring so poorly, even before the indictment of Tom DeLay.

Yesterday it emerged that New York Times reporter Judith Miller had been released from jail in return for the promise to testify in the probe into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. As the AP's Pete Yost reports, today Miller was is court.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified before a grand jury Friday, ending her silence in the investigation into whether White House officials leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame.

Miller, free after 85 days in jail, spent more than three hours inside the federal courthouse in downtown Washington, most of it behind closed doors with a grand jury.

Miller arrived at about 8:30 a.m. at the courthouse as part of an agreement reached Thursday with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to disclose her conversations in July 2003 with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Miller said in a statement that her source — identified by the Times as Libby — had released her from her promise of confidentiality.

The Plame grand jury is slated to wrap up on October 28 -- one week after Tom DeLay is scheduled to appear in court to face criminal conspiracy charges. November might just prove to be a very long month for Republicans.

With America's armed forces spread across the world and American troops in battle in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the AP's military writer Robert Burns reports that the deficit in new recruits this year was the largest in more than 25 years.

The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.

Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger — perhaps by 50,000 soldiers over its current 1 million — in order to meet its many overseas commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army already is on a path to add 30,000 soldiers, but even that will be hard to achieve if recruiters cannot persuade more to join the service.

[...]

The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. A gap of 7,000 enlistees would be the largest — in absolute number as well as in percentage terms — since 1979, according to Army records.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.

There are many who believe that the only path to success in Iraq today would be to place more American troops on the ground. With this in mind, it is disconcerting to hear that the Army is finding it so difficult to sign up new recruits.

Former House Majority Leader has gone to great lengths in recent television and radio appearances to go on the offensive in a bid to stave of charges leveled against him in Wednesday's indictment. Yesterday, for instance, DeLay claimed to have proof of a vast Democratic conspiracy to defame him, though refused to provide a shred of evidence.

Now, as The Houston Chronicle's Janet Elliott reports, one of DeLay's central lines of defense has been seriously called into question by both the foreman of the jury and DeLay's own lawyer.

The day after U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's grand jury indictment, his lawyer and the jury foreman on Thursday appeared to contradict the Texas politician's assertions that he was not given a chance to speak before the jury.

The foreman, William M. Gibson Jr., a retired state insurance investigator, said the Travis County grand jury waited until Wednesday, the final day of its term, to indict him because it was hoping he would accept jurors' invitation to testify.

DeLay said in interviews that the grand jury never asked him to testify.

[...]

Dick DeGuerin, the attorney representing DeLay, said Thursday that DeLay actually was invited to appear before the grand jury, where he would have been under oath. The Houston attorney was not yet on the legal team when DeLay was asked to appear, but he said other attorneys advised him not to testify — a decision DeGuerin supports.

If DeLay truly believes that his best line of defense is a massive media blitz, he would be well served to both get his facts in line and his message squared with his lawyers.

It appears as though one of the last stumbling blocks in the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity has been removed. John Solomon has the story for the Associated Press.

After nearly three months behind bars, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released from a federal prison Thursday after agreeing to testify in the investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA officer, two people familiar with the case said.

Miller left the federal detention center in Alexandria, Va., after reaching an agreement with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Legal sources said she would appear before a grand jury investigating the case Friday morning. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.

The sources said Miller agreed to testify after securing an unconditional release from Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to testify about any discussions they had involving CIA officer Valerie Plame.

It seems the Republicans just can't catch a break these days, with the indictment of Tom DeLay, the investigation of Bill Frist, the probe of Jack Abramoff's many dealings, etc., etc.

The AP's Larry Margasak reports that a court date has been set for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Rep. Tom DeLay was summoned to appear in a Texas courtroom in three weeks, the initial legal step in his transition from the second-ranking House Republican to a criminal defendant. DeLay, meanwhile, provided new details Thursday about his behind-the scenes effort to try to convince prosecutors he shouldn't be indicted.

DeLay contended that after he recently met voluntarily with prosecutors, he was led to believe "it was pretty much over" and he would be spared indictment in a state campaign finance investigation. Two weeks ago, he said, the landscape suddenly changed because Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle buckled under pressure from fellow Democrats and the media — and tried to blame the switch on a "runaway" grand jury.

[...]

Earle has consistently denied the investigation of DeLay and his associates was political and has pointed out he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans.

It looks like this story should have legs for at least a few more weeks, much to the chagrin of Congressional Republicans and the President.

Pennsylvania

Rick Santorum, one of the Senate's leading conservative voices, is faltering in his bid for a third term against Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey. Jeff Miller of the Allentown Morning Call details the latest polling from the race.

President Bush's falling approval ratings are casting a shadow over Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's bid for a third term, a new Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll found.

Among the 54 percent of Pennsylvania voters dissatisfied with Bush's job performance, only 9 percent intend to support Santorum while 57 percent back his likely Democratic challenger, Bob Casey Jr.

Overall, Casey leads Santorum, 37 percent to 29 percent, with 31 percent undecided.

[...]

Among Independents, Casey leads 33 percent to 14 percent.

Given that Santorum is down 13 points and 14 points in other recent polling from the state, it would be safe to say he has his work cut out for him. And given his place in the list of Congress' 13 most corrupt, the recent focus on GOP improprieties is not going to help him at all.

New York

The New York Post's Kenneth Lovett reports in today's paper that Sen. Hillary Clinton's top challenger is finding fundraising to be slightly more difficult than one might imagine given the right's hate for the 42nd President and his wife.

Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro hinted yesterday that she is struggling in her fund-raising effort to take on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Following an appearance at a fourth round of candidate interviews by GOP county leaders, Pirro sought to downplay expectations of what her Oct. 15 campaign filing will show.

"The real essence, since we've only been in this for about four weeks and we've had [Hurricane] Katrina in the interim, of what we're going to raise, I think, will be shown in [the December filing]," she said.

"You really can't have a test in four weeks."

Democrats were quick to note that neither Rudy Giuliani nor Rick Lazio, his replacement in the race against Clinton in 2000, had trouble raising money straight out of the gate.

"Rudy Giuliani raised $7 million and Rick Lazio $5 million during their first fund-raising periods," said Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson.

This isn't a good start for those who want to damage Clinton in 2006 so she will be weaker in 2008.

Michigan

The latest Republican polling out of the Wolverine state shows the Republicans are going to have to step up their game if they seriously want to challenge freshman Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow. The data from Strategic Vision:

17. If the election for United States Senate was held today, whom would you vote for, Debbie Stabenow, the Democrat or Keith Butler, the Republican?

Debbie Stabenow 48%
Keith Butler 27%
Undecided 25%

18. If the election for United States Senate was held today, whom would you vote for, Debbie Stabenow, the Democrat or Jerry Zandstra, the Republican?

Debbie Stabenow 51%
Jerry Zandstra 21%
Undecided 28%

With the loss of American life in Iraq seeming to have no end, a majority of Americans believe that it's time to speed up plans for withdrawal of troops. The only problem: there aren't nearly enough Iraqi troops to take over the country's security -- and even the small number of prepared troops is diminishing. The AP's Liz Sidoti reports.

The number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support has dropped from three to one, the top American commander in Iraq told Congress Thursday, prompting Republicans to question whether U.S. troops will be able to withdraw next year.

Gen. George Casey, softening his previous comments that a "fairly substantial" pull out could begin next spring and summer, told lawmakers that troops might begin coming home from Iraq next year depending on conditions during and after the upcoming elections there.

[...]

The Bush administration says training Iraqi security forces to defend their own country is the key to bringing home U.S. troops. But Republicans pressed Casey on whether the United States was backsliding in its efforts to train Iraqis.

In June, the Pentagon told lawmakers that three Iraqi battalions were fully trained, equipped and capable of operating independently. On Thursday, Casey said only one battalion is ready.

"It doesn't feel like progress," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

Rasmussen Reports provides some data on Americans' perceptions of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Seventeen percent (17%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 40% have an unfavorable opinion of the House Majority Leader.

[...]

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Americans correctly identified DeLay as a Republican while 36% were unsure of his party affiliation.

The survey was conducted yesterday, so it obviously did not catch the multitude of Americans who learned about the story from newspapers and the morning news shows. Nevertheless, the second set of numbers -- that less than three in five Americans know that Tom DeLay is a Republican -- should give Democrats pause if they believe they can simply allow the story to play out on its own without employing skilled spinmasters.

If the Democrats indeed want to run against corruption in 2006, they must explain to the American people that DeLay is a Republican. That Bill Frist, who is under SEC investigation, is a Republican. That the entire Congress is controlled by Republicans. As we noted in April, the Democrats have a long way to go in this endeavor, but if they want any chance at victory in 2006, they must start doing a better job at getting this message out.

The AP's Jesse J. Holland reports that it's official.

John Glover Roberts Jr. won confirmation as the 17th chief justice of the United States Thursday, overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate to lead the Supreme Court through turbulent social issues for generations to come.

The Senate voted 78-22 to confirm Roberts — a 50-year-old U.S. Appeals judge from the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Md. — as the successor to the late William H. Rehnquist, who died earlier this month. All of the Senate's majority Republicans, and about half of the Democrats, voted for Roberts.

I'm not certain that I would call the vote "overwhelming," given that the other justices on the Court -- with the exception of Thomas -- have had much closer to unanimous support.

• Stephen Breyer -- 87 to 9
  
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- 96 to 3
  
• Clarence Thomas -- 52 to 48
  
• David Souter -- 90 to 9
  
• Anthony Kennedy -- 97 to 0
  
• Antonin Scalia -- 98 to 0
  
• Sandra Day O'Connor -- 99 to 0
  
• John Paul Stevens -- 99 to 0

Nevertheless, Roberts should be congratulated. We hope that he is as fair and open-minded as Chief Justice as he appeared during his confirmation hearings.

Kevin Drum asks an important question:

WHO'S THE SQUEALER?....Hmmm. Apropos of this post wondering if someone has agreed to squeal on Tom DeLay, a reader from Texas says: "Word down here already in late spring was that Sears, most likely, or another one of the corporations that agreed to participate in the TRMPAC shakedown, not Ellis, Colyandro, etc., would be the squealer."

In December we noted that campaign finance charges were dropped against Sears in return for their cooperation in the case, so maybe Kevin -- or his Texas reader -- is on to something.

Barry Moody has the story for Reuters.

The conduct of U.S. troops in Iraq, including increasing detention and accidental shootings of journalists, is preventing full coverage of the war reaching the American public, Reuters said on Wednesday.

In a letter to Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Reuters said U.S. forces were limiting the ability of independent journalists to operate. The letter from Reuters Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger called on Warner to raise widespread media concerns about the conduct of U.S. troops with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is due to testify to the committee on Thursday.

[...]

At least 66 journalists and media workers, most of them Iraqis, have been killed in the Iraq conflict since March 2003.

U.S. forces acknowledge killing three Reuters journalists, most recently soundman Waleed Khaled who was shot by American soldiers on Aug. 28 while on assignment in Baghdad. But the military say the soldiers were justified in opening fire.

[...]

At least four journalists working for international media are currently being held without charge or legal representation in Iraq. They include two cameramen working for Reuters and a freelance reporter who sometimes works for the agency.

A cameraman working for the U.S. network CBS has been detained since April despite an Iraqi court saying his case does not justify prosecution. Iraq's justice minister has criticised the system of military detentions without charge.

Is inhibiting the ability of the media to accurately report the situation on the ground actually necessary to fight a successful war in Iraq? Because if not, it is extremely troubling to hear of coercion, arrests and death of journalists in the country.

"This is an old story that keeps repeating: The people who are way out there and pushing the limits of power, they eventually are pushed out themselves. Jim Wright and Newt Gingrich did that, and they went. Now Tom DeLay. It was just a matter of time."

-- James A. Thurber, a political science professor at American University

Link.

With no immediate end in sight to Tom DeLay's woes, The Hill's Jonathan E. Kaplan notes that despite successe in November 2004, 2005 has been a difficult year for the Republican Party.

A bad year just got worse for the Republican Party when Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was indicted yesterday.

Since House Republicans slightly expanded their majority in 2004, they have run into one political stumbling block after another, and DeLay’s indictment is just the latest bout of intrigue that has created a political climate not seen since 1994, when Republicans ended the Democrats’ 40-year rule of the House and won control of the Senate.

“We’re going through a rough patch,” said a rank-and-file Republican lawmaker. “I’m more worried about Bush’s poll numbers. The concern [among House Republicans] about DeLay is: Does it disrupt our internal unity and focus?”

[...]

On issue after issue — ethics, Terri Schiavo, the demise of Social Security privatization, charges of influence peddling and corruption, a rising death toll in the war in Iraq, rising gasoline prices, the govern-ment’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and the sale of stock from Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) trust fund — Republicans have been caught flatfooted and appeared beleaguered at times.

“It’s the drip, drip thing they have to worry about,” said former Democratic whip Tony Coelho, who resigned his seat amid scandal in 1989 and watched the Republicans create a perception of corruption among the electorate. “There’s a term that Newt [Gingrich] coined, ‘the arrogance of power,’ which he used that against Speaker Jim Wright and the Democrats. It’s happening to them right now.”

Coelho added, “They’re now facing a very strong headwind because Bush’s popularity is going way down and he no longer provides a protective umbrella for the Congress. It’s going to be a continuing, building story.”

[Update 10:30 PM Pacific]: One of Oregon's top pollsters echoes Kaplan's tone, notes The Washington Post's Dan Balz.

Tim Hibbits, an Oregon-based pollster, said the DeLay indictment by itself may be less significant in shaping the partisan environment than some others suggested, but he argued that it will deepen the disenchantment of swing voters toward the political system. For a multitude of reasons, he said, Republicans have much to fear about the year ahead. "I think the Republicans at this point are in more trouble than they realize," Hibbits said.

The AP's Larry Margasak, who has been working this story from all angles, writes today that the DeLay story might continue to grow from its present form.

The political committee of Rep. Roy Blunt, who is temporarily replacing Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader, has paid roughly $88,000 in fees since 2003 to a consultant under indictment in Texas with DeLay, according to federal records.

Keri Ann Hayes, executive director of the Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, said the organization has been has been satisfied with the work done by Jim Ellis, but has not discussed whether he will be retained.

"We haven't had that conversation," she said. So far, she added, Ellis' indictment had no impact on his work.

Records on file with the Federal Election Commission show the fund linked to Blunt retains Ellis' firm, J.W. Ellis Co., and has made periodic payments for services. Political Money Line, a nonpartisan Internet tracking service, places the total at about $88,000.

Ellis is one of three political associates of DeLay, R-Texas, who have been indicted in an alleged scheme to use corporate political donations illegally to support candidates in state elections. Ellis also runs DeLay's national political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority.

Drip, drip, drip...

As Brad Cain reports for the AP, Oregon's Death with Dignity law, which allows the terminally ill to request their doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of a legal drug, will soon go before the Supreme Court.

The Bush administration is challenging Oregon's assisted suicide law, arguing that hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and thus violates federal drug laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Oct. 5. Supporters of the assisted suicide law say a favorable high court ruling could lead other states to follow Oregon's lead.

Oregonians approved the law in two separate votes, and many have come to see it as part of their state's identity — something that sets them apart from the rest of the nation.

Still, only a tiny portion of terminally ill Oregonians have used the law to take their lives — 208 people, representing about one in 1,000 deaths.

Gonzalez v. Oregon will provide an immediate glance into the judicial temperment of John G. Roberts (should he be confirmed, of course). If Roberts follows the classic states' rights argument, he should find that Oregon is free to maintain the law (remember, the drugs in question are not federally prohibited, only prescribed in large doses). However, if he is infact a conservative activist, as some worry, his states' rights tendencies would be overridden by his moral apprehensions about physician-assisted suicide. When the transcripts of the hearing become available, we'll try to let you know towards which direction Roberts appears to lean.

At least one Republican Senator seems to think so, reports the AP's Hope Yen.

With Gulf Coast governors pressing for action, Senate Finance Committee members complained Wednesday that the Bush administration is blocking a bipartisan $9 billion health care package for hundreds of thousands of evacuees from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

[...]

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the committee, said four or five senators have been blocking action on the bill after the Bush administration raised objections to provisions that would extend Medicaid coverage to thousands upon thousands of adults who otherwise would be uninsured, including those whose applications have been rejected in Louisiana.

"We can work with everybody, including the administration, or against them, and I'm prepared to go either way," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "But I'm going to look after our people first."

Administration officials contend the Medicaid extensions are not needed because a newly created fund could be tapped whenever health care providers care for uninsured victims of Katrina between Aug. 24th and Jan. 31, 2006.

But the administration has not revealed how much money will be in the fund, and senators questioned both the funding commitment and whether the administration has the authority to establish such a fund.

The key point to note, aside from the fact that the administration is delaying the aid, is that it was Republican Senators who leaked this story. Generally, the demise of a party comes not when the opposition gains strength but rather when the party itself begins to split at the seams.

With the ongoing scandals in both chambers of Congress and the White House, look for more of this GOP infighting to be played out in the pages of newspapers and less behind the closed doors of the Capitol.

The AP's Larry Margasak has the story.

A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, an indictment that could force him to step down as House majority leader.

DeLay attorney Steve Brittain said DeLay was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay's national political committee.

GOP congressional officials said the plan was for DeLay to temporarily relinquish his leadership post and Speaker Dennis Hastert will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into those duties.

[...]

The indictment against the second-ranking, and most assertive Republican leader came on the final day of the grand jury's term. It followed earlier indictments of a state political action committee founded by DeLay and three of his political associates.

Even if DeLay eventually beats the rap, these are tough days to be a Republican, with an indictment of one leader and an insider trading investigation of another.

[Update 10:14 AM Pacific]: Reuters is also reporting that DeLay is leaving the Republican Party leadership.

U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said he would "step aside" from his congressional leadership post following his indictment in Texas on Wednesday on one conspiracy count, his office said.

"I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County District Attorney today," he said in a statement.

[Update 10:30 AM Pacific]: Laylan Copelin explains the charge against DeLay for the Austin American-Statesman.

The charge, a state jail felony punishable by up to two years incarceration, stems from his role with his political committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, a now-defunct organization that already had been indicted on charges of illegally using corporate money during the 2002 legislative elections.

[Update 10:47 AM Pacific]: The SEC is opening up an official probe to look at Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's stock sales. More here.

[Update 11:08 AM Pacific]: The White House has some very kind things to say about the recently (if temporarily) departed House Majority Leader. Again, the AP's Larry Margasak.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president still considers DeLay a friend and effective leader in Congress.

"Congressman DeLay is a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people," McClellan said. "I think the president's view is that we need to let the legal process work."

[Update 11:26 AM Pacific]: The Hill's House GOP correspondent Patrick O'Connor adds another wrinkle to the story.

The indictment means DeLay will be required to resign his leadership post, sparking a potential race to succeed the Majority Leader that could threaten a fragile balance of power within the Republican conference.

[...]

GOP House leaders must first decide who will fill DeLay's leadership post. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) could tap a senior to member of the conference to temporarily replace DeLay while the majority leader and his legal team determine the extent of the charges against him. But that option would require the cooperation of an increasingly restive conference.

Sources say that leadership wants to install House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) as DeLay's temporary replacement as Majority Leader. [emphasis added]

[Update 12:23 PM Pacific]: The AP's Larry Margasak is reporting that DeLay has figured out his new line of defense -- the D.A. is a partisan Democrat.

A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post. A defiant DeLay insisted he was innocent and called the prosecutor a "partisan fanatic."

"I have done nothing wrong ... I am innocent," DeLay told a Capitol Hill news conference in which he criticized the Texas prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, repeatedly. DeLay called Earle a "unabashed partisan zealot," and "fanatic," and described the charges as "one of the weakest and most baseless indictments in American history."

The only problem with this tactic: Earle has actually investigated more Democratic politicians than Republicans, as Media Matters notes.

While Earle is an elected Democrat, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, a June 17 editorial in the Houston Chronicle commended his work: "During his long tenure, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has prosecuted many more Democratic officials than Republicans. The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts." This assertion supports Earle's own claim about his record; a March 6 article in the El Paso Times reported: "Earle says local prosecution is fundamental and points out that 11 of the 15 politicians he has prosecuted over the years were Democrats."

Margasak does not report these numbers to refute DeLay's claim, but perhaps these facts will make their way into the evening broadcasts and the morning papers.

[Update 1:20 PM Pacific]: The AP's Larry Margasak, who's doing a fantastic job of keeping this story updated by the minute, reports that Dreier, a social moderate, is out and Blunt is in.

Republicans selected Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the current Republican whip — No. 3 in the leadership ranks — to fill the vacancy temporarily.

Says Josh Marshall, "Will Dreier ascend? Cold hand of James Dobson grips the House."

[Update 2:13 PM Pacific]: A conversation I had with the press secretary to Rep. Greg Walden, Oregon's sole Republican member of the House, yielded no immediate response to either the indictment of DeLay or the selection of Blunt, though a promise to send any new information on the Congressman's position was made.

[Update 2:22 PM Pacific]: Margasak speaks with the foreman of DeLay's grand jury and relays some interesting quotes.

The grand jury's foreman, William Gibson, told The Associated Press that Earle didn't pressure members one way or the other. "Ronnie Earle didn't indict him. The grand jury indicted him," Gibson told The Associated Press in an interview at his home.

Gibson, 76, a retired sheriff's deputy in Austin, said of DeLay: "He's probably doing a good job. I don't have anything against him. Just something happened."

Does this nix DeLay's attempt to make the indictment seem like a partisan attack by Earle?

[Update 9:18 PM Pacific]: The Hill's Patrick O'Connor adds a couple of interesting pieces of information to the story. The first explains how the job of temporary leader shifted from David Dreier to Roy Blunt.

After press reports shortly after the indictment that Dreier would assume the temporary position of majority leader, conservative activists from around the country flooded the Speaker’s office with phone calls protesting the selection of Dreier, according to one leadership aide. Many of the callers protested his vote on a controversial stem-cell measure earlier this year.

O'Connor also reports that the "arrangement will hold through the end of the year."

---

Continue to visit Basie! for all breaking news related to the indictment of Tom DeLay and its political ramifications.

With the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay rapidly eating up the airwaves, Bloomberg's Otis Bilodeau reports that there is a new major development in the case surrounding Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (via atrios).

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist faces a near-term ordeal unwelcome to anyone, particularly an ambitious politician: an official probe into his personal financial dealings by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC authorized a formal order of investigation of Frist's sale in June of HCA Inc. shares, people with direct knowledge of the inquiry said yesterday. The order allows the agency's enforcement unit to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the order hasn't been made public.

"This turns the flame up under the kettle and keeps the water boiling," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the independent Rothenberg Political Report in Washington. "It means he's going to continue to be peppered with questions about this stock sale, and no politician wants to be questioned about things like that."

And the hits keep coming...

Yesterday, former FEMA chief Michael Brown (who for some reason remains on the government's payroll), tried to shift blame for the anemic response to Hurricane Katrina to local and state officials in Louisiana (who are Democrats). But now, in a page one article, The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman reports that FEMA -- and not some locals -- is embroiled in a new scandal.

On Sept. 1, as tens of thousands of desperate Louisianans packed the New Orleans Superdome and convention center, the Federal Emergency Management Agency pleaded with the U.S. Military Sealift Command: The government needed 10,000 berths on full-service cruise ships, FEMA said, and it needed the deal done by noon the next day.

The hasty appeal yielded one of the most controversial contracts of the Hurricane Katrina relief operation, a $236 million agreement with Carnival Cruise Lines for three ships that now bob more than half empty in the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay. The six-month contract -- staunchly defended by Carnival but castigated by politicians from both parties -- has come to exemplify the cost of haste that followed Katrina's strike and FEMA's lack of preparation.

To critics, the price is exorbitant. If the ships were at capacity, with 7,116 evacuees, for six months, the price per evacuee would total $1,275 a week, according to calculations by aides to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). A seven-day western Caribbean cruise out of Galveston can be had for $599 a person -- and that would include entertainment and the cost of actually making the ship move.

[...]

[T]he Carnival deal has come under particular scrutiny. Not only are questions being raised over the contract's cost, but congressional investigators are examining the company's tax status. Carnival, which is headquartered in Miami but incorporated for tax purposes in Panama, paid just $3 million in income tax benefits on $1.9 billion in pretax income last year, according to company documents. "That's not even a tip," said Robert S. McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice. U.S. companies in general pay an effective income tax rate of about 25 percent, analysts say. That would have left Carnival with a $475 million tax bill.

[...]

Carnival does not want to see that tax status jeopardized just because three major ships are clearly operating in the United States. After it won the FEMA bid, Carnival appealed to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow for a waiver of U.S. taxes. "We do not want to jeopardize our tax exemption, nor do we want to interrupt our relief efforts for failure to secure this assurance from the Treasury Department," wrote Howard Frank, Carnival's chief operating officer.

I wonder how Brown will try to shift the blame for this quandary.

Oregon's Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, who is playing an increasingly large role in his party's fundraising aparatus, is now trying to assert himself on Medicare's new prescription drug plan. The AP's Matthew Daly reports.

An Oregon senator says he has enough votes in the Senate to pass an amendment allowing the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies, a change opposed by President Bush and other Republicans as well as the drug industry.

"We're looking for the right vehicle to get this important provision into law and get some cost containment into the Medicare benefit," Sen. Ron Wyden said at a news conference.

Wyden's comment came as a new study showed that people who get their drug benefits through the Veterans Affairs Department paid about $220 less for a yearlong prescription than those who used the government's Medicare drug card.

[...]

Wyden has worked with Sen. Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, to push for government bargaining power for prescription drugs. An amendment they co-sponsored failed by two votes during Senate budget deliberations in March.

Wyden declined to identify the two senators who have changed their minds, but he repeated several times that he and Snowe had the votes needed to approve the amendment.

President Bush is overwhelmingly against the Wyden plan, which would significantly lower prescription drug costs for senior citizens. If the Democrats want to make President Bush have to start vetoing some bills, this might be a good start.

Fundraising

We noted some time ago that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) under Sen. Chuck Schumer outraised its Republican counterpart, a nearly unprecedented event given GOP control of both the Senate and the White House. In tomorrow's paper, The Hill's Alexander Bolton explains where a portion of the Dems' advantage came from.

Through the first eight months of this year, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has raised $27.4 million — $2.4 million more than what the Senate Republicans collected over the same period.

[...]

Democratic senators dipping into their personal campaign funds have provided the difference.

They have given $2.6 million to the DSCC during the first half of 2005, according to campaign-committee officials. GOP lawmakers gave about $500,000, according to a review of fundraising records posted by PoliticalMoneyLine, a research organization.

[...]

For example, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has given $500,000 from his campaign account. Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Carl Levin (Mich.) have each given $100,000. Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) has contributed $375,000, and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) has deposited $235,000.

Oregon's own Wyden, who raised a ton of money in the 2004 cycle despite not facing a serious challenge, gave close to 15% of all of the money donated by Senators. To give a comparison, the largest GOP donor was Mel Martinez, who gave his party's committee $89,000, or less than a quarter of what Wyden gave. If Schumer can keep up the heavy fundraising, including from members like Wyden (who still has more than $1.5 million on hand without another race for 5 years), perhaps 2006 won't be such a bad year for Democrats after all.

Outlook

In this week's "Off to the Races" column for National Journal (a free subscription to view the rest that can be accessed by clicking here), Charlie Cook takes a gander at the state of the campaign for the Senate, and writes the following:

In the Senate, though, Democrats need a net gain of six seats to win the majority, so logically they need to put six GOP seats in play.

They have accomplished that; in fact, seven Republican-held seats are now in play. They are the seats held by Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Democrats have credible candidates in all but one of those states, Ohio.

It appears likely that their nominee will be Paul Hackett, the lawyer and Iraq War veteran who came close to picking off a special election in Ohio's 2nd congressional district against now-Rep. Jean Schmidt.

If GOP Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi retires, as many expect he will, that would set up yet another competitive Republican-held Senate seat, bringing the total to eight.

Rep. Charles (Chip) Pickering would likely carry the GOP banner, with either former state Attorney General Mike Moore or Rep. Gene Taylor running for the Democratic nod.

Harry Reid's coup in keeping Schumer in the Senate can not be understated. As chair of the DSCC, Schumer has proved to be an able recruiter, as Cook notes, and a prolific fundraiser. If the Democrats retake the Senate in 2006 -- which does not yet appear at all likely, but is nevertheless possible -- look for Schumer to ascend to a position of real power within the party, either within the Senate or on a larger stage.

The Republican scandal machine appears unable to slow down these days, with the arrest of a Bush administration official, the questionable investment practices of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and, of course, the many troubles of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. As the AP's Larry Margasak reports, DeLay's troubles might be coming to a head soon.

A Texas grand jury's recent interest in conspiracy charges could lead to last-minute criminal indictments — possibly against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay — as it wraps up its investigation Wednesday into DeLay's state political organization, according to lawyers with knowledge of the case.

Conspiracy counts against two DeLay associates this month raised concerns with DeLay's lawyers, who fear the chances are greater that the majority leader could be charged with being part of the conspiracy. Before these counts, the investigation was more narrowly focused on the state election code.

By expanding the charges to include conspiracy, prosecutors made it possible for the Travis County grand jury to bring charges against DeLay. Otherwise, the grand jury would have lacked jurisdiction under state laws.

The Associated Press spoke to several lawyers familiar with the case, all of whom requested anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly. DeLay, R-Texas, said Tuesday that prosecutors have interviewed him. He has insisted he committed no crimes and says Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, is pursuing the case for political reasons.

The disclosure came as congressional officials said top House Republicans were quietly considering how to respond if an indictment were issued.

Although Ronnie Earle is indeed a Democrat, it would be extremely difficult for the Republicans to spin out any semblence of a victory should Tom DeLay be indicted. And if this situation plays out as Margasak indicates it might -- with the Majority Leader indicted for conspiracy charges -- the race to control Congres sin 2006 would shift immediately.

Chris Bowers passes on on a link to a new Republican poll conducted by the Winston Group. The findings include:

President Bush

Approve -- 45%
Disapprove -- 52%

Generic Senate Ballot

Republican -- 42%
Democratic -- 49%

Generic House Ballot

Republican -- 40%
Democratic -- 48%

So much for writing off recent Democratic polling as merely partisan...

Kenneth Tomlinson, the outgoing chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, repeatedly came under fire during his tenure for attempting to politicize public broadcasting. Now that he's gone, who is slated to replace him? People even more dedicated to turning NPR and PBS into wings of the Republican Party, of course! Paul Farhi has the story for The Washington Post.

A leading Republican donor and fundraiser was elected chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting yesterday, tightening conservative control over the agency that oversees National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

Cheryl F. Halpern, a New Jersey lawyer and real estate developer, won approval from the CPB's board. She succeeds a close board ally, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who stirred controversy earlier this year by contending that public broadcasting favors liberal views. Tomlinson's term as chairman had expired, but he will remain a member of the board.

The board also elected another conservative, Gay Hart Gaines, as its vice chairman. Gaines, an interior decorator by training, was a charter member and a chairman of GOPAC, a Republican fundraising group that then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) used to engineer the GOP takeover of the House in 1994.

With the changes, conservatives with close ties to the Bush administration have assumed control of every important position at the agency, which distributes about $400 million in federal funds to noncommercial radio and TV stations and is supposed to act as a buffer against outside political influence.

Do not be confused; this is a scorched earth policy as Republicans try to establish firm control over all levels of bureaucracy. It apparently is not enough that the Wall Street Journal's extremely conservative editorial board has its own show on PBS, as does former Nixon advisor John McLaughlin (who is joined by an overwhelmingly conservative panely) and the certainly-not-liberal Fareed Zakaria. No, some Republicans continue to try to rid public broadcasting of anything that deviates from the company line. It will certainly be interesting to see the public reaction if/when these two new leaders of the CPB make their presence felt.

Democratic pollsters James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Bob Shrum have released their latest polling from the Democracy Corps, and among the most important findings are:

Q.10 Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his job as president?

Strongly approve -- 28
Somewhat approve -- 16
Somewhat disapprove -- 11
Strongly disapprove -- 43
(Don't know/Refused) -- 3

Total approve -- 43
Total disapprove -- 53

Q.27 I know it is far ahead, but thinking about next year's elections, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your district where you live?

Democratic candidate -- 43
Lean Democratic candidate -- 5
Republican candidate -- 34
Lean Republican candidate -- 5
(Other candidate) -- 2
Lean (Other candidate) -- 0
(Undecided) -- 9
(Refused) -- 2

Total Democratic candidate -- 48
Total Republican candidate -- 39
Total (Other candidate) -- 2

Q.31 (IF STATE HAS SENATE ELECTION IN 2006) And thinking about the election for U.S. Senate next year, if the election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you be voting for (Democratic candidate) or (Republican candidate)?

Democratic candidate -- 50
Lean Democratic candidate -- 3
Republican candidate -- 37
Lean Republican candidate -- 2
(Other candidate) -- 1
Lean (Other candidate) -- 0
(Undecided) -- 6
(Refused) -- 1

Total Democratic candidate -- 53
Total Republican candidate -- 39
Total (Other candidate) -- 1

Q.33 Thinking again about the election for Congress next year, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for (Democratic incumbent/candidate) or (Republican incumbent/candidate)?


Democratic incumbent/candidate -- 47
Lean Democratic incumbent/candidate -- 3
Republican incumbent/candidate -- 40
Lean Republican incumbent/candidate -- 1
(Other candidate) -- 1
Lean (Other candidate) -- (nil)
(Undecided) -- 6
(Refused) -- 2

Total Democratic incumbent/candidate -- 49
Total Republican incumbnent/candidate -- 42
Total (Other candidate) -- 1

The question is no longer whether or not the public has a preference for Democratic candidates today but rather if the Democratic Party will squander this lead before November, 2006.

It's bad enough that Michael Brown is still being paid a full salary by FEMA to explain to the feds what went wrong in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but now it's clear that Brown's story is limited to blaming local and state officials. The AP's Lara Jakes Jordan reports.

Former FEMA director Michael Brown aggressively defended his role in responding to Hurricane Katrina on Tuesday and put much of the blame for coordination failures on Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

"I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences, and work together," he told a congressional panel. "I just couldn't pull that off."

[...]

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional," he said. The storm plowed into the Gulf Coast on Monday morning.

Davis pushed Brown on what he and the agency he led should have done to evacuate New Orleans, restore order in the city and improve communication among law enforcement agencies.

Brown said: "Those are not FEMA roles. FEMA doesn't evacuate communities. FEMA does not do law enforcement. FEMA does not do communications."

Is the entire purpose of Michael Brown's continued employment at FEMA to continue to shift any and all blame from the Bush administration on to Democrats in Louisiana? (Notice Brown hammers only officials in Louisiana, who are Democrats, and not the Republicans in Alabama or Mississippi.)

Mark Warner, Virginia's Democratic Governor with sky-high approval ratings, is loath to take on freshman GOP Senator George Allen next year, potentially leaving his party high and dry without a candidate. But who might come to the rescue, report The Washington Post's Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts? None other than Ben Affleck.

If you liked him as Bennifer . . . you'll love him as Benator!

That's the hot new idea being tossed around by Virginia Democrats, who are desperately searching for a big name to challenge the reelection bid of rising GOP star Sen. George Allen next year, now that outgoing Gov. Mark Warner has ducked out.

Why, who should happen to be pondering a move to Thomas Jefferson country but a certain square-jawed media magnet with a taste for liberal politics and millions to spend on it . . . Ben Affleck ! Star of "Gigli" and the J.Lo tab romance, now happily settled with "Alias" star Jennifer Garner .

The couple, expecting their first child, have been shopping for real estate around Charlottesville. British tabloids claim it's a done deal; we will only go so far as to report that they checked out at least one country estate a few weeks ago.

It was about that time that party officials started batting Affleck's name around. "It's spread pretty widely, at least in the political underground," University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, Virginia's premier pundit, told Michael Shear, The Post's Richmond correspondent.

Affleck certainly has the money and name recognition to take on Allen. And if he's actually interested in the race, wait until this year's tightly contested gubernatorial race in the state is completed. If Democrat Tim Kaine can eke out a victory over Republican Jerry Kilgore, perhaps Affleck will take a serious glance at throwing his hat into the ring.

"Show me another 87-year-old man who's got the energy that I've got, and I'll eat your hat."

-- Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) on his possible run for a 9th term in the Senate.

Link.

Although many Republicans would rather not see Jack Abramoff's name in print ever again, with the arrest of a high ranking Bush administration who had previously worked for Abramoff, it seems that these hopes might not come to fruition. And in tomorrow's paper, The New York Times' Philip Shenon reports on even more startling news from the Abramoff file.

The Justice Department's inspector general and the F.B.I. are looking into the demotion of a veteran federal prosecutor whose reassignment nearly three years ago shut down a criminal investigation of the Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, current and former department officials report.

They said investigators had questioned whether the demotion of the prosecutor, Frederick A. Black, in November 2002 was related to his alert to Justice Department officials days earlier that he was investigating Mr. Abramoff. The lobbyist is a major Republican party fund-raiser and a close friend of several Congressional leaders.

[...]

Colleagues said they recalled that Mr. Black was distressed when he was notified by the department in November 2002 that he was being replaced.

The announcement came only days after Mr. Black had notified the department's public integrity division in Washington, by telephone and e-mail communication, that he had opened a criminal investigation into Mr. Abramoff's lobbying activities for the Guam judges, the colleague said. The judges had sought Mr. Abramoff's help in blocking a bill in Congress to restructure the island's courts.

The colleagues said that Mr. Black was also surprised when his newly arrived bosses in Guam blocked him from involvement in public corruption cases in 2003. Justice Department officials said Mr. Black was asked instead to focus on terrorism investigations, which had taken on new emphasis after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Whatever the motivation in replacing Fred, his demotion meant that the investigation of Abramoff died," said a former colleague in Guam.

It's highly possible that this is merely a coincidence, that Black happened to be reassigned to focus on terrorism around the same time that he commenced the Abramoff probe. His barring from investigating public corruption could, too, have been a result of this.

But Shenon's article raises some real questions about Jack Abramoff's relationship with the Bush administration, especially in the wake of David Safavian's arrest. Hopefully the inspector general and/or the F.B.I. will be able to get to the bottom of this, and either exonerate the administration or place some blame where it is deserved.

With energy prices continuing to creep up in the country, is it possible that conservationists have found a new ally in President George W. Bush? The trio of David Leonhardt, Jad Mouawad and David E. Sanger
examine this question in tomorrow's issue of The New York Times.

With fears mounting that high energy costs will crimp economic growth, President Bush called on Americans yesterday to conserve gasoline by driving less. He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.

"We can all pitch in," Mr. Bush said. "People just need to recognize that the storms have caused disruption," he added, and that if Americans are able to avoid going "on a trip that's not essential, that would be helpful."

This certainly seems to be a great shift from the beginning of Bush's first term, as Leonhardt, Mouawad and Sanger report.

In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy." Also that year, Ari Fleischer, then Mr. Bush's press secretary, responded to a question about reducing American energy consumption by saying "that's a big no."

"The president believes that it's an American way of life," Mr. Fleischer said.

So is this a real shift in administration policy or rather an attempt to repackage the same old undesired nostrums?

Mr. Bush promised to dip further into the government's petroleum reserve, if necessary, and to continue relaxing environmental and transportation rules in an effort to get more gasoline flowing.

On Capitol Hill, senior Republicans called for new legislation that they said would lower energy costs by increasing supply and expanding oil refining capacity over the long run.

[...]

In Washington, two House committees are expected to consider proposals this week that have been blocked in the past by environmental objections. Beyond making it easier to build new refineries, one proposal would allow states to opt out of Congressional bans on coastal oil drilling, and another would allow drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which has been controversial for years. [emphasis added]

If the President truly believes in conservation, rather than just use it as a ruse to further benefit wealthy energy conglomerates, he ought to call on Congress to raise fuel efficiency minimums and further subsidize energy efficient alternatives, such as hybrids.

But of course President Bush does not actually believe in conservation, or at least he does not believe in the type of conservation that would actually affect America's demand for oil. Instead, he opts for a halfhearted measure to compliment further drilling, which would have no effect on the short-term crunch and relatively little effect on the medium- and long-term problems. And account of this, America's security and independence in the future is actually lessened.

Perhaps we should have known better than to believe it when Michael Brown was forced out at FEMA.

CBS News' Gloria Borger is reporting tonight that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has rehired Brown, the former head of the agency who resigned in ignominy this month for overstating his qualifications and underperforming in relief efforts.

Borger writes that Brown will serve as "a consultant to evaluate it's response following Hurricane Katrina." So does this mean that his salary will be less than or greater that it was before he resigned?

[Update 5:18 PM Pacific]: The AP's Lara Jakes Jordan adds more to the story.

Brown is continuing to work at the Federal Emergency Management Agency at full pay, with his Sept. 12 resignation not taking effect for two more weeks, said Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke.

During that time, Brown will advise the department on "some of his views on his experience with Katrina," as he transitions out of his job, Knocke said.

Not too bad of a deal for "Brownie," though it's not entirely clear how much the American public benefits from him continuing to receive a full paycheck.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sold all shares in the company founded by his father at a time when company leaders were selling off $112 million of the stock -- right before dropped precipitously due to poor earnings. Now, as the AP's Larry Margasak reports, Frist has come out on record and stated that he did not engage in insider trading.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday he had no insider information when he sold stock this summer in HCA Inc., the hospital company founded by his father and brother. The Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission are looking into the sales.

[...]

Questions have been raised about whether Frist had special information before the sale because insiders in HCA also sold stock during the first half of the year — and the stock price dipped soon after Frist sold his stock.

"I had no information about HCA or its performance that was not publicly available when I directed the trustees to sell the stock," Frist said, referring to the sale by administrators of his blind trusts.

Frist, R-Tenn., said his only objective in divesting his blind trusts of the stock was to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Some critics have contended for years that Frist's holdings led to conflicts with his positions on health care legislation.

[...]

Frist has hired two private attorneys who specialize in securities litigation and insider trading cases: William McLucas, a former SEC enforcement director, and Harry Weiss, a former SEC attorney who was a co-author of a text titled "Preventing Insider Trading." Their representation of Frist was confirmed by their law firm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. The involvement of the firm was first reported in Monday's editions of The Wall Street Journal.

Even if it turns out that Frist's trades were completely above board -- and there's no reason to believe this isn't the case -- this lingering story is surely a drag on Frist's already faltering bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. It's unclear whether he'll be able to overcome this one.

Gannett's Ellyn Ferguson reports today that the Senate's oldest living member and soon to be longest serving Senator in U.S. history, Robert Byrd, could be just a day away from announcing that he will seek a ninth term in the upper chamber of Congress.

On Tuesday, Byrd, 87, is expected to announce just that when he takes center stage in the Lower Rotunda of the West Virginia Capitol building in Charleston.

Even critics who believe Byrd is at his most vulnerable point in the nearly 47 years since West Virginians first sent him to the Senate say they would be stunned if the stalwart Democrat decided not to run.

Among his Democratic and Republican colleagues, Byrd has built a reputation as an expert on the intricate rules of the Senate and a staunch defender of Congress and its constitutional powers.

"His life is the Senate," said Robin Capehart, chairman of the West Virginia Republican Party.

With Byrd leading his nearest challenger -- who might not even run -- by 16 points, it's going to be difficult for the Republicans to deny Byrd another term, even in the "red" state of West Virginia.

Out of Colorado comes news of a new candidate for the Democrats, a strong challenger who might actually be able to give a GOP incumbent a run for his money. Dan Haley has the story for The Denver Post.

Retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Jay Fawcett, a Democrat, will announce Tuesday that he'll run for Colorado's 5th Congressional District against Rep. Joel Hefley. (However, rumors continue to swirl, and not for the first time, that the 10-term congressman may retire.)

Although George W. Bush won the district with 66 percent of the vote in 2004, there's no reason to believe that the former Lt. Colonel can't at least make a race of it.

With Republican scandals quickly emerging in the media these days, Roll Call's Ben Pershing reports that House GOPers are desperately trying to get their voices out to their key supporters.

With their post-recess agenda scrambled and fissures exposed within their own conference, House Republican leaders will seek to shore up their conservative base this week with a multi-pronged message blitz.

Hoping to reverse their defensive stance of recent weeks, GOP leaders and key committee chairmen will make a series of appearances on talk radio, op-ed pages and in the blogosphere designed to reassure voters that they are staying true to their principles in a time of crisis.

[...]

[The debate over how to pay for reconstruction funding] has lent a powerful megaphone to the conservative Republican Study Committee, which has agitated for years in favor of reducing federal spending without receiving even a fraction of the attention it got last week.

That heavy dose of publicity has caused friction between the conservative group and the GOP leadership. After the RSC held a heavily publicized press conference Wednesday to tout a variety of potential spending offsets to pay for Katrina, the communications directors for the top four Republican leaders and a handful of key committees called in several RSC press aides to excoriate them.

Sources on both sides of the divide described the meeting as extremely heated.

"While completely agreeing with the need to find offsets, we felt that they weren't [giving the party] enough credit for reducing spending and we were afraid that they were setting up Republicans to look like we were not stewards of fiscal responsibility," said a leadership aide.

The leadership staffers also expressed worries that the entire party would be accused of endorsing all of the RSC's proposals, which included delaying the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug bill and other controversial suggestions.

The difficulty for House Republicans at this juncture is that they must pursue two completely opposite media strategies at the same time.

Republicans are fearful of losing the base by overspending and creating a massive deficit, so they must turn to talk radio and the blogs. At the same time, however, the party leadership is cognizant of the fact that if they let all Americans know of their desire to make massive spending cuts -- most notably to student loans, Medicaid and Medicare -- they run the risk of alienating a massive portion of the electorate.

The stakes could not be higher for the Republicans either, as President Bush's approval ratings dip to an all-time low just at the beginning of the campaign season. If the GOP is unable to balance these two message strategies, the next 14 could prove to be very difficult.

[Update 11:30 AM Pacific]: Apparently, the threatened cuts aren't just fodder for the base. CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) has the story.

Congressional leaders this week plan to ask their committee chairmen to “dig deeper” to find new spending cuts that could be used to defray some of the costs of recovery from Hurricane Katrina, according to a top Senate GOP aide.

[...]

Speaking at an industry conference, G. William Hoagland, senior budget adviser for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said “nobody knows” the final cost of the hurricanes.

But he said GOP leaders will send a letter this week asking committees to find additional savings through the budget reconciliation process above the $35 billion already targeted. A new target will not be provided, however, he said.

Several committees, especially in the Senate, already are finding it next to impossible to meet their existing spending-cut targets. How can they go further? “Gonna be tough,” Hoagland said. “Gonna be tough.”

Wyoming

As tough as it might be for a Republican like Mitt Romney to be successful in a "blue" state like Massachusetts, few politicians in the country have it as tough as Wyoming's Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal. And as the Associated Press reports, while Romney is strongly embracing his party (much to the chagrin of his constituents), Freudenthal is not.

State Democrats should distance themselves from liberal national party leaders whose agenda frequently differs from Wyoming, Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal told state party members at a meeting attended by a Democratic National Committee vice chairman.

Wyoming Democrats should instead focus on local issues that relate to Wyoming residents, Freudenthal told about 75 state Democrats Saturday night.

"This is a party that's not afraid of firearms," Freudenthal said. "It's a party where people are interested in whether the governor managed to shoot an antelope with one shot."

"I don't care about Howard Dean," he said, referring to the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

I'm not certain that it's a detriment to the party when a Democrat bashes Howard Dean in order to win in Wyoming.

Maryland

The Associated Press reports that the Democrats have lined up their top candidate to challenge Maryland's incumbent Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich.

The mayor of Baltimore is expected to announce his bid later this week for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich after spending several months considering a run for higher office.

Mayor Martin O'Malley's campaign said he would "make a major announcement concerning the future of Maryland and his political future" on Wednesday.

O'Malley, who was re-elected to a second term as mayor last year with 87 percent of the vote, has touted Baltimore's "comeback" during recent appearances throughout the state.

"I have enjoyed visiting each part of our great state, learning from the thousands of people that I have talked to, hearing people's concerns, thoughts and ideas for how Maryland can do better, and sharing the story of Baltimore's comeback with the state of Maryland," O'Malley said in statement.

Ehrlich is expected to run for a second term next year.

For those looking for clues as to how the 2008 Presidential campaign might play out, make sure to keep an eye on the governor races across the country in 2005 and 2006.

The scandal surrounding Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's sale of his family's company stock immediately before it tanked is heating up these days. In the latest development in the story, Reuters reports that the Chairman of the SEC, which is set to investigate Frist, has recused himself from the case.

Christopher Cox, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, said on Monday he has recused himself from an SEC probe of sales of stock in hospital company HCA Inc. by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a former congressional colleague of Cox.

"The staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission have commenced a review of sales of HCA stock by a blind trust established by the U.S. Senate Majority Leader," Cox said in a statement.

"Because of my service in the congressional leadership for the last 10 years, I have recused myself in this matter," he said.

Cox's campaign committee donated $1,000 to Frist's 2000 re-election campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records made available by PoliticalMoneyLine, a non-partisan group that tracks money in politics.

These are becoming some tough days to be a Republican...

The Los Angeles Times' team of Greg Krikorian and Christine Hanley reports on an elaborate scam involving a man claiming to have close ties to the Bush administration bilking millions out of unsuspecting rubes -- and it isn't even Jack Abramoff!

In May 2003, a dapper self-described financial strategist from Century City embarked on what he promised investors would be a riveting television series based on the newly created U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Saying his drama had the blessing of President Bush and others in Washington, D.C., Joseph M. Medawar quickly found plenty of backers for the show — one that he promised would be followed by a reality-based series titled "Fighting Terrorism Together."

One of Medawar's supporters was powerful California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.

Rohrabacher, who represents California's 46th Congressional District, acknowledged that he put Medawar in touch with at least five other members of Congress, including Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), who was then head of the White House's Homeland Security Advisory Council. Cox is now head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Rohrabacher said he and Cox dined with Medawar at a Washington restaurant to discuss the different agencies within the Homeland Security Department. Medawar and members of his production team made several return trips, and Rohrabacher helped get them access to representatives at several federal law enforcement agencies.

[...]

Rohrabacher received a $2,000 campaign donation from Medawar two years ago but said his assistance was not a political favor.

There is no reason to doubt Rohrabacher's claims that his help in this case was unrelated to Medawar's contributions, but this case reminds us of questions that clearly need to be asked. Given that this is not the first time someone has used close ties to the administration -- or perceived close ties to the administration -- to make millions of dollars, what is it about the culture of Washington today that would lead investors, businessmen and indeed Congressmen to believe such hucksters?

For quite some time, we've noted the likelihood that Massachusetts' Republican Governor Mitt Romney would forgo a bid for reelection in 2006. The reasoning holds that for Romney to win next year, he would have to move to the left -- thus alienating the right wing he needs to win the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008. What's more, Romney has little to gain even by winning; his cache as a conservative governor from a liberal state works as well as a single-termer as it does as a two-termer.

In Monday's paper, The Washington Post's David A. Fahrenthold provides some reporting that seems to buttress our theory.

For months, this blue-state governor has been pitching himself to conservatives in a way that campaign experts say is highly unusual -- perhaps even historic. Instead of talking about his home state with the usual lip-quivering pride, Romney uses it like a vaudeville comic would use his mother-in-law: as a laugh line.

[...]

The problem: Some people here in Massachusetts are not laughing. Political observers say Romney may have put himself in trouble for next year, when the "vegetarian convention" has another gubernatorial election scheduled.

[...]

Presidential campaign historians say they understand why Romney is doing it: He has to overcome the same "liberal Massachusetts" stereotype that has stymied previous Democratic presidential candidates such as Kerry and former Massachusetts governor Michael S. Dukakis.

But the same historians are hard-pressed to come up with any previous candidates who have tried the same tack.

Yanek Mieczkowski, a presidential historian at Dowling College in New York, said that Lyndon B. Johnson had to separate himself from racist elements in Texas, and Ronald Reagan did the same with the hippie fringe in California. Looking further back, there was Grover Cleveland, who in 1884 used the slogan "Grover the Good" to separate himself from the political corruption in his home state of New York.

With this playbook, it's no wonder that Romney's approval rating and reelect numbers are fairly underwhelming, even for a blue state conservative. But if he believes that these tactics will give him the inside track on the GOP nomination, he might have to think again, says Amy Sullivan of The Washington Monthly, who posits that Romney's Mormonism is a non-starter among Evangelicals. Whether or not Sullivan is correct, however, it's clear that residents of Massachusetts are getting a bit tired of Romney.

Frank van Overbeeke, a chef at Matt Murphy's Pub in Brookline, said he had a question for the governor after hearing what he'd said about Massachusetts.

"Well," van Overbeeke said, "what are you doing here?"

Maybe it's better that Romney is spending so much time in the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina after all...

The Los Angeles Times' Chuck Neubauer has receieved an advance copy of a report on the 13 most corrupt members of Congress and files this story:

A watchdog group, naming what it calls "the 13 most corrupt members of Congress," is calling for ethics investigations of some of the most prominent leaders on Capitol Hill in a report to be released Monday.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington says in its report that the 13 members, among them Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), might have violated a variety of congressional ethics rules.

The bipartisan list includes three Californians: Reps. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy), Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe).

Cunningham is one of two House members whose residences have been searched as part of separate federal criminal investigations. The other, Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), also is named on the watchdog group's list.

Three of those named on the list — Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) — were cited for their dealings with onetime super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is the subject of congressional and federal grand jury investigations. Abramoff was indicted last month on fraud charges relating to a Florida business deal. He has pleaded not guilty.

The remainder of the group is entirely Republican, and includes:

• Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
  
• Rep. Charles H. Taylor (R-NC)
  
• Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-CO)
  
• Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)

Is your Represenatative or Senator on this list? If you answered yes, should he or she remain in Congress?

Just a reminder to please visit our sponsors. By doing so, you help support this blog.

• The Moderate Voice
  
• The National Summit to Save Our Elections

If you'd like to buy an ad on Basie!, click here.

You can also support Basie! by making your DVD, music, book and electronics purchases through our Amazon link.

With the President's first nominee to the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, likely headed for confirmation, The New York Times' David D. Kirkpatrick reports that Republican Senators -- conservatives and moderates alike -- say they won't go nearly as easy on Bush's next nominee.

Now, both socially conservative and more liberal Republican senators say they may vote against confirmation of the next nominee if the pick leans too far to the left or the right on prominent issues like abortion rights.

Any Republican defection could provide cover for Democrats who want to oppose confirmation, protecting them politically in Republican-leaning states. Democrats have vowed to dig in for a tough fight over the nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor because she was a pivotal swing vote on the court.

"It is going to be different," said Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who is socially liberal and has said he will vote to confirm Judge Roberts.

Mr. Chafee said he would apply a more skeptical standard to the next nominee because of the balance of the court and might even oppose a jurist similar to Judge Roberts. "I will be looking very carefully" at the next nominee's views on privacy rights, "separation of church and state," and the scope of federal power, he said.

[...]

On the conservative side of the party, [Kansas Senator Sam] Brownback and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, another member of the Judiciary Committee, devoted much of their time for questioning Judge Roberts to delivering messages to the White House about the importance of overturning precedents supporting abortion rights.

Although Roberts is likely to be a vote for social conservatives on a wide range of issues, it's not clear that he is as intent on actively overturning precedent as many on the religious right would have hoped.

If President Bush nominates another Roberts -- essentially a corporate conservative who shares some affinity with the social right -- it indeed would not be surprising to see someone like Brownback withhold support. And just the same, if President Bush nominates another Roberts, who seems to stand to the right of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on social issues (even if only slightly), it's not clear that Chafee can politically afford to offer support.

So who can President Bush safely choose? Maybe he should just listen to Senate Judiciary Chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) who recently suggested that O'Connor stay on the Court an extra year, thus deferring the battle over her replacement.

There's a lot happening in politics today, and for debate on it tomorrow...

CBS' "Face the Nation" — Texas Gov. Rick Perry; Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen, director of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts; Max Mayfield, director, National Hurricane Center.

ABC's "This Week" — Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-T) and John McCain (R-AZ); Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist; David Gergen, former presidential adviser.

NBC's "Meet the Press" — Federal, state and local officials on hurricane recovery efforts; David Brooks, Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman, New York Times Columnists

CNN's "Late Edition" — Allen; Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and John Cornyn (R-TX); American Red Cross President Marty Evans; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; American Petroleum Institute President Red Cavaney.

"Fox News Sunday" — Vitter and Cornyn; golfers Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player.

A number of Oregon Democrats, unhappy with Governor Ted Kulongoski, are looking long and hard for an another candidate. According to The Oregonian's Harry Esteve, they just might have found their ideal challenger.

John Kitzhaber left politics nearly four years ago with a bad case of burnout and troubling questions about government's inability to solve problems.

Now the former governor is back -- pressing for national health care reform and listening politely to suitors testing a "draft Kitzhaber" movement in the upcoming governor's race. It would mean taking on incumbent Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski, whom Kitzhaber supported in 2002.

"There have been people talking to me about it -- unsolicited," Kitzhaber said Friday, after speaking to a national committee studying health care.

But, he added: "It would take an awful lot to make me believe that I could do more good for the world Logan (his 7-year-old son) will inherit with another four years as governor rather than with what I'm doing privately."

While many Democratic activists in Oregon revere Kitzhaber to the point that they would risk splintering the state party to renominate him, they might be wise to take at least one point into account.

In 2002, the Democrats' best shot at defeating GOP Senator Gordon Smith (it's far easier to beat a freshman than someone who has served two or more terms), Kitzhaber led many to believe that he would challenge the Republican. However, Kitzhaber waited until the very last minute to pass up the race, leaving Secretary of State Bill Bradbury scant time to raise the requisite funds to mount a successful race. Smith more than doubled Bradbury's spending and defeated the Democrat by more than 15 points.

In short, although Kitzhaber might be more liberal than Kulongoski, Kitzhaber is not nearly the team player that Kulongoski is. And with the Democratic Party on the verge of retaking the State House next year and extending it's lead in the State Senate, would they truly be best served to nominate someone who hasn't always proved to be a team player?

Earlier this week, when it emerged that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) sold shares in his family's company right before the stock tanked, we wondered whether this was a real story, or just the appearance of a story. As more facts come out, such as those reported this morning by the AP's Jonathan M. Katz and Larry Margasak, it increasingly looks like this story could be a major liability for the GOP leader.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was updated several times about his investments in blind trusts during 2002, the last time two weeks before he publicly denied any knowledge of what was in the accounts, documents show.

The updates included stock transactions involving HCA Inc., the hospital operating company founded by Frist's family.

Frist's sale of HCA stock is under scrutiny by the federal government. Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA said Friday it had received a subpoena from prosecutors for the Southern District of New York, asking for documents the company believes are related to Frist's sale of company stock this past summer.

[...]

Frist sold his HCA stock from several blind trusts this summer, at a time when insiders in the company also were selling off shares worth $112 million from January through June. Frist aides say he sold his stock to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

Again, even if Frist did not commit insider trading -- and there is no indication that he has -- this is nevertheless becoming yet another drag on the Republican Party at a time when its top leader, President Bush, sees his approval rating falling to its lowest level ever. Maybe the President is now having second thoughts about installing Frist after forcing Trent Lott out of the position.