To support this site, please make your purchases through my Amazon link.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

The Government Wasn't Prepared for Katrina

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.

How to Help Out

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

Kulongoski Squares off Against Bush Admin.

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.

Campaign 2006: A Rep. Who Wants to be the Gov.

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...

Nelson Lead Over Harris Jumps 12 Points in 2 Mos.

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.

Quote of the Day

"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.

Oy Vey

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.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Bush Approval Lowest Point Ever in WaPo/ABC Poll

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.

Pat Buchanan: GOP Should Move to Impeach Bush

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.

Those Left Out by the Economic Growth

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?

An End to Likud?

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?

Trouble for Fletcher Might Not be Over

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.

Monday, August 29, 2005

Bush Back on the Social Security Bandwagon

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."

VA Dems Lose Out on Top Senate Challenger

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.

KY Gov. Fletcher Pardons Associates

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).

Dems Get Their Recruit in MO-Sen Race

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).

Kulongoski Plan to Improve Oregon's Air

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.

Wyden Speaks Out on Iraq

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.

Novak Discounts GOP Senate Chances in 2006

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.

Wesley Clark Blogging at TPM Cafe

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 Culture Wars Reach the Coffee Wars

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.

Campaign 2006: The Governors

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.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

A Prayer for New Orleans

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

Could the Abramoff Probe Reach the Administration?

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.

For Congressional GOP, Time to Follow Through on Cuts

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:

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.

Local GOP in AZ Not So Keen on McCain

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?

Back to School

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...

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Where's the Talk About Social Security?

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.

Chafee to Face Fierce Primary Challenge

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.

Friday, August 26, 2005

Judge's Ruling Could Supercede BRAC

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.

Thune, Bingaman Saved By BRAC

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.

Gallup: Bush Approval at Lowest Point Ever

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%.

Oil Watch: What to Expect Next

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.

Iraq, and its Implications Back Home

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.

Is Bush Becoming a Liability for GOPers?

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.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

The Duke-Stir Back in the News

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.

Rising Gas Prices Could Hurt GOP

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.

America's Plan for Energy Independence

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.

Santorum Can't Find Proof to Back Up Claims

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."

White House: Bush Isn't on Vacation

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."

Schwarzenegger's Approval at 34%

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.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Quote of the Day

"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.

Kulongoski Poised for Reelection?

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:

In head-to-head matchups,
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.

Campaign 2006: 'Round the Horn

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."

Bush Approval Falls 5 Points in Two Months

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.

The Next Watchable Cable News Show

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.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

More Troops to Iraq

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.

Bush's New Fuel Standards Won't Touch Hummers

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.

Texas Watch

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.

Campaign 2006: The South

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.

A Religious Tinge to American Policy

Rev. Pat Robertson, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, is once again trying to make his voice heard within American politics. Sue Lindsey has the story for the AP.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has suggested that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

An official of a theological watchdog group on Tuesday criticized Robertson's statement as "chilling."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
What would have been the response had a liberal pundit made such outlandish comments?

Gaza Withdrawal Complete

In June of 1967, with its neighbors Syria and Egypt poised to attack, Israel launched a secretive preemptive attack on the two countries. When Jordan entered in the skirmish, Israel turned its might against its eastern neighbor.

When the dust settled after this Six Day War, Israel had doubled in size, controlling the Golan Heights in the North, Gaza and Sinai to the West, and the West Bank and a unified Jerusalem to the East.

After Israel's near-defeat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the country began to show a willingness to trade land conquered in the 1967 war for peace -- at the same time as creating new cities on the conquered land.

By the early 1980s, the entire Sinai Peninsula -- with Israel's only domestic source of oil -- had been given back in full to Egypt in return for peace. The later peace with Jordan rested on similar laurels. And now, despite cynics claims that it would never happen, the AP's Ravi Nessman reports that Israel has evacuated the Gaza Strip in full.

Israeli soldiers cleared two militant strongholds Tuesday without major violence, completing the country's historic evacuation of 25 settlements in the Gaza Strip and West Bank — the first time Israel has abandoned Jewish communities in lands the Palestinians claim for their future state.

About 6,000 troops — armed with riot gear, circular saws, water hoses and wirecutters — were mobilized to overwhelm the last stand against the pullout in the West Bank settlements of Sanur and Homesh. The resistance was staged largely by 1,600 Israelis who didn't even live there — some of them youths known for their extremism and rejection of the Israeli government's authority.

But security officials' fears of armed violence didn't materialize, and the military declared the evacuation of the two settlements over just nine hours after troops stormed them.

Residents of the other two West Bank settlements slated for removal, Ganim and Kadim, had already left on their own. Military bulldozers Tuesday knocked down all the structures in Kadim, and were razing buildings in Ganim — the first demolitions in a West Bank settlement.

Israel is destroying the homes to prevent Jewish extremists from returning there. The military fears that if left standing, these settlements could also become flashpoints of violence between settlers and Palestinians living in the area.
Cautious optimism.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Weld in Difficult Position on Gay Marriage

Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, a Republican who challenged Senator John Kerry in 1996, hopes to become one of the few men to lead multiple states by winning the New York gubernatorial race next year. Already, though, the moderate GOPer is being placed in a tough situation on the issue of gay marriage. The Washington Times' Greg Pierce passes on the story that originally ran in The New York Post.

William F. Weld, the former Massachusetts governor who is seeking the Republican gubernatorial nomination in New York, "is refusing to take a position on the highly controversial 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalizing same-sex marriages -- even though he once enthusiastically supported it," the New York Post's Fredric U. Dicker writes.

"Weld -- who, as Massachusetts governor, appointed the judge who wrote the 4-3 gay-marriage decision -- at first told the Post that he'd 'rather take more time' to review the ruling before saying if he thought it was legally right or wrong," Mr. Dicker said.

"But then he conceded that he had already 'read both sides' of the decision -- and concluded that both of them 'were brilliant.'

"Pressed to say which side was the legally correct one, the one-time federal prosecutor said, 'I'm not going to give you any free legal advice.'

"However, in a Nov. 27, 2003, Associated Press report headlined 'Former Mass. governor supports gay-marriage ruling,' Weld was described as having 'hailed' the decision.'"
Inside the Beltway pundits have spent countless hours opining that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the South and other areas of the country, at least partly on account of its stance on the issue of gay marriage. This story clearly shows that there are two sides to the issue.

Increasingly, Republicans are alienating voters throughout coastal America (both the East and West Coasts) because of their doctrinaire positions on social issues. While some GOP politicians have been able to walk the tightrope on abortion, gay marriage, and other such issues, such a task is becoming increasingly difficult. The anemic approval ratings of "blue state" Republican Governors like New York's George Pataki, California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, Massachusetts' Mitt Romney, and even Ohio's Bob Taft are a testament to this fact.

2006 could prove to be a turning point for these regions, just as 1994 was for the South. Voters could very well send the signal that no longer will politicians like Weld and others be allowed to obfuscate on social issues -- they must either moderate and risk offending (and losing) the conservative base, or stay to the right and lose the region for a generation.

The Campaign for the Senate

Ever since Democrat Paul Hackett's near-victory in the Ohio-2 special election earlier this month, we have speculated about the possibility that the Iraq War veteran would run for the United States Senate. On Saturday, The Cincinnati Post's Michael Collins discussed that precise possibility.

Democrats have yet to find a candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Mike DeWine next year. But one name that has been coming up a lot lately is Paul Hackett.

The tough talkin' Iraq war veteran who came close to pulling off an upset in southwest Ohio's special congressional election earlier this month has been discussing the Senate race with party leaders and is seriously considering jumping in, a Washington insider says.

So far, the talks have amounted to nothing more than a few phone conversations. But Democrats may try to bring Hackett to D.C. after Congress returns from its August recess to talk about the race some more, the source said.

[...]

"He's a take-it-like-it-is kind of guy,'' Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Phil Singer said of Hackett. "He ran a strong race, and he'd be a strong candidate. And given the fact that both Republicans and Democrats are now saying they want Mike DeWine out of the Senate underscores the degree to which people are unhappy with the job DeWine is doing in Washington.''
Democrats also see an opportunity to pick up another Senate seat in the Midwest, though five years from now. Bob Novak writes about the situation in South Dakota in today's Chicago Sun-Times.

The Base Realignment and Closure Commission will have finished its work by week's end, and Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota probably will be closed forever. That also will close Sen. John Thune's tenure as national Republican poster boy following his victory last year over Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. This is a cautionary tale of what happens when politicians forget politics.

President Bill Clinton saved Ellsworth for Daschle during the last BRAC process in 1995, but President Bush was detached in 2005. The resulting closure demolishes Thune's home-state prestige and threatens Republican domination of western South Dakota (where Ellsworth is located) by eliminating 6,000 civilian jobs. Local political setbacks may be reversed, but damage to Thune as a national fund-raiser and candidate-recruiter seems irrevocable. He has been transformed from regular to maverick. Bush might ask himself: Is closing one air base worth this?

[...]

While Thune's conservatism was more in tune with South Dakota than Daschle's liberalism, the Democratic floor leader argued he could do more for the state. Campaigner Daschle told how in 1995 the Air Force marked Ellsworth for closure and he went to Clinton. The president telephoned the Pentagon to take Ellsworth off the list before it reached the BRAC.

Thune tried the same thing this year, but Bush withheld himself from the process. The new senator talked to Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Bush political adviser Karl Rove and Cheney aide Scooter Libby. But the same people who could not do enough for candidate Thune could do nothing for Sen. Thune. The Air Force, still smarting from Clinton's intervention, made the Ellsworth closing stick this time.
As we discussed a few months ago, failure to save a military base from cuts could severely hamper many Senators' and Congressmen's chances at reelection -- even if their next race doesn't occur for five more years. If Bob Novak is concerned about Thune's prospects, maybe it's time for South Dakota's Democrats to begin laying the groundwork to avenge Tom Daschle's loss come 2010.

Bush Approval Tanks, Falls to 36%

President Bush's approval rating has hovered in the low 40s for the past few months, nearing a fall into the 30s -- a la Jimmy Carter -- but never quite passing the threshold of 40 percent. But as the American Research Group reports, records are made to be broken.

George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 38% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 56% disapprove, and 36% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 60% disapprove.

[...]

Among Republicans (35% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 77% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 18% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 15% approve and 81% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 21% approve and 72% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.
In addition to the fact that the President's approval rating has fallen six points in a month and has dipped into the 30s, two other interesting facts emerge from the polling.

President Bush is losing some support from his base. Seventy seven percent approval among Republicans is impressive, but it's still more than 10 points less than it was just a few months ago.

More importantly, independents' views of Bush are nearly identical to those of the Democrats. While this does not necessarily imply a major shift underway in America, should independents continue to share political leanings with Democrats -- especially through next fall's elections -- the Republicans could find it increasingly difficult to maintain their Congressional majorities.

Romney in Some Serious Trouble

At no point since Governor Mitt Romney began running for President have I believed that the Massachusetts Republican would run for a second term. Simply put, in order to garner the GOP nomination, he would have to move much too far to the right for the liberal Massachusetts electorate. As Frank Phillips reports for The Boston Globe, this exact situation is playing out.

Governor Mitt Romney's conservative stance on social issues is causing political trouble for him in Massachusetts, where a 60 percent majority of adults surveyed in a Boston Globe poll say they oppose his veto of an emergency contraception bill and 39 percent say they are less likely to vote for him because of his opposition to abortion.

As Romney weighs whether to forgo a reelection bid to prepare a run for president in 2008, the poll found that his chief Democratic rival for the governor's office, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, has continued to hold his lead over Romney. Reilly leads Romney by 51 to 38 percent in a matchup for a potential 2006 governor's race. In March, Reilly led 48 to 41 percent.

The survey of 503 adults, completed last week, found that 41 percent said Romney has accomplished little as governor, posing a challenge if he tries to promote himself on the presidential trail as an effective chief executive and political leader. Only 16 percent said he has accomplished ''a lot" and another 34 percent think he has been blocked by the Legislature.

The portion of adults who think he should be reelected remains at a precariously low level, with 30 percent saying he should be given a second term, and 51 percent saying someone else should be elected. That is statistically the same finding as in a Globe poll in March.
Does anyone still believe he will run for reelection?

Server Issues

The images on this site are unavailable these days due to some server issues. My IT people -- that is the IT people at Pomona College, where the images are hosted -- are working on the issue, and I have been informed that they hope to be done soon. My apologies for the inconvenience.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Arizona Senate Race Heating Up

In the latest Democratic poll out of Arizona, potential Democratic candidate Jim Pederson has cut Republican Senator Jon Kyl's lead by 14 points since April. The numbers play out as follows:

Kyl (R) -- 44 (46)
Pederson (D) -- 29 (17)
29 is not exactly where Pederson would like to be at this point, but 44 is not a terrific position for an incumbent either.

SurveyUSA Polls the Senators

SurveyUSA this week released data showing the approval ratings of all 100 Senators. Interesting information among the mix, as it pertains to campaign 2006:

Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) are both under 50% as well, but both have net approvals above 15 points. Nevertheless, neither is completely in the clear. Kyl faces a well-funded challenger in Jim Pederson, the moderate former state Democratic Party chair. Nelson most likely will face Rep. Katherine Harris as MSNBC Host/former Rep. Joe Scarborough recently bowed out of contention for the GOP nomination.

GOP Governors in Hot Water

Last week, Ohio's Republican Governor Bob Taft became the state's first sitting governor to be charged with a crime. As Sandy Theis and T.C. Brown report for The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Taft just reached a new milestone -- by being convicted.

Amid whispers of impeachment and shouts for his resignation, Gov. Bob Taft issued a somber apology Thursday and a pledge to finish his term after becoming Ohio's first sitting governor convicted of a crime.

"There are no words to express the deep remorse that I feel over the embarrassment that I have caused for my administration and the people of the state of Ohio," Taft said, his voice cracking.

"I take total responsibility for my mistake, and I'm sorry."

Taft's comments came moments after a Franklin County judge fined him $4,000 -- the maximum financial penalty -- and found him guilty of four misdemeanors for breaking state ethics laws by failing to report golf outings, meals, hockey tickets and other gifts from some of the state's most influential business and political leaders.

The list includes one round of golf, a sweater and golf figurines from tainted rare-coin dealer Tom Noe.
Taft isn't the only Republican Governor taking heat these days. As The Louisville Courier-Journal's Tom Loftus reports, Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, a Republican, is being bashed for alleged corruption and malfeasance these days.

Top Fletcher administration officials formalized "a corrupt political machine" earlier this year to circumvent state civil service law and give more jobs to their supporters, according to a court filing.

The filing yesterday by the state attorney general's office also said the administration put people into all nine state cabinets to act as "eyes and ears" on personnel matters so the secretaries could handle other business.

And citing a statement allegedly made by acting Transportation Secretary Bill Nighbert, it said Gov. Ernie Fletcher ordered the firing of Mike Duncan, the cabinet's deputy inspector general, because Duncan had supported Fletcher's 2003 election opponent.

[...]

Nine current or former Fletcher administration officials have been indicted by a special grand jury, including Nighbert and two other Transportation Cabinet officials who were indicted on three misdemeanor counts each involving Duncan's firing.
If there has ever been an opportunity for one party to run on the sheer nation-wide corruption of the other, this is it. Whether it's Tom DeLay, Bob Taft, Ernie Fletcher or others, Republicans across the country have shown a stunning disrespect for laws aimed at curbing the secret influence of powerful interests into politics. In order to win in 2006, the Democrats must make this a front and center issue in every state and district.

Change can occur in this country, but it must be fostered by effective campaigning. This means no more lollygagging by the Democrats; no more flailing about with 72-bullet-point-presentations. Boil it down to a handful of issues -- Republican corruption obviously included -- and victory could be at hand come next November.

Quote of the Day

"We are seen as occupiers, we are targets. We have got to get out. I don't think we can sustain our current policy, nor do I think we should."

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam veteran, on the situation in Iraq
Link.

I'm Back in Civilization

The last three days of rafting on the Rogue River in Southern Oregon and driving on Interstate-5 have been lovely, but it's great to be back in the land of internet access. Thanks for continuing to visit the site even as I was away, and please make sure to come back now that I'm back blogging away. For now, here goes...

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Heading Down South

Well, I'm about to head out in the direction of California for my last year at Pomona College in Claremont. The trip will last about three days -- including a break in the middle to go rafting on the Rogue River in Southern Oregon.

Suffice to say I will not be able to post until then (the longest break in posting since the first month of my blog -- I even posted while I was in Communist China in December!). I do hope you'll forgive me for my absence.

Feel free to post thoughts and comments in this thread, though it's not necessary. Also, please visit my sponsor at The Moderate Voice. It's a great blog that's updated as frequently as Basie!

Thanks again for visiting Basie! I'll talk to you again on Sunday.

Kulongoski to Seek Second Term

Oregon's Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski will seek a second term next fall, reports The Oregonian's Harry Esteve.

Buoyed by what he considers a successful legislative session, Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski told a gathering of his state agency heads that he will run for a second term.

The announcement, made Tuesday night during a party in the governor's ceremonial office in Salem, was the first definitive statement by Kulongoski on his future political plans.

It was greeted with loud applause by those in the room, but with derision by candidates from both parties waiting to run against him.

Col. Mike Caldwell, deputy director of the Oregon National Guard, said Kulongoski and his staff hosted a party for agency directors to thank them for their work during the nearly eight-month session, which ended Aug. 5. After mingling, Kulongoski gave a short speech.

"He said he feels good about the progress he made" and listed a number of accomplishments, said Caldwell, who was among the invitees. "It was kind of a crescendo, and then he said 'And that's why I'm telling you right now that I'm running for another term."

The room broke out in cheers, Caldwell said. "That was music to their ears. I'm pleased he's running again. He's been good for the Guard."
For more, read our interview with Kulongoski from the spring.

GOPers to Hold Fundraiser for Indicted DeLay Associates

The criminal charges against Tom DeLay associates Jim Ellis and John Colyandro for laundering money in Texas legislative races are moving forward these days. Unsurprisingly, it takes a large amount of money to pay for legal defense in such cases. Where does such money come from? The Hill's Patrick O'Connor reports on one of the largest sources.

The indictment last week of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an unrelated ruling against one of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) fundraising arms have brought ethical questions back into focus as members enjoy the last three weeks of August recess.

When Congress returns, House Republicans are bracing themselves for another round of negative stories now that Florida authorities have indicted Abramoff.

But Republican stalwarts continue to demonstrate their support for DeLay and his associates, despite their legal troubles. Republicans have scheduled a golf tournament next Wednesday to benefit a legal defense fund set up for DeLay fundraisers Jim Ellis and John Colyandro, both of whom have been indicted on money-laundering charges.

The golf event and luncheon are scheduled for Aug. 24 at the Springfield Golf and Country Club in Springfield, Va. Mark Valente III, a Washington-based lobbyist, helped organize the event and sent out the invitations.

[...]

The invitation for next week’s event was sent with a one-page description of the fund as well as a letter from Donald McGahn, general counsel to the National Republican Congressional Committee, stating that it was technically correct for the fund to accept donations from political action committees.

Thirteen House members had contributed $41,000 to Ellis’s defense fund as of the latest filing period, including $10,000 by Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and $5,000 by Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), according to politicalmoneyline.com.

The fund is a private, non-charitable trust, so it is otherwise not required to disclose contributions or expenditures.
Between this story and the news that Governor Bob Taft (R-OH) will face four criminal charges, today is a crystal clear sign of unrestrained Republican control of this country. And if the Democrats are unable to articulate such a message over the next fifteen months, they probably don't deserve to retake Congress.

Taft to Face Four Criminal Misdemeanor Charges

Just hours ago we wondered whether Ohio's Republican Governor Bob Taft -- great great grandson of Secretary of War Alphonso Taft, great grandson of President William Howard Taft, grandson of Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft, and son of Senator Robert Taft, Jr. -- would be charged criminally today. Well, the AP's Andrew Welsch-Huggins reports that Taft will indeed be charged.

Gov. Bob Taft, who pushed for high ethical standards in his office, will face four criminal misdemeanor charges for not reporting golf outings and other events paid for by others, deepening a scandal that has rocked Ohio's Republican Party.

Taft, a member of a distinguished U.S. political family, would be the first governor in Ohio history to be charged with a crime. If convicted, he could be fined $1,000 and sentenced to six months in jail on each count, though time behind bars was considered unlikely.

Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said the charges relate to annual financial disclosure statements Taft filed from 2002 to 2005. Prosecutors said they had met with Taft's lawyer and expected the governor to appear in court Thursday.

Taft will respond publicly on Thursday and is not planning to resign, spokesman Mark Rickel said.
Cue the Dragnet theme (dum, duh, dum dum...).

Reagan Library Loses Roberts Documents

R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker have the fairly important story that is relegated to page four of today's issue of The Washington Post.

A file folder containing papers from Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s work on affirmative action more than 20 years ago disappeared from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library after its review by two lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department in July, according to officials at the library and the National Archives and Records Administration.

Archivists said the lawyers returned the file but it now cannot be located. No duplicates of the folder's contents were made before the lawyers' review. Although one of the lawyers has assisted in the Archives' attempt to reconstruct its contents from other files, officials have no way of independently verifying their effort was successful.

It is rare for the Archives to lose documents in its care and the agency has requested an investigation by its inspector general, said Sharon Fawcett, the assistant archivist for presidential libraries.
When Sandy Berger apparently "lost" documents in the course of the 9/11 investigation, the right screamed treason and all but called for Berger's head. What's more, they claimed it was indicative of the callousness of the Clinton administration. So what, prey tell, does the loss of these Roberts documents mean?

Will Ohio Gov. Bob Taft Be Indicted Today?

The Toledo Blade's fantastic team of James Drew and Steve Eder report today on the possibility that Ohio's Republican Governor Robert Taft could be charged criminally.

Gov. Bob Taft could learn today whether he will face criminal charges for violating Ohio law by failing to report roughly 50 golf outings and other gifts on his ethics forms, Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien said yesterday.

Mr. O’Brien said prosecutors will meet today to review a report from the Ohio Ethics Commission identifying about 50 occasions when Mr. Taft might have broken the law, and they will “report what, if any, charges” are appropriate against the governor as early as today.
If prosecutors find wrongdoing, Mr. Taft would become Ohio’s first governor to be criminally charged.

Franklin County and Columbus city prosecutors yesterday received a hand-delivered report from the Ethics Commission, which last week concluded a two-month investigation into the governor’s alleged infractions. The inch-and-a-half thick investigative report includes a six-page letter summarizing the commission’s findings.

[...]

Mr. O’Brien, a Republican, said he and David Buchman, chief of his white-collar crime section, plan to meet today with Columbus City Attorney Richard Pfeiffer, a Democrat, and Lara Baker, his chief legal counsel, to review the investigative report.

They plan to determine if misdemeanor charges are in order, how many would be filed, and whether a plea agreement would be considered. Mr. Pfeiffer would handle any charges brought against the governor.

State law requires officeholders to list each source of gifts over $75. It is a first-degree misdemeanor to knowingly file a false ethics form, with a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.
Is there anyone who actually believes this won't open up a handful of Congressional races in Ohio, not to mention next year's Senatorial? That this won't hurt Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's shot at becoming Governor next year?

Bush Approval Sinks Across the Nation

Tough news for President in a couple sets of polls released today. To begin, Rasmussen Reports finds the President's approval rating at it's lowest point since the beginning of the daily tracking poll.

President Bush's Approval Rating has tumbled five points over the past week to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.

Just 43% of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

The President's Approval Rating has fallen to 47% among those who are married. Just 38% of unmarried respondents give the President their approval. Forty-six percent (46%) of Investors Approve along with 41% of non-Investors.
SurveyUSA went ahead and polled the President in every state -- as they have done in the past -- and finds that the George W. Bush's overall approval rating stands at 41-55. Looking at a few key states...

Your state?

Quote of the Day

"Every candidate has a pre-debate ritual. Mine is to check into the emergency room."

-- U.S. Rep./NYC mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner, on being hospitalized for kidney stones yesterday morning before the Democratic debate.
Link.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Will the Dems Fight John Roberts?

First The Washington Post reports that Senate Democrats would forgo waging out and out battle against the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts. Now a day later, Democratic spinmeisters changed their message, which they then passed on to The New York Times' David D. Kirkpatrick.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday night sharply escalated their resistance to the president's Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts Jr., with Senator Patrick J. Leahy saying that as a young lawyer he worked aggressively for "policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party."

Mr. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that recently released documents from Judge Roberts's work for the Reagan administration showed that "he expressed views that were among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy and access to justice."

Another Democratic committee member, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, said Judge Roberts was "on or beyond the outer fringe of that extreme group."

Mr. Kennedy also stepped up the Democrats' clash with the White House over access to documents from Judge Roberts's later work for the first Bush administration. In an open letter that appeared to speak on behalf of all the committee's Democrats, an unusual gesture for someone other than the ranking party member, Mr. Kennedy said, "Committee Democrats are united and strong in our determination to reserve decision until we can obtain and question him about the more recent documents."

The statements were a stark contrast to the Democrats' previously noncommittal comments and suggested a possible turning point.
Perhaps the Democrats don't want to give a doctrinaire conservative a free pass to the Supreme Court -- for three decades or more. A turning point indeed!

Sen. DeWine Gets Primary Challenge on the Right

It happened. Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) -- a moderate on issues like gun control and the environment and a member of the Gang of 14 that blocked the nuclear option -- has just drawn a primary challenger from the right. The Dayton Business Journal has the story.

Former AK Steel Corp. President John Hritz plans to challenge U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, for the Senate seat he has held for a decade.

Hritz said he has formed an exploratory committee to look into the feasibility of running against DeWine, who is from Cedarville, for the Republican nomination in the primary election in May 2006, according to a press release Tuesday.

Hritz had resigned as AK Steel president along with then Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Wardrop Jr. Both men resigned by mutual agreement with the Middletown-based steelmaker's board of directors. After suing AK Steel (NYSE:AKS) seeking payment for his retirement and severance packages, Hritz and the company settled the lawsuit in March 2004.

Hritz is now president and CEO of Nashville-based Sentrinex Ltd., a firm that helps corporations develop safety measures.
Does this mean that CQ should move the DeWine race from "Republican Favored" to "Leans Republican"?

A Gaze at the Senate

With our mind on the Senate, there are a couple of interesting articles out today that deal with America's own House of Lords. To begin with, The Tennessean's team of Ana Radelat and Mike Madden review former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's new book, Herding Cats.

Sen. Trent Lott accuses Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of betraying him during a GOP revolt in a new, tell-all biography that expresses little remorse for the racially tinged remarks that led to Lott's loss of power and Frist's ascension.

In Herding Cats: A Life in Politics, available in bookstores Aug. 23, the Mississippi Republican blames the media and a handful of his GOP colleagues for the loss of his Senate leadership job in December 2002.

Frist, a Tennessee Republican who replaced Lott as the GOP leader, comes off as traitorous. The book generally divides other Republicans into either heroes or villains, depending on whether Lott saw them as allies or enemies during his downfall.

"I consider Frist's power grab a personal betrayal," the book says. "When he entered the Senate in 1995, I had taken him under my wing. ... He was my protege and I helped him get plum assignments and committee positions."
It seems there is little love lost between the junior Senator from Mississippi and the senior Senator for Tennessee.

In campaign 2006 news, the Democrats might be on the verge of losing a potential candidate in the Ohio Senate race. The Youngstown Vindicator's Davd Skolnick reports.

[U.S. Rep. Tim] Ryan said he is leaning against running next year for the U.S. Senate.

Ryan said Senate Democratic leaders such as Minority Leader Harry Reid, and U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, are urging him to challenge U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent, in next year's election.

Ryan said he'll make a decision around Labor Day.

"In the Senate, you can do more," he said. "It's like this area hitting the lottery. That part is good, very good. The downside is it would be a brutal 14 months."

Two other key issues are money and giving up his current position, he said. Ryan said he'd need $12 million for the race. Also, he couldn't run for a third term to the House if he got into the Senate race.

"The difficult part is it's risky," he said. "But it's never easy to tell Schumer and Reid, 'I don't know.' They wanted me in the race last week."
Does this mean that Paul Hackett will be one step closer to a Senate run?

Congressional Quarterly Rates the Senate Races

In the August 15 issue of CQ Weekly, the magazine takes a look at where the race to control the Senate in 2006 stands today.

No Clear Favorite

Minnesota -- Mark Dayton, D (Open seat)
Pennsylvania -- Rick Santorum, R


Leans Republican

Missouri -- Jim Talent, R
Montana -- Conrad Burns, R
Rhode Island -- Lincoln Chafee, R
Tennessee -- Bill Frist, R (Open seat)


Leans Democrat

Florida -- Bill Nelson, D
Maryland -- Paul Sarbanes, D (Open seat)
Nebraska -- Ben Nelson, D
New Jersey -- Jon Corzine, D
North Dakota -- Kent Conrad, D
Vermont -- Jim Jeffords, I (Open seat)
Washington -- Maria Cantwell, D


Republican Favored

Arizona -- Jon Kyl, R
Maine -- Olympia Snowe, R
Nevada -- John Ensign, R
Ohio -- Mike DeWine, R
Virginia -- George Allen, R


Democrat Favored

Michigan -- Debbie Stabenow, D
New Mexico -- Jeff Bingaman, D
New York -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, D
West Virginia -- Robert Byrd, D


Safe Republican

Indiana -- Dick Lugar, R
Mississippi -- Trent Lott, R
Texas -- Kay Bailey Hutchison, R
Utah -- Orrin Hatch, R
Wyoming -- Craig Thomas, R


Safe Democrat

California -- Dianne Feinstein, D
Connecticut -- Joe Lieberman, D
Deleware -- Tom Carper, D
Hawaii -- Daniel Akaka, D
Massachusetts -- Ted Kennedy, D
Wisconsin -- Herb Kohl, D
Not too many surprises here. It jives pretty well with my predictions from last week.

Cook: Situation for Bush is Bad and Worsening

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 lays out a number of problems currently facing the Bush administration and the Republican Party. They include the deterioration of the situation in Iraq, the pending investigation into GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff (and his possible ties to Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Conrad Burns and others), the failure of Bush's Social Security and Tax Reform plans, and the special election this month in Ohio. Cook writes,

Arguably, some of the problems previously discussed can be lumped together in a category of "chickens coming home to roost." Luckily for Bush and the GOP, they were successful in keeping these chickens from roosting before last year's presidential election. But these problems are mounting and Republicans may have to take their lumps in the midterm elections instead. It can also be argued that while the president's previously strong ratings on the war, terrorism and national security provided something of a safety net for Republican candidates in the last two elections, it ironically could be a liability this time.

Having said all of this, the Nov. 8, 2006, midterm elections are still more than 14 months away, and things may get better or worse for Bush. But for now, the situation is bad and appears to be worsening.

Bush Stagnant at 45% Approval

Gallup today released its second round of August polling that shows the President's numbers have remained effectively unchanged since the end of July.

August 8-11 (August 5-7; July 25-28)

Approve -- 45 (45, 44)
Disapprove -- 51 (51, 51)
When Gallup releases the full results of the poll, we'll pass them on as soon as possible.

In related news, Chris Bowers hypothesizes that while the President's numbers have seemingly stabilized, a large number of people are moving from strong support to weak support, and likewise many are moving from weak opposition to strong opposition, meaning that the President's support could be much more tenuous than previously reported.

Quote of the Day

"I tend to think that the presence of the opposite sex in the classroom will be confining rather than catholicizing. I would prefer to discuss Shakespeare's double entendre and the latus rectum of conic sections without a [b]londe giggling and blushing behind me."

-- Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, writing in 1972
Link.

Monday, August 15, 2005

Bush Admin. Abandons Effort to Improve Fuel Efficiency

With the price of oil settling near a record high of more than $66 per barrel today and the price of gas nearing $3 per gallon, there is a clear necessity to either boost supply or cut demand -- or preferably both.

With the Republican-sponsored energy bill that passed just before the August recess, the President was able to achieve his long-standing goal to offer tax credits for oil companies that explore for more oil. But now, at The New York Times' Danny Hakim so interestingly reports, the President is backing away from efforts to decrease America's demand for oil, even slightly.

The Bush administration is expected to abandon a proposal to extend fuel economy regulations to include Hummer H2's and other huge sport utility vehicles, auto industry and other officials say.

The proposal was among a number of potential strategies outlined by the administration in 2003 to overhaul mileage requirements for light trucks - sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans. It had been seen by industry officials as likely to be adopted.

But the impact of the tougher requirements would have been borne almost solely by the increasingly troubled domestic auto industry, a concern for the administration.

[...]

Because cars, S.U.V.'s and other light-duty vehicles account for 40 percent of the nation's oil use, changes in the regulatory system are always watched closely, more so in an era of increased concern over foreign oil imports, rising fuel prices and debate on the effects of global warming.
It is certainly time to replace the last set of fuel efficiency standards, which were adopted in the 1970s, but is it good policy to sidestep the real issues by being excessively lenient on S.U.V.s?

Clearly, the answer is not to force every American to drive a Scion or a Kia. We should be free to own larger and more powerful cars if we deem them necessary. Just the same, it's time to think about some real alternatives to the internal combustion engine.

Honda has already developed a Civic that runs on natural gas. Drivers can fill up their cars at their homes. It's not a perfect solution -- a full tank only gets you about 200 miles -- but, hey, it's a start.

As it stands, however, by denying that the problem exists through the failure to meaningfully increase the standards for S.U.V.s, the Bush administration is just exacerbating the energy crisis.

Where Does Roberts Stand on a Woman's Right to Choose?

For those interested in learning a bit about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' views on women's right to choose, The Washington Post's team of Amy Goldstein and Jo Becker make a decent stab at reading the tea leaves.

As a senior legal adviser to President Reagan, John G. Roberts Jr. concluded that a controversial memorial service for aborted fetuses, organized by a group of California doctors who opposed Roe v. Wade , was "an entirely appropriate means of calling attention to the abortion tragedy."

The words of the Supreme Court nominee, contained in a 1985 memo in which he approved a telegram from Reagan supporting the service, provide the clearest insight to date into Roberts's personal views on abortion at a time when both proponents and opponents of Roe have a keen interest in whether he would tip the court's balance on one of the nation's most volatile social issues.

Legal experts on the right and the left cautioned against interpreting Roberts's writing from that era as a certain predictor of how he would vote on abortion cases that might come before him today. Still, the memo, among 5,393 government documents released yesterday from the four years Roberts worked as associate White House counsel, is consistent with subtler clues to Roberts's stance on the landmark abortion case that have been emerging since his nomination by President Bush last month.

In 1981, while working at the Justice Department, Roberts had referred to the legal underpinnings of a woman's right to an abortion as the "so-called 'right to privacy.' " Later, as a deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Roberts would co-author an administration Supreme Court brief arguing that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
Does this mean Roe will really be down to 5-4?

[Update 10:10 PM Pacific]: Just the same, Mike Allen and Dana Milbank report for The Washington Post that Roberts' nomination is not likely to falter at this point.

Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.

In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.

Although they expect to subject President Bush's nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes -- enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.

"No one's planning all-out warfare," said a Senate Democratic aide closely involved in caucus strategy on Roberts. For now, the aide said, Democratic strategy is to make it clear Roberts was subject to fair scrutiny while avoiding a pointless conflagration that could backfire on the party. "We're going to come out of this looking dignified and will show we took the constitutional process seriously," the aide said.

"This was a smart political choice from the White House," said one prominent Democratic lawmaker, who like several others interviewed for this article requested anonymity because they were departing from the Democrats' public position. "I don't think people see a close vote here."

Quote of the Day

"Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey. Take a little bite of it, and he will throw his own feces at you."

-- New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine, on his fellow Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York
Link.

The Real Cost of Bush's Budgetary Priorities

The Congressional Budget Office released new deficit projections this morning, and the AP's Andrew Taylor buys the GOP claim that the President's policies have eased the short-term deficit. CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) doesn't buy the spin and instead notes the more important findings of the CBO report.

The cost of continuing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan at the current level would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next 10 years, according to estimates released by the Congressional Budget Office on Monday.

The CBO lowered its projected budget deficit for fiscal 2005, which ends Sept. 30, to $331 billion — a $2 billion improvement from the White House’s estimates of a month ago.

Yet the CBO’s forecast of deficits through 2015 jumped by $1.1 trillion from its March projection, largely on the assumption that outlays for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would continue while the current surge in revenue would not.

While CBO’s fiscal 2005 deficit projection fell from its March estimates by $34 billion, its fiscal 2006 projection rose $16 billion to $314 billion to account for continued spending on the war and other supplemental appropriations. That is still well below the $341 billion deficit that OMB projects in fiscal 2006.
The next time a Republican huckster tries to sell you on the notion that the GOP is a fiscally conservative party, show them this story as mroe than ample proof of the spendthrift ways of the modern Republican Party.

Only one President in the last thirty years has balanced the federal budget -- William Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat. By cutting some spending and raising taxes, Clinton slashed the deficit and ushered in the best economy the nation has ever seen.

So while the GOP still tries to peddle the nostrum of trickle-down economics through excessive tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, only through a balanced set of fiscal policies -- a la the Clinton years -- can America truly prosper economically.

Another Iraq War Veteran to Run

Fresh off the near-victory of Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett in Ohio's second congressional district, the Democrats are once again turning to a man in uniform to make a run for Congress. The Charlotte Observer's Tim Funk reports.

Iraq vet likely to face Hayes Potential challenger cites CAFTA vote as reason to run An Iraq war veteran from Fayetteville says he'll probably run for the congressional seat now held by Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C., of Concord.

Democrat Tim Dunn, a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps Reserves, got back from Iraq late last year. A trial lawyer by profession, Dunn spent six months in Baghdad helping the Iraqi Special Tribunal investigate and begin prosecuting Saddam Hussein and other former Iraqi leaders on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

"When I got back from Iraq, my intention was to go back ... But I feel now is the time for a different type of service," Dunn, 45, told the Observer over the weekend. "I am seriously interested in this race" to represent the 8th congressional district, which stretches from east Charlotte to Fort Bragg.

If Dunn jumps into the race, he would join a growing platoon of veterans from conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan who are challenging GOP congressmen in 2006. Dunn said he'll make a decision in the next few weeks, but added, "I am a likely candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives."

National Democrats, eager to knock off Hayes after his vote switch helped save CAFTA, are excited about the prospect of a Dunn candidacy in a district home to more registered Democrats than registered Republicans.
Hayes, who opposed CAFTA before voting for it (that defense played real well for John Kerry last year), could be in a bit of a pickle with those in North Carolina's textile and agriculture industries these days for bucking them on trade. With a potentially strong contender like Dunn, Hayes could be in for quite a bumpy ride come the fall.

What Does Paul Hackett's Near-Victory Mean?

The National Journal Insiders Poll asks just that question.

Was Democrat Paul Hackett’s strong showing in Ohio’s recent special congressional election a fluke or a sign that the Republicans could be in trouble in the midterm elections?

Republicans: A fluke 25 votes, A sign of trouble 24 votes, Neither 9 votes

Democrats: A fluke 2 votes, A sign of trouble 48 votes, Neither 3 votes

Why Abramoff Was Turned So Quickly

[Well, I misunderestimated how much time I would have this morning. As such, here goes]

Newsweek's Mike Isikoff continues his series of scoops on a range of issues with this new tidbit about the sudden arrest of GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff last week.

The Justice Department played hardball last week with former superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, in part because of concerns he might flee to Israel. Hours before Abramoff was indicted on fraud charges in Miami last Thursday, FBI agents tried to arrest him at his Maryland home. But he'd already left for Los Angeles. Agents tracked him down on his cell phone and ordered him to surrender to the local FBI office. When Abramoff did, later that day, he was handcuffed, thrown into jail, then released last Friday on a $2.2 million bond.

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Out and About

I'll be unable to post until tomorrow afternoon -- a small hiatus for the morning -- but if you want to stay up to date on the morning's political developments, please consider visiting my top sponsor, The Moderate Voice, who are kind enough to financially support this blog for a while.

Note: If you would like to advertise on Basie!, click here.

Campaign 2006: A Look Towards Pennsylvania

On this morning, Kimberly Hefling takes a look at the Pennsylvania Senate race for the Associated Press.

Sen. Rick Santorum is a rising Republican star Democrats desperately want to take down in 2006. So far, they say he is making their job easy.

Santorum, a conservative from Pennsylvania who is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, can't seem to avoid negative attacks even as he promotes his new book, "It Takes a Family."

State treasurer Robert Casey Jr., his likely Democratic opponent, is ahead in state polls. He's quietly raising millions for what is expected to be the closest Senate race in 2006.

Casey, like Santorum, opposes abortion, and he has name recognition from his late father, Gov. Robert P. Casey. He was recruited to run by national party leaders seeking to take out a Republican Party leader.

"This is going to be a race that's going to be viewed as a national referendum. This is a nationalized Senate race," said David Thornburgh, executive director of the Pennsylvania Economy League, Southeastern Pennsylvania.
As Bob Novak (note the source) reports, Republicans are quickly getting cold feet about Santorum.

Republican insiders in Washington fear that Sen. Rick Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, is in serious danger of losing his seat next year to his Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey, because of a poorly planned and ill-conceived campaign.

Grievances by Pennsylvania Republicans are piling up. One banking industry CEO in Pennsylvania offered Santorum a chance to visit his more than 3,000 employees. But the senator's campaign staff declined to immediately accept the invitation, explaining this group was not a ''priority.'' Santorum is accused of not making sure to minimize the negative political fallout from his new book It Takes a Family. A Republican poll shows Casey 9 percentage points ahead of Santorum.

A footnote: Democratic consultant Paul Begala, who worked on the successful gubernatorial campaign of the late Robert Casey Sr., may join the younger Casey's campaign.

Oy Vey

Per the AP:

Six U.S. soldiers died in roadside bombings and a shooting, the military said Sunday, as lawmakers rushed to persuade Sunni Arabs to accept federalism provisions in the draft constitution that is due in one day.

[...]

[T]he U.S. military said three soldiers were killed and one other wounded in a roadside bombing late Saturday near Tuz Khormato, 95 miles north of Baghdad.

One soldier on a patrol was killed Sunday and three others wounded in a blast east of Rutbah, 250 miles west of Baghdad, the military said. In another roadside bombing, one soldier was killed Saturday and another wounded in western Baghdad.

On Friday a U.S. commander said the number of roadside bomb attacks against American convoys in Iraq had doubled in the past year to about 30 per week. Dozens of bombings, usually detonated by remote control, target U.S. and Iraqi patrols each day.
In related news, Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer pen a page one article for The Washington Post indicating that the administration is taking a new tack in the War in Iraq: reality.

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.
It's about time.

Saturday, August 13, 2005

The Sunday Shows

I have some walking to do tomorrow, but for those more interested in some Sunday politics...

CBS' "FACE THE NATION": Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Washington Post journalist John F. Harris

NBC's "MEET THE PRESS": Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. and Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

ABC's "THIS WEEK": Cyclist Lance Armstrong, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Thomas Hoving and Khalilzad

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY": Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Khalilzad

CNN's "LATE EDITION": Sens. Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) and Bill Nelson (D-FL), Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres, Palestinian Foreign Minister Nasser Kidwa, former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger, former defense secretary William S. Cohen, and Khalilzad

Feds Soon to Turn Abramoff?

Two days ago, we questioned whether the recent indictment of Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff could lead to a breakthrough in other cases of influence-peddling -- perhaps even with congressional leaders. Today, The Washington Post's James V. Grimaldi writes about just that possibility.

The indictment this week of lobbyist Jack Abramoff in a wire fraud case here could provide an important boost to federal investigators in Washington examining the prominent Republican's activities to influence Congress and the Bush administration on behalf of Indian tribes and other clients, people with knowledge of the case said Friday.

Abramoff was released from a federal correction center in Los Angeles on $2.2 million bail Friday after he and a business associate were indicted here on charges of conspiracy and wire fraud in applying for loans in the purchase of a Florida-based casino cruise-ship company that later fell into bankruptcy.

Although attorneys for Abramoff, 46, and associate Adam Kidan, 41, professed their clients' innocence in the fraud case, the six-count indictment is expected to apply pressure on the two to provide information on a separate criminal investigation in Washington examining Abramoff's work on behalf of the casino-rich American Indian tribes. In addition, there are two Senate committees investigating Abramoff's activities.

Unlike Kidan, who was permitted to surrender to authorities in Florida and to put up a $500,000 personal bond, the FBI arrested and jailed Abramoff while he was on a business trip to Los Angeles with his 12-year-old daughter, sending a clear message about the gravity of the case.

[...]

Legal analysts agree that this first indictment is typical of government prosecutions of people who are under investigation in more than one case. The first indictment sends a signal that prosecutors are serious, and then they typically wait to see if lawyers want to begin discussions about possible cooperation. If not, prosecutors often bring another set of indictments.
Should Abramoff turn on Tom DeLay -- a possibility Grimaldi at least implies -- this could usher in an entirely new phase in American politics.

Cali. Redistricting Plan Back on the Ballot

Nancy Vogel reports for the Los Angeles Times that despite attempts to remove the measure from the ballot, the GOP-backed plan to redistrict California mid-census is back on the ballot.

The California Supreme Court handed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a major victory Friday, putting back on the Nov. 8 ballot his initiative to change how legislative district lines are drawn.

The brief order, issued by a 4-2 vote, ends a monthlong legal battle between supporters of the initiative, Proposition 77, and Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer. The attorney general had won two rounds in lower courts. Those judges accepted his argument that the measure should not be voted on in November because its backers had violated election law in the way they got the measure on the ballot.

The Supreme Court overturned those lower-court decisions. But it left open the possibility that the election-law violations could still sink the ballot measure. If voters approve the measure, the justices said, they might then review the legal issues to determine if it is valid.
Were this not a cynical attempt to boost Tom DeLay's majority in the House of Representatives not dissimilar to the mid-census redrawing in Texas, I would be apt to support this plan. However, it's clear that many supporters of this measure do not have good government on their mind.

I instead support the bipartisan approach championed by Blue Dog Democratic Congressman John Tanner of Tennessee, who has garnered more than 30 co-sponsors for his state-by-state approach to the redistricting process. This will ensure that DeLay and his cronies cannot use the process of good government to enhance their partisan machinations.

Social Security: Happy 70th Birthday

As Reuters reports, the Democrats threw a nice soiree for the Social Security program on the radio this morning that perhaps evinced a new tack they are willing to take.

On the eve of Social Security's 70th anniversary, Democrats said on Saturday they are ready to move toward revamping the financially troubled retirement program but warned against stripping away benefits to retirees and relying on private accounts for funding.

"We have a moral obligation to stand up and protect Social Security for the next 70 years and beyond -- that means stopping privatization and dropping partisan demands for private accounts," said Rep. John Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, in his response to President George W. Bush's radio address.
I can't entirely understand why the Democrats are trying to bring Social Security back to the fore at this juncture. It seems, to me at least, that they are just tempting fate.

Clearly, the Democrats have trounced both the President and the Republican Party on the issue of Social Security. Seldom does the President talk about privatizing the program -- a sharp contrast to the daily bamboozlepalooza show he ran across the country in the spring.

By debating Social Security now, the Democrats have little to gain and much to lose. True, Social Security could deflect attention away from their imminent defeat on the Roberts nomination, but is this a good thing. Should not Democrats take time to thoughtfully and truthfully lay out Roberts' opinions to the nation to help make the case for 2006.

What's more, the Democrats could be providing the Republicans with just the opportunity they desperately need in order to privatize, at least partially, the program. Instead, the Democrats should let the sleeping dog lie -- for now.

Many pundits claim that the Democrats are devoid of ideas, or at least have yet to elucidate anything substantial to the American people. These talking heads repeatedly call on the Democrats to lay out a vision today. Such a tactic would be a catastrophic blunder for the party of Jackson and FDR.

All too often, people forget that Newt Gingrich's Contract with America was not presented to the American people until six weeks before the 1994 midterm elections. Six weeks. This was just enough time for the American people to learn about the basic tenets of the platform while not enough time for the Democrats to create a successful strategy to combat the plank. Brilliant, no?

So why should Democrats today offer a comprehensive plan? To provide the GOP with fodder with which to distract the American people from their own shortcomings? To give the GOP more than ample time to devise a strategy to undercut the Democrats' platform?

No. It simply does not make sense for the Democrats to go out on a limb these days while the President and the Republican Party are floating around like ships adrift. Come September 2006, perhaps pundits will have the right to clamor to hear some policies. But for now, pay no heed to these malcontents and certainly do not complain if you desperately desire to hear a bullet-point strategy for fixing the ills of this country.

Anti-Clinton Library Finished Before it Even Started

After the opening of William Jefferson Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock, some on the ultra right fringe had the bright idea of building a second "museum" to "debunk" the "lies." Among other sections of the "museum" would have been a tribute to the many people -- Vince Foster included -- who Bill and Hillary allegedly "had killed."

Shockingly, as the Associated Press reports, the "museum" is no more.

A group that had hoped to build two museums to rebut the displays at the Clinton Presidential Library is folding.

"I'm giving up," said Houston businessman Richard Erickson, who established nonprofit Counterlibe Inc. last year to fund construction of a Counter Clinton Library in Little Rock and another in Washington.

Erickson said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that he had been naive about fundraising procedures. He said the project's Web site also would be shut down soon.

In a separate e-mail Wednesday, Erickson informed one of his key supporters, former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., that he couldn't raise enough money to continue.

Friday, August 12, 2005

Fitzgerald to Get New Oversight in Plame Probe

Patrick Fitzgerald has been slowly, but surely trudging ahead with the investigation into the leaking of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Wilson -- A.K.A. Valerie Wilson. So far, both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have been tied to the leak, and more information is certain to be on the way.

In a new development in the case that the AP's Mark Sherman reports, President Bush has placed a new man in the position to oversee Pat Fitzgerald's investigation.

David Margolis, a lawyer at the Justice Department for 40 years, was named Friday to oversee a special prosecutor's investigation of who in the Bush administration disclosed the name of an undercover CIA officer.

Margolis, whose title is associate deputy attorney general, is taking the place of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, whose last day of work was Friday. Comey will be Lockheed Martin's new general counsel.

Comey made the designation of Margolis. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has stepped aside from the probe because he was White House counsel when Valerie Plame's name was leaked in 2003 and he has testified to the grand jury investigating the unauthorized disclosure.

Comey gave broad discretion to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago when he was appointed to investigate the leak in December 2003. Margolis is not expected to alter Fitzgerald's mandate in what are likely to be the final months of his investigation. The grand jury ends its term in October.
Sherman says "Margolis is not expected to alter Fitzgerald's mandate," and I have no reason not to believe him. Indeed, Margolis has been with Justice for at least forty years. If, however, Margolis intends to inhibit Fitzgerald to any degree -- as one could infer from this late Friday announcement (note: a possibility, not by any means a probability) -- today will go down in history as just another replay of the Saturday Night Massacre when President Nixon attempted to undercut the Watergate investigation.

Can the Democrats Retake the Senate in 2006?

In the comments, Walker inquires as to whether I believe the Democrats have a shot at retaking the Senate next fall. Well, I'm going to give somewhat of an answer -- but also a bit of a cop-out.

There are a few possibilities floating out there these days, the most likely of which plays out as follows. There is a slight breeze against the President and the Republican Party, as often happens in off-year elections, leading to moderate pickups in states most conducive to Democrats. In this situation, the Democrats pick up seats in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island -- and perhaps Ohio -- and hold on to difficult seats in Nebraska, Minnesota and Florida. Numerically, this leaves Senate Dems with 46-48 members, meaning increased strength, but still weaker than the period of 2001-2005.

Another distinct possibility is that the discontent among Americans continues to fester, leaving the GOP in a much more weakened position. Evidence shows Americans are unhappy with the Republican Party these days -- just look at the vote a week and a half ago in Ohio or any of the major national polls. So here's how this situation could unfold:

A major event -- be it an indictment of Tom DeLay, further evidence from Jack Abramoff, or a strong anti-administration ruling in the Plame investigation -- multiplies Americans' unhappiness leading to a wind blowing against the GOP. With Democratic voters emboldened and the Republican base depressed, Karl Rove's turnout plans go awry. In this case, the Democrats have an ever-so-small opening to pick up the Senate. In addition to victories in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, strong candidates in Arizona, Montana, Tennessee and Ohio pick up seats, giving the Senate Dems a narrow 51-49 hold over the Senate. This situation is not necessarily likely, but it is a distinct possibility these days.

Could the opposite occur? Could Democrats falter, allowing the GOP to expand its majority? In the worst case scenario for the Democrats that I can imagine, the party loses seats in Florida, Nebraska and Minnesota, while picking up only one seat. This puts the Democrats in the 41-43 range. I don't see this happening, but I have been known to make some poor predictions in the past.

So take these thoughts for what they're worth -- a guess at a point way too early to be making guesses. No one imagined in 2004 that the Kentucky Senate race would be close, but a number of flubs by incumbent Jim Bunning made it happen. Likewise, local issues like sugar in Louisiana or coal in West Virginia can make all of the difference in some races. But rest assured that I'll continue covering these races for the next 15 months.

Some Christian Leaders Speak Out Against "Justice Sunday II"

This Sunday, Evangelicals across the country will join together via satellite and cable to rally to advance their beliefs in this country. The topic de jure will be the next Supreme Court justice. As Reuters reports, though, not all Christian leaders are pleased by the prospect of this event.

Some religious leaders yesterday criticized this weekend's evangelical rally on judicial issues, arguing that the event suggests an imposition of faith on matters of U.S. public life.

"Those in public office must never make religion the lens" through which constitutional matters are decided, said the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance.

The Justice Sunday II rally in Nashville is the second in a series of televised church demonstrations organized by the Family Research Council to pressure legislators to follow evangelical positions on the judiciary. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is scheduled to speak.

"It is entirely inappropriate to assume that a person's ideology is a barometer of their personal faith," said the Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches USA and a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania.
This event raises some of the fundamental differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties. What could be more telling than the appearance of Tom DeLay at this event?

It is entirely understandable for groups of faith -- like all other groups in this country -- to organize to achieve a common political goal. However, to hold a rally at which those like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are not allowed to attend simply because they believe stem cell research to be moral is in my estimation an undue imposition of religion into politics.

Bush Admin One Step Closer to Raiding Guard Bases

Just two days ago, governors across the country went up in arms to protest the Bush administration's plan to ciphon National Guard resources from across the country to place in a few mega bases, many of which reside in the South. The New York Times' Eric Schmitt, who has been following this story from day one, reports that the administration is now one step closer to its goal.

The Justice Department has concluded that the Pentagon has the authority to move National Guard units without the consent of the state governors, who share control with the president over use of those units, state and federal officials said Thursday.

The legal opinion from the Justice Department is a victory for the Defense Department, which is seeking to revamp more than two dozen Air National Guard units nationwide in what the Air Force says is an effort to make the Air Guard more relevant for today's national security missions.

Two dozen states have complained that the Pentagon's plan would close local air-defense units, leaving their communities more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and hamper their ability to call on Guard units to fight forest fires or deal with hurricane damage.

Officials from Pennsylvania and Illinois, which have filed suit in federal court to challenge the Pentagon's authority to relocate Guard units, sought to play down the Justice Department opinion as just one of many that had no decisive impact.
Should the President succeed in this plan to shut down bases across the country and move troops and resources to Southern mega bases, many families will be broken up and many areas will be left without sufficient planes and materiel to aid in times of crisis -- including terror attacks. If this doesn't bring home the true cost of the President's military policies, I'm not sure what will.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Please Visit My Sponsor

I'd be obliged if you could visit the first sponsor of Basie!, The Moderate Voice. It's a great site that provides some crack information and insight -- sometimes even written by me.

If you're interested in advertising on Basie!, rates are relatively low, and your support would be greatly appreciated. Click here advertising details and pricing, or email me for more information.

Tom DeLay's PAC Criticized by Federal Election Commission

Thursday turned out to be a difficult day for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). First, his one time ally Jack Abramoff was indicted; now, his political action committee has been hit by the FEC. The Washington Post's inimitable Jeffrey H. Birnbaum reports.

The Federal Election Commission criticized a political fund chaired by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for misstating accounts and failing to report debts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The watchdog agency issued its findings after auditing DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority PAC (ARMPAC) for 2001 and 2002. ARMPAC is one of a growing number of "leadership" PACs, through which members of Congress provide financing and electoral assistance to other candidates for office.

The agency did not take disciplinary action against DeLay or ARMPAC. But its report said that the commission might in the future penalize the fund, an act that usually involves a fine.

[...]

The audit said that ARMPAC made "material" misstatements about its donations, cash on hand and disbursements. The discrepancies, which have been corrected, totaled more than $100,000.

Auditors also said they had trouble examining the accounts because about 28 percent of contributor checks and a third of expense paperwork such as invoices were missing.
Shocking. Just shocking.

GOP Superlobbyist Jack Abramoff Indicted

Jack Abramoff, the superlobbyist with strong ties to Tom DeLay and other high ranking Congressional Republicans, was indicted today -- for charges completely unrelated to his schemes to bilk Native American tribes out of tens of millions of dollars. The New York Times' Philip Shenon has the story.

Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful Republican lobbyist involved in ethics allegations facing Representative Tom DeLay, was indicted in Florida on Thursday on unrelated fraud charges involving his purchase of a fleet of gambling boats from a businessman who was slain amid bitter wrangling over the sale.

The indictment by a federal grand jury in Fort Lauderdale charges Mr. Abramoff and a business partner with conspiracy and wire fraud in the $147.5 million purchase of the shipping line, SunCruz Casinos, in 2000. They are accused of presenting lenders with a counterfeit document suggesting that they had arranged a $23 million wire transfer to the seller.

Mr. Abramoff's lawyer in the case, Neal R. Sonnett of Miami, said Mr. Abramoff would plead not guilty. "We've made the point since the beginning of this investigation that Jack Abramoff has done nothing wrong," Mr. Sonnett said. "He's anxious to defend himself."

There is no accusation that Mr. Abramoff or his partner, Adam R. Kidan, had any involvement in the death of the Fort Lauderdale businessman, Konstantinos Boulis, but the unsolved gangland-style killing produced extensive news coverage in Florida over the disputed sale of SunCruz. Mr. Boulis was gunned down while driving home in February 2001.

Mr. Sonnett had no comment when asked if the indictment would provide the Justice Department with leverage in pressing Mr. Abramoff to cooperate in a separate grand jury investigation here focused on his multimillion-dollar lobbying contracts with the gambling operations of Indian tribes.

The Florida indictment charged Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Kidan with one count of conspiracy and five counts of wire fraud - each count carries up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine - and asked that they be forced to pay $60 million in criminal penalties.
With Abramoff one step closer to a jail cell, is it possible that there will be more "leverage in pressing [him] to to cooperate in a separate grand jury investigation here focused on his multimillion-dollar lobbying contracts"? Will it lead Abramoff to turn on Majority Leader DeLay or other Congressional allies? Only time will tell, but certainly time will tell.

Top Senate Targets for the Dems in 2006

Chris Bowers over at MyDD gives his rundown of the top eight Senate pickup possibilities for the Democrats in '06. They are:

  1. Mike DeWine (OH)
  2. Rick Santorum
  3. Lincoln Chafee
  4. Jim Talent
  5. Conrad Burns
  6. John Kyl
  7. Bill Frist
  8. John Ensign
I'd put Santorum ahead of DeWine and Burns ahead of Talent, but otherwise it's a pretty solid analysis of where campaign 2006 stands these days. Visit the link to read his analysis of each race.

GOP Pays Legal Bills for Man Charged with Election Fraud

The Associated Press' John Solomon writes today about some of the morals of the modern Republican Party.

Despite a zero-tolerance policy on tampering with voters, the Republican Party has quietly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide private defense lawyers for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.

James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.

A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.

At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional director, before moving to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.

A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.

"The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters ... of their federally secured right to vote," states the latest indictment issued by a federal grand jury on May 18.

Since charges were first filed in December, the RNC has spent more than $722,000 to provide Tobin, who has pleaded innocent, a team of lawyers from the high-powered Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly. The firm's other clients include Bill and Hillary Clinton and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
No matter how strongly Republicans declare that Democratic claims of voter irregularities are bogus -- both in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 -- the Tobin case shows that there is at least tacit support within the Republican Party for such illicit political actions. If the GOP truly wants to stop allegations that they are at least complicit in schemes to disenfranchise voters, they should stop giving financial support to those who disenfranchise voters.

Quote of the Day

"But he is a recidivist fibber."

-- George Will on 39th President Jimmy Carter
Link.

If some liberal said something similar about Reagan...

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Minnesota Watch: August Edition

Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN), who's running to replace retiring Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN), is coming under some heat these days for scrubbing news articles of negative comments. The AP's Margita Lohn reports that the Kennedy campaign is backing away from the quesitonable practice.

A congressman's campaign Web site, under fire for deleting negative comments from news stories before posting them, will now link viewers to the full text of the articles, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Some of the partial versions might still remain on the site, though, said Heidi Frederickson, a campaign spokeswoman for Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), who is running for an open Senate seat.

Wednesday morning, a day after the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee accused Kennedy of selective editing to make himself look better, parts of news articles from The Associated Press, the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, and the New York Times were still on site.

Some of the stories had been removed from the "News" section of http://www.markkennedy06.com but could still be found under "Issues."

Frederickson, who runs the site and chose the excerpts, said the flap over the articles was politically motivated.

Bush Administration OKs Testing Pesticides on Humans

President Bush's FDA has already been drawing heat for its ineffectiveness and close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Now, as Juliet Eilperin reports for The Washington Post, the EPA has approved rules that would enable the testing of pesticides on humans.

The Environmental Protection Agency is set to release the first-ever federal standards governing use of data from tests that expose human subjects to toxic pesticides, but lawmakers and some medical experts said the rules fail to adequately protect children and pregnant women.

The proposal -- which was obtained yesterday from the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and will become public within weeks -- would limit the instances in which pesticide manufacturers could expose children and pregnant women to toxic chemicals, and would establish an independent board to gauge whether such human experiments meet established ethical standards. But the new rules, which will be subject to public comment before taking effect in about six months, allow some tests on vulnerable subjects and do not apply to studies conducted before the guidelines become law.

Much of the controversy centers on whether it is acceptable to expose children and pregnant women to pesticides under any circumstances. One EPA official, who asked not to be identified because the agency has not published its proposal, said the EPA wanted to let manufacturers keep the option of testing on children such products as mosquito and tick repellents to ascertain their efficacy.

For months, lawmakers have been dueling with Bush administration officials over how drastically they should curb tests that expose humans to toxic chemicals, including an insecticide used in chemical warfare during World War I. Two weeks ago, Congress prohibited the EPA from considering data culled from such experiments until the government enacts stricter national standards.

For years, federal officials allowed manufacturers to conduct human studies on the grounds that they provided a clearer picture of how pesticides could affect the environment and public health. President Bill Clinton imposed a moratorium in 1998 out of concern that such tests harmed volunteers; although President Bush initially backed the moratorium, his administration abandoned it in 2003 to satisfy a court ruling in favor of pesticide makers, which argued that the federal government had not engaged the public fully enough before banning the information. EPA officials now consider data from human experiments on a case-by-case basis when judging whether to approve pesticides.

Governors: Stop Raiding the National Guard

The War in Iraq has been draining the nation'sresources over the past two and a half years, none more so than those of the National Guard. As The New York Times' Eric Schmitt reports, America's governors are not so pleased.

A proposed overhaul of more than two dozen Air National Guard units has ignited a political firestorm in many states, drawing attention to the most hotly contested part of the Pentagon's larger plan to shut, shrink or realign hundreds of military sites nationwide.

The Air Force wants to retire aging aircraft from many Guard units, close or consolidate some of their bases and give some units new missions, like flying remotely piloted Predator aircraft, that are better suited to today's national security environment, Air Force officials say.

But doing that would leave more than two dozen states without emergency aircraft to fight fires, recover from hurricanes and cope with other natural disasters, lawmakers say.

Officials from New England to the Pacific Northwest argue that the plan would leave them vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Illinois and Pennsylvania have gone so far as to file suit in federal court contending that the Defense Department cannot move Air Guard units without the consent of the state governors, who share authority with the president over use of the units.
These cuts are being felt close to home -- and our fellow Oregonians are up in arms.

In Oregon, the plan calls for stripping the 142nd Fighter Wing of its 19 F-15 fighters and sending them to bases in New Jersey and Louisiana. Two jets from an as yet undetermined base would be sent to Portland to be on alert status. Otherwise, the nearest fighter base would be in Fresno, Calif., 750 miles away, Air Guard officials say.

"It would leave the Pacific Northwest with a Little League air defense capability," Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said at a commission field hearing in June.
These are the types of stories that help bring the real costs and consequences of the Bush administration's military policies close to home. With much of the National Guard and Reserves in Iraq, states have far too few resources to deal with "fires," "hurricanes," and "other national disasters."

Should President Bush move forward with his plan to raid bases in blue states like Oregon for the benefit of red states in his base like Florida, it will be mighty difficult for any Republican to win in the Beaver state -- or others like it -- come 2006.

Wyden: Roberts OK with Ore. Death with Dignity

With the Terri Schiavo case behind us, Oregon's Death with Dignity act remains in the crosshairs. But according to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is not entirely against the right to die. Jim Barnett has the story for The Oregonian.

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts declared that, in cases dealing with end-of-life care, he would "start with the supposition that one has the right to be left alone," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said after the two met for an hour Tuesday.

[...]

Roberts, 50, a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, could ascend to the Supreme Court days before it takes up the Bush administration's challenge to the unique Oregon law. Oral arguments are set for Oct. 5.

At issue is whether federal drug agents can prosecute doctors under the Controlled Substances Act for prescribing lethal doses of painkillers to terminally ill patients. Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft challenged the Oregon law in 2001, arguing that assisted suicide was not a "legitimate use" of federally controlled drugs.

So far, supporters of the Oregon law have won in federal courts. Opponents have said they hope an increasingly conservative Supreme Court will block the law, and they hope Roberts will prove to be an ally.

But Wyden said he came away from his meeting confident that Roberts would apply a different kind of conservatism to the Oregon case, hewing to a limited view of federal power under the Constitution.

Roberts told Wyden that he would look closely at the legislative history of federal laws and would be careful not to strip states of powers they traditionally have held -- such as regulating the practice of medicine, Wyden said.
Should it become apparent that Roberts supports the Oregon law, would more social conservatives like these ones get off of hs bandwagon? Very possible.

Ah... Oregon Politics

The Oregonian's Harry Esteve perfectly sums up some of the Oregon Legislature's great accomplishments -- or lack thereof.

Gamblers get more choices. Smokers inhale cheaper cigarettes. And tipplers can hoist a round to Oregon lawmakers who kept state alcohol taxes among the lowest in the nation.

Even gluttons came out OK in the just-ended legislative session, which rejected efforts to require more nutritious school lunches and more time in PE classes.

[...]

Gov. Ted Kulongoski took an expansionist approach to gambling, calling for and getting video slot machines as part of the state-run lottery program, and approving a new tribal casino at Cascade Locks.

[...]

[L]awmakers from both parties made runs at notching up taxes on beer, wine and tobacco, but ran into a brick wall of tax opposition in the House.
While some states take the tack that morals should be enforced through taxation and that people's "sins" should finance the common good -- like schools, for instance -- Oregon's libertarian spirit moves it into an entirely different direction. Do I agree with that direction? Well, schools are in desperate need of more money. But far be it from me to believe that Oregonians should pay another nickel for a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon -- or even a bottle of Widmer for that matter.

Roberts Nomination Facing Opposition from the Right

Last week, when news emerged that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts had played a role in a case defending gay rights, we opined that subsequent opposition from the right could scuttle the nomination. Well, the AP's Jesse J. Holland reports today that such opposition has just come to fruition.

A conservative group in Virginia said Tuesday it was withdrawing its support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays.

The group, Public Advocate of the United States, is one of the first conservative organizations to announce anything but support for the judge

Eugene Delgaudio, the president of the group, said in an interview that he hopes his stance will prod others.

"I know that others feel the same way. I know they believe as I do. They're just not going to act," the 50-year-old Northern Virginia man said. "But once I've done it, then they can't claim that no one's opposing Roberts."

"We can't take our limited resources and put it toward a candidate who is not a strict constructionist when we were told he is," Delgaudio said.
In related news, Jo Becker writes for The Washington Post that the White House is taking a few extra moments to scour Roberts' record in the Reagan nomination for fear of embarassing positions that could further hamper the nomination.

Thrown on the defensive by recent revelations about Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s legal work, White House aides are delaying the release of tens of thousands of documents from the Reagan administration to give themselves time to find any new surprises before they are turned into political ammunition by Democrats.

Before Roberts's July 19 selection by President Bush, there was no comprehensive effort to examine the voluminous paper trail from his previous tours as an important legal and political hand under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, administration officials said.

Three weeks later, these officials say they recognize that Roberts's record is going to be central to Senate confirmation hearings scheduled to begin Sept. 6, and lawyers and political aides are urgently reviewing more than 50,000 pages -- at the same time denying requests from Democrats for an immediate release.
Given the overwhelming support and underwhelming opposition to Roberts at the time his nomination was announced last month, who would have ever belived that the White House would be "on the defensive" these days?

Drilling in ANWR Might Not Happen So Soon

When Senate Republicans backed down on their threats to vote against the budget this year if drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve were included in the resolution, it appeared there would be no stopping the oil package. Now, as CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) reports, a large group of Republican House members have issued a strong statement in opposition to the drilling that could help save the reserve.

Two dozen House Republicans, including three committee chairmen, want provisions opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling left out of a budget “reconciliation” package that will be assembled in mid-September.

In an Aug. 4 letter to House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo, R-Calif., Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, the lawmakers said they “would have serious concerns about any budget bill that contains provisions authorizing the development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”

Under the budget resolution (H Con Res 95), the Resources Committee must come up with $2.4 billion in savings over five years from programs under its jurisdiction by Sept. 16. That figure, equal to the anticipated receipts from oil and gas leasing in ANWR, represents the panel’s portion of a $34.7 billion reconciliation bill that will enjoy protection from a Senate filibuster.

While the House has approved drilling in ANWR in the past, GOP leaders have little room for error on budget measures, which typically pass with a two- or three-vote margin.

Campaign 2006: Senate Wednesday

The special election in Ohio's second Congressional District last week might just be the tip of the iceberg for Republicans, if today's report from The Hill's Peter Savodnik proves true.

Gun activists angry with Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and the state GOP are welcoming talk of Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) challenging the second-term senator next year.

Frustration with DeWine hit a new high late last month when the senator was one of only two Republicans (Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island being the other) to oppose a bill shielding gun manufacturers from liability for damages resulting from the use of their products.

The vote came about two months after DeWine joined the so-called Gang of 14 to forge a judicial-nominees agreement, alienating many conservatives who felt the seven Republicans in the group had jettisoned party principle in the name of bipartisanship.

In a possible sign of just how angry conservatives were at the pact over judicial nominees , DeWine’s son, Pat, a local Republican official, came in fourth in a June 14 GOP congressional primary in the staunchly Republican 2nd District.

Ryan, in his second term, has not declared his political plans but has been repeatedly mentioned in Ohio and inside the Beltway as a possible Senate contender. Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), loathed by conservatives for his outspoken opposition to free trade, tax cuts and gun rights, among other issues, also may run.

“Personally, as an individual and an ardent Republican, I would love to see anyone run against DeWine, especially Ryan,” said Rick Kaleda, the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) election-volunteer coordinator in Ryan’s 17th District. The NRA endorsed Ryan in his successful 2002 Democratic primary bid against then-Rep. Tom Sawyer.
Paul Hackett, who might run if Ryan and Brown forgo their own possible campaigns for Senate, is also opposed to many gun restrictions. Perhaps this isn't the best time to be a Republican in Ohio after all.

The Hill's Savodnik also picks up on a Republican poll showing Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) in a somewhat safe position as she seeks a second term in the Senate.

A Republican poll to be released today shows Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) leading her presumed GOP opponent, Mike McGavick, by eight points.

Cantwell, a freshman, received 46 percent of the vote versus McGavick’s 38 percent in the Strategic Vision poll. Sixteen percent of voters said they were undecided.

McGavick is the president and CEO of Safeco, an insurance giant based in Seattle. He is slated to step down from the company’s helm at the end of this month.

Strategic Vision CEO David Johnson acknowledged that McGavick trails Cantwell but stressed that the senator is “below the critical 50-percent mark.”

She raised close to $1.7 million in the second quarter of 2005, bringing her cash on hand to just more than $3 million.
Forty-six percent is not a great place for an incumbent, but 38 percent for a challenger in a partisan poll isn't too great either. This one might be close, but it's not clear that it will be that close come next fall.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

No Respite for DeLay Associates

A number of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's top allies are coming under intense heat these days, and as the Associated Press reports, a judge in Texas has refused to take it easy on these alleged felons.

A state district judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss charges of money laundering and accepting illegal political contributions against two associates of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Judge Bob Perkins denied arguments from attorneys for John Colyandro and Jim Ellis that the charges were based on an unconstitutionally vague law and that the indictments were improperly worded.

The attorneys said they would appeal, a move that likely would delay any trial for several months.

The charges stem from the 2002 Texas legislative elections. Colyandro worked for DeLay's fundraising committee Texans for a Republican Majority, and Ellis worked for Americans for a Republican Majority.

The money laundering charges are based on $190,000 in corporate money that was sent to the Republican National State Elections Committee. That committee then gave the same amount of money in donations to seven Texas House candidates.

Colyandro and Ellis each were indicted on one count of money laundering, and Colyandro faces 13 counts of unlawful acceptance of a corporate political contribution.
Should this case be delayed for a few months, it's entirely possible that the trial could take place right in the thick of campaign season. Should these DeLay operatives face prison time in the fall of next year, the Democrats just might have the necessary ammo to win a few of the tightest races.

Charlie Cook: Ohio Special Election Mattered

A number of denizens of the right hemisphere of American politics claim that the special election in Ohio's second district does not forshadow an imminent changes in Ohio or national politics. Rather, they believe, a 52% victory -- even in a district that tends to favor the GOP by a 2:1 margin -- is still a victory. Stellar non-partisan political analyst Charlie Cook disagrees, though.

There are at least a hundred different interpretations of last week's fascinating special election in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District, where former Republican state Rep. Jean Schmidt just barely held onto this overwhelmingly Republican district -- the second safest GOP district in the state and the 57th most Republican district in the country -- with 51.7 percent of the vote. Yet anyway you slice it, the reality is that this special election holds some serious warning signals for Republicans, especially those living in Ohio.

[...]

[I]t is clear that there is deeper significance to this race than some Republicans admit. There are those close to the White House who remain dismissive of the election's overall significance, but to ignore the warning signals this race has given off is to tempt the gods. Just as odd-year gubernatorial races often (though not always) foreshadow subsequent national results, special elections can be a harbinger for what the upcoming national election will hold.

Republicans nationwide might take note that a message of "don't send someone to Congress who will be a rubber stamp for President Bush" resonated surprisingly well in a very GOP district. Plus, whatever sentiment for change that may be out there in the country, it is magnified at least 100 times in Ohio. The state has been dominated by the Republican Party for years and is now rocked with scandals that threaten their stranglehold, which currently extends to every single statewide office and the vast majority of downballot offices as well. Also at stake: a highly vulnerable open governorship and a GOP Senate incumbent, as well as up to eight GOP-held House seats that could end up being in play, each one significantly less Republican than the 2nd District.
[There's more, but you need to have the free subscription to view the rest. To sign up for Cook's Off to the Races column, click here.]

57% of Americans Say Iraq Made Us Less Safe

Richard Bendetto writes up the results from the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

An unprecedented 57% majority say the war has made the USA more vulnerable to terrorism. A new low, 34%, say it has made the country safer. The question is critical because the Bush administration has long argued that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken to make the USA safer from terrorism.

[...]

Asked about the conflict's progress, 56% say the war is going badly; 43% say it is going well.

[...]

A 54% majority say going to war in Iraq was a mistake, equaling highs measured last summer when insurgent attacks were increasing. The same proportion say the war was not "worth it." A majority of Americans have expressed that view since last October.
In related data, President Bush's approval rating sits at 45%, statistically the same as the 44% it measured at the end of July.

Why I Supported Republican Specter in 2004

During the 2004 election season, I supported Republican Senator Arlen Specter over Democratic challenger Joe Hoeffel for a number of reasons, the most important of which was the fact that if Specter -- who is pro-choice -- lost while the GOP maintained its majority, ultra-conservative Senator Jon Kyl would have become chairman of the Judiciary Committee (as I opined in October).

Upon winning reelection in November, Specter immediately infuriorated conservatives by imploying that an anti-choice nominee would not make it on to the Supreme Court. Although he partially stepped back from the statement, his true convictions were apparent. Now, as The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports, Specter is putting these beliefs into action.

In the first hint of how he will steer the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge John G. Roberts Jr., Senator Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said Monday that he would press the nominee for his views on specific cases involving the authority of Congress to pass broad social legislation, a power that Democrats fear will be rolled back by a more conservative court.

In a three-page letter to Judge Roberts, Mr. Specter raises pointed questions about two recent court decisions invalidating legislation Congress passed under its authority to regulate interstate commerce. That power has for decades been used to produce expansive legislation, including environmental protections, civil rights laws and the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The current court has been trimming back the authority, however, and Democrats have vowed to make interstate commerce a big issue in the Roberts hearings. Now Mr. Specter, a Republican who is widely regarded as the panel's sharpest constitutional lawyer, is suggesting that he shares the Democrats' concerns.

"I think Republicans have a duty to pursue this line of questioning and any relevant line of questioning," Mr. Specter said on Monday in a telephone interview from his home in Philadelphia.

[...]

Though not as volatile as the debate over Roe v. Wade, a decision Mr. Specter said he would also ask about, the debate on interstate commerce could prove as significant in the confirmation hearings. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states," an authority that has led to a variety of programs of the New Deal era and was broadly interpreted for more than half a century.
What was the response to the letter?

Democrats and liberal advocacy groups, caught off guard by Mr. Specter's letter, were elated.

[...]

Conservatives, already wary of Mr. Specter and his moderate brand of Republican politics and generally supportive of the Rehnquist court decisions, were not pleased.
Unfortunately, today there are far too few Senators like Specter who are willing to eschew the party line from time to time and stick to the middle instead. Specter, in particular, is an interesting case as he will never have to run for reelection again (most likely, at least), and is thus free to vote his conscience.

Specter, more than any other member of the Senate today, has the power to shape the court for the next thirty years. As Judiciary Chairman, he alone could upend Roberts' nomination. Although it is much too soon to speculate whether Specter will go to the mat for Roe, the Commerce Clause, and other constitutional beliefs of the post-war era, this story implies that he at least will not give up without a fight. And for this, all Americans are better off.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Janice Rogers Brown's Effects Immediately Felt

In the spring, President Bush was able to ram through a number of appeals court judges when Senate Republicans threatened to invoke the nuclear option. Already today, the AP's John Heilprin reports, these judges' effect can be felt.

An effort by environmental groups to block the Bush administration from implementing regulations on mercury pollution power plants was rejected by a federal appeals court.

Without comment, Judges David Sentelle and Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a motion to halt immediately the regulations adopted in March by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The rules set a nationwide cap on mercury emissions from about 600 coal-burning power plants and puts a ceiling on allowable pollution for each state beginning in 2010. Individual plants, however, can avoid cleanups by buying pollution allowances from plants well under allowable limits.

Environmental and health advocacy groups plus 14 states have asked the appeals court to order EPA to rewrite the regulations to require that all plants install within the next three years the best available technology for cutting mercury pollution. In the meantime they asked the judges to set aside the regulations until the case can be heard.

Sentelle and Brown refused to do that in an order filed late Thursday.
Does anyone still believe that the President's judicial nominees aren't complete shills for industry?

Republicans Come Out Against DeLay

CQ Weekly's Shawn Zeller has the interesting story.

By tradition, elder statesmen are decorous showpieces, trotted out for reunions or legislative anniversaries. But 76-year-old Pete McCloskey, a liberal Republican House member from California from 1967 through 1982, and Lewis H. Butler an assistant secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in the Nixon administration, have little patience for tradition. They are the front men for Revolt of the Elders, which last month announced the creation of a “527” political group to target House GOP incumbents close to Majority Leader Tom DeLay .

Two other Republicans who left the House in the early 1980s, James Johnson of Colorado and Paul Findley of Illinois, also are lending their names to the effort.

The group had a moment in the spotlight in April, when it came out against House ethics rules changes — abandoned soon thereafter — that likely would have deflected close scrutiny of DeLay’s lobbying and fundraising ties.

But they aren’t about to stop there. “We are in a contest for the soul of the Republican Party,” says McCloskey. Hence the new electoral strategy, which seeks to help GOP candidates who support causes such as environmental protection, stem cell research and abortion rights. So far, their efforts have focused on finding people in four California districts: primary opponents for Richard W. Pombo and John T. Doolittle and candidates to succeed Randy “Duke” Cunningham , who’s retiring amid a series of ethical troubles, and Christopher Cox , who resigned last week to run the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Is this a man-bites-dog story or a dog-bites-man story? Is it meaningful for moderate and liberal Republicans to speak out against the conservative party leader? Some might say no. However, these former Republican Congressmen still have sway in their communities, and in close districts across the country, the opposition of these luminaries could effect just enough voters to make a real difference in 2006.

GOP Hopeful in NJ in Heat

The Associated Press has the story on this major flub.

Republican Douglas Forrester has spent millions of his own dollars running for governor and supporting GOP candidates, but he is now fighting questions about whether that spending violated a New Jersey law designed to prevent undue corporate influence.

Forrester holds a 51 percent ownership interest in Heartland Fidelity Insurance Co., which insures the price of prescription plans from BeneCard Services Inc., BeneCard spokesman Pete McDonough said on Sunday.

BeneCard, an affiliated health-benefits company of Forrester's, has hundreds of government clients in New Jersey.

At issue is a state law that bars insurance companies, banks and other regulated industries that do business in New Jersey and individuals with majority ownership in the companies from contributing to candidates or political organizations.
Woops.

Just Why Did Bob Novak Flip Out?

USA Today's Peter Johnson gives us an idea.

Novak has said little publicly about his role in the case, which is under investigation by a grand jury as a potential federal crime. But in a newspaper column last week, he noted that Plame was included under the listing for her husband, ambassador Joseph Wilson, in Who's Who in America.

A copy of Who's Who sat on Henry's anchor desk Thursday, leading some bloggers to speculate that Novak suspected Henry planned to ask him about Plame's name in it and used Carville's remarks as an excuse to walk out.

That's how Carville saw it. "Bob's got a lot going on in his life, and that book was sitting on the desk like a barf bag, just waiting," he said.

Montana Senate Race Heating Up

The mainstream media -- including some top political analysts like Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg -- have been greatly underestimating the importance and competitiveness on GOP Sen. Conrad Burns' bid for reelection in Montana. We've talked about the race before (most recently here), and other sites like Left in the West have been thoroughly covering the race.

In the most recently-developing news, the state Democratic Party has developed a new hard-hitting ad to kick off the campaign. Check it out here at Crooks and Liars.

Pirro Changes Mind, Will Challenge Hillary

Just one week ago, word leaked out that JeaninePirro would not mount a campaign to unseat New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (D). As the AP's Marc Humbert reports today, though, Pirro has apparently changed her mind -- perhaps even flip-flopping, as some might call it.

Jeanine Pirro, a high-profile prosecutor from the New York City area, said Monday she will seek the Republican nomination to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in her bid for re-election next year.

"I am running against Hillary Clinton because New York state deserves a senator who will give her all to the people of New York for a full term, who will not miss votes to campaign in (presidential) primaries," Pirro said in a statement.

"When Mrs. Clinton first came to us and said she wanted to be a New Yorker, she asked New York to put out a welcome mat and we did," the Westchester County district attorney added. "But now she wants us to re-elect her even though she won't promise to serve out her term and wants to use us as a springboard to the presidency. She's asking us to become her doormat. I believe we deserve better."
Is Pirro a shoo in for the nomination? And if she receives the nomination, will she be able to count of the support of the conservative base? The answer is unclear.

[Pirro] has been a supporter of abortion rights.

Pirro was re-elected district attorney in 2001 while her husband, lawyer-lobbyist Albert Pirro, was in federal prison for tax fraud, and he has been an issue in most of her campaigns. In 1986, he refused to release information about his law practice and she had to withdraw as the GOP candidate for lieutenant governor. He is a major Republican fundraiser.
Bottom line, does she have a shot?

A statewide poll released last week by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute had Clinton leading Pirro, 63 percent to 29 percent.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Peter Jennings, R.I.P.

America's favorite Canadian -- or at least one of them -- will be sorely missed. The AP's David Bauder writes up the obituary.

Peter Jennings, the suave, Canadian-born broadcaster who delivered the news to Americans each night in five separate decades, died Sunday. He was 67.

Jennings, who announced in April that he had lung cancer, died at his New York home, ABC News President David Westin said late Sunday.

"Peter has been our colleague, our friend, and our leader in so many ways. None of us will be the same without him," Westin said.

With Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, Jennings was part of a triumvirate that dominated network news for more than two decades, through the birth of cable news and the Internet. His smooth delivery and years of international reporting experience made him particularly popular among urban dwellers.

Jennings dominated the ratings from the late 1980s to the mid-'90s, when Brokaw surpassed him. He remained a Canadian until 2003, when he became a U.S. citizen, saying it had nothing to do with his politics — he did it for his family.

A New Beginning for the Democratic Politics

For the last thirty years, conservatives have dominated the money game both inside and outside of the political spectrum. Think tanks like Heritage, Cato, Hoover and others have provided more than ample funds for conservative and libertarian theorists to mull over the next era of policies, and out of work politicians have had a steady source of money to tide them over in leaner years.

The Democrats and liberals have been much slower to embrace this policy -- until now. The Washington Post's Thomas B. Edsall reports on this newly developming story.

At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades.

The money will be channeled through a new partnership called the Democracy Alliance, which was founded last spring -- the latest in a series of liberal initiatives as the Democratic Party and its allies continue to struggle with the loss of the House and the Senate in 1994 and the presidency in 2000. Many influential Democratic contributors were left angry and despairing over the party's poor showing in last year's elections, and are looking for what they hope will be more effective ways to invest their support.

Financial commitments totaling at least $80 million over the next five years generated by the Democracy Alliance in recent months -- at a time when some liberal groups, such as the George Soros-backed America Coming Together, are floundering -- suggest that the group is becoming a player in the long-term effort to reinvigorate the left. The group has a goal of raising $200 million -- a sum that would inevitably come in part at the expense of more traditional Democratic groups, although alliance officials say donors have committed to maintaining past contribution levels.
$80 million won't be enough to bring parity to the battle -- the right has yearly budgets in the hundreds of millions -- but it will provide a good start, at least.

The Sunday Shows

It appears I'll be playing a little basketball, but for those who won't be shooting hoops...

CBS' "FACE THE NATION": Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and author Francis West

NBC's "MEET THE PRESS": Former New York governor Mario M. Cuomo (D), Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec, author David Kirby and Harvey Fineberg, president of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies

ABC's "THIS WEEK": Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), relatives of deceased Marines Jim Boskovitch and Rosemary Palmer, NFL Hall of Fame member Kellen Winslow, and ABC News journalists Terry Moran and Linda Douglass

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY": Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) and Jim Bunning (R-KY), and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA)

CNN's "LATE EDITION": Sens. George Allen (R-VA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Iraqi security force; Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat; Israeli Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; and Lebanese opposition leader Michel Aoun

Senator Paul Hackett?

After narrowly losing his bid for Congress from an overwhelmingly Republican district, Democratic Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett might just run for Senate (as we noted recently). Now Taegan Goddard relays news that said Senate campaign might be getting a boost.

Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH), who is running for governor of Ohio, said he would "be an enthusiastic supporter of Democrat Paul Hackett running for Senate next year," should Reps. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Timothy Ryan (D-OH) decide not to run, Congress Daily reports. A Hackett spokesperson said he has not decided on his political future.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Newsweek: Bush Approval at All-Time Low

The details are as follows:

As U.S. troops endured a deadly week in Iraq, 61 percent of Americans polled say they disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling the war in Iraq, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll. Thirty four percent say they approve. This is Bush’s lowest rating on Iraq and the first time it has dropped below 40 percent in the NEWSWEEK poll. And 50 percent of those polled say the United States is losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq; just 40 percent say the U.S. is making progress there.

A NEWSWEEK poll taken one month ago showed that 41 percent of Americans approved of Bush’s handling of Iraq; 54 percent did not.

While 26 percent of those polled say they support keeping large numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq for as long as it takes to achieve U.S. goals there, 38 percent say they would support keeping troops there less than a year, 13 percent say one to two years and 12 percent volunteered that troops should be brought home now.

Meanwhile, Bush’s approval ratings have dropped to 42 percent; 51 percent of Americans say they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president. Bush’s approval ratings reached a high of 88 percent in his first term, in the month after the September 11 attacks. Forty-two percent is his low.
Also noteworthy:

And when asked about the reports that White House adviser Karl Rove may have leaked classified information about Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, 45 percent say, from what they’ve heard or read about Rove’s involvement in the case, that they believe he is guilty of a serious crime; 18 percent say he is not guilty of a serious offense and 37 percent say they don’t know, the poll shows.

Forty Years of the Voting Rights Act

As The Washington Post's Darryl Fears notes, today marks the fortieth anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act.

As Congress deliberates reauthorizing the act, which is set to expire at the end of next year, some conservative critics argue that two key provisions should be modified, if not dropped altogether. One of those provisions, Section 5, requires states to draw minority-controlled congressional districts if black and Hispanic voters dominate certain residential areas.

Section 5 also required election officials in nine states, mostly in the South, to submit any voting rules changes that might affect minorities to the Justice Department for pre-clearance.

[...]

The other voting rights provision under scrutiny, Section 203, requires election officials to assist immigrant voters who don't speak English by providing them with voting material in their native language. The provision is not widely challenged because it benefits Asian Americans, Latinos, Armenians and others on both sides of the political divide.

In a speech earlier this week, Gonzales said he would work for the reauthorization of both provisions, according to the Justice Department. Republicans in the House and Senate have so far been supportive. President Bush has remained neutral on the issue, saying he would support any resolution that seemed fair.

But some conservative critics argue that Section 5 has all but wiped out major discrimination at the polls. Abigail Thernstrom, a conservative member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, said Congress should eliminate Section 5 -- which covers Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas -- and voters claiming discrimination should seek remedies in the courts, as they do in the 41 states that are not covered by the provision.
What are some of the tangible effects of the Act, one might ask.

At the time the law was enacted, there were three black members of Congress; today there are 43. There are also 25 Hispanic House members and one Hispanic senator, compared with five members of Congress in 1965.
It would be a great disservice to the American Democracy if the Republican Congress fails to renew the Act. But more still must be done. In areas of this country, some voters -- many of them minorities -- had to wait up to nine hours to vote. Nine hours. That is simply unacceptable.

There are some solutions, including making election day a national holiday for workers. Of course there are those who are at best apathetic about getting a larger portion of Americans voting. But for the American Democracy to survive into the next century, it is incumbent upon the politicians to figure out a way to get voters more involved in the process -- even if they might want to upset the status quo.

Friday, August 05, 2005

Bush Approval on Iraq Falls to 38 Percent

The new AP-Ipsos poll is out, and the Associated Press' Will Lester writes up the results.

Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also found fewer than half now think he's honest.

A solid majority still see Bush as a strong and likable leader, though the president's confidence is seen as arrogance by a growing number.

Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to abandon Bush on his handling of Iraq in the last six months.

[...]

Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That's about where Bush's approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year.

The portion of people who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, when 53 percent described him that way while 45 percent did not. Now, people are just about evenly split on that issue — with 48 percent saying he's honest and 50 percent saying he's not.

The drop in the number of people who see Bush as honest was strongest among middle-aged Americans as well as suburban women, a key voting group in the 2004 election. A further erosion of trust could make it tougher for Bush to win support for his policies in Congress and internationally.

Paul Hackett for Senate?

After pulling in 48 percent of the vote in an overwhelmingly Republican Congressional district on Tuesday, Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett is considering running against Mike DeWine for the United States Senate. The Wall Street Journal reports, and Kos mulls it over as well.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Former AIPAC Employees in Jeopardy

Dan Eggen and Jamie Stockwell have the page one story for The Washington Post.

Two former employees of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group were indicted yesterday on charges that they illegally received and passed on classified information to foreign officials and reporters over a period of five years, part of a case that has complicated relations between the United States and one of its closest allies.

Although no foreign government is named in the indictment, U.S. government sources have identified Israel as the country at the center of the probe. The Israeli Embassy in Washington also confirmed yesterday that it has been "approached" by investigators in the case.

The 26-page indictment, handed up in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, represents the first formal allegations of criminal wrongdoing against the former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC is widely recognized as one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington and has carefully cultivated close ties to Congress and the Bush administration.

The indictment also recasts the government's allegations against Lawrence A. Franklin, a Defense Department analyst who had already been charged with disclosing secret information about possible attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and other topics. One of six original counts was dropped against Franklin, 58, of Kearneysville, W.Va.

Former AIPAC director of foreign policy issues Steven J. Rosen, 63, of Silver Spring was indicted on two counts related to unlawful disclosure of "national defense information" obtained from Franklin and other unidentified government officials since 1999 on topics including Iran, Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. A former AIPAC analyst, Keith Weissman, 53, of Bethesda, was indicted on one count of conspiracy to illegally communicate classified information.
This one could sting the organization.

Roberts Worked Pro Bono on Behalf of Gay Rights

With a Republican majority in the Senate and the Democrats thusfar unwilling to attempt a filibuster, it appears the only thing that could realistically inhibit the nomination of John Roberts could be a challenge from the right. As Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David D. Kirkpatrick report for The New York Times, a recent development could foster just that -- unrest on the right.

Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee, gave advice to advocates for gay rights a decade ago, helping them win a landmark 1996 ruling protecting gay men and lesbians from state-sanctioned discrimination.

Judge Roberts, at the time an appellate lawyer for the Washington firm of Hogan & Hartson, did not write legal briefs or argue the case, lawyers involved said. But they said he did provide invaluable strategic guidance working pro bono to formulate legal theories and coach them in moot court sessions.

Judge Roberts did not disclose his role in the case to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which asked about pro bono work in a questionnaire. News of his participation was first reported Thursday in The Los Angeles Times, and it set off an immediate scramble on both the left and the right, upending perceptions of the nominee in both camps.

The White House immediately sought to reassure Judge Roberts's conservative backers, telephoning prominent leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it appeared that not all of them had been convinced.

The 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, is considered a touchstone in the culture wars, and it produced what the gay rights movement considers its most significant legal victory. By a 6-to-3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Colorado Constitution that nullified existing civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians and also barred the passage of new antidiscrimination laws.
The spin has yet to emerge in earnest from either side of the debate, but we'll pass it along as soon as it comes.

NY Times Picks Up on Novak

The New York Times' Jacques Steinberg doesn't add a heck of a lot to the story, but it's nice to see that Novak's little encounter today made it into tomorrow's papers.

Bob Novak Loses it on National Television

Crooks and Liars carries the video of Bob Novak completely losing it on CNN this afternoon. FishBowlDC describes the sceneas follows:

In the second-to-last "Inside Politics" Strategy Session, James Carville and Bob Novak were in the middle of their post-Crossfire debate. While they were talking about Katherine Harris and other topics, Carville said something to set off Novak about Harris and the banter eventually drove Novak bonkers.

Carville: "You've gotta show these right-wingers some kind of backbone, you know, the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you show them you're tough."

Novak exclaimed, "Now, James, that's bullshit!" Then he turns to Henry: "Just let it go." He paused angrily for a moment, took off his microphone, and stormed off in a very Novak-like shuffle. Carville's look over his shoulder in puzzlement as Novak wanders off is classic. Henry, for his part, barely misses a beat, although there's an audible "um" as Novak crosses behind Carville.
FishBowlDC also gets the response from the management at CNN.

"Bob Novak's behavior on CNN today was inexcusable and unacceptable. Mr. Novak has apologized to CNN, and CNN apologizes to its viewers for his language and actions. We've asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," a CNN spokeswoman told us.
Yowza.

Quote of the Day

"I understand older people don't like change."

-- President Bush, on changes to Social Security.
Link.

Bush Approval Static at 45 Percent

CBS News became the first organization to release August polling today, finding that President Bush's approval has not changed in the last month.

The president’s approval level remains below 50 percent, and Americans are still divided over the war in Iraq. They are paying attention to one of the summer’s major news stories – the possible 2003 leak to reporters of the identity of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame. In fact, the story has captured a level of attention from the public similar to the early stages of political scandals such as Whitewater, the Democrats' 1996 fundraising and Iran Contra.

Forty-one percent of the public views this controversy as of great importance to the nation -- more than what was said about the Whitewater scandal in its early days, and about the same as was measured for Iran-Contra in the spring of 1987 and the campaign fundraising scandal. But compared to how Americans felt about Watergate in 1973, fewer today see this issue as of great importance.

[...]

Views of President George W. Bush have remained stable in the past month and even improved since June. In this poll, 45 percent approve of the job he is doing as president, unchanged since last month but higher than his 42 percent approval in June.

Bush’s ratings on handling specific issues are mostly unchanged from last month. As has been the case, handling terrorism remains the president’s strongest issue, with a 55 percent approval rating, while his handling of Social Security is his weakest issue, on which he receives only a 29 percent approval rating.

More on John Roberts

New York Newsday's Tom Brune scores a major scoop this morning that shows John Rboerts has not been entirely forthright with the United States Senate.

John G. Roberts yesterday conceded he should have said he was registered to lobby on behalf of the cosmetics industry in the completed questionnaire he submitted Tuesday to the Senate for his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

In an amendment filed yesterday in response to a Newsday story about the omission, Roberts confirmed he was registered to lobby for the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association and had met with two agencies on its behalf in 2001.

Roberts also said it was "appropriate" for his former firm to file the lobbying disclosures, but said he omitted the cosmetics group when answering the questionnaire because he thought his work was a legal task, not lobbying.

But Food and Drug Administration records show Roberts was working for the cosmetics group earlier and for a longer period than he says in his amended filing and that is shown in the lobby disclosure forms filed by his former firm, Hogan & Hartson.
Should Roberts' nomination be derailed, it would most certainly not be on the basis of his views; rather, issues like misleading the Senate could have more sway with Senators than anything else. This is not to say that Roberts' nomination is in jeopardy -- far from it. However, if it becomes apparent that Roberts was not truthful with the Senate on other issues, his nomination could indeed falter.

The House 2006

There are a handful of articles in today's papers that illuminate the race to control the House of Representatives in the upcoming 110th congress. To begin with, Dan Balz and Thomas B. Edsall relay some comments from a former House Speaker warning the GOP to take notice of some recent developments.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) warned fellow Republicans yesterday not to ignore the implications of the party's narrow victory in Tuesday's special election in Ohio, saying the public mood heading into next year's midterm elections appears to helping Democrats and hurting Republicans.

"It should serve as a wake-up call to Republicans, and I certainly take it very seriously in analyzing how the public mood evidences itself," Gingrich said. "Who is willing to show up and vote is different than who answers a public opinion poll. Clearly, there's a pretty strong signal for Republicans thinking about 2006 that they need to do some very serious planning and not just assume that everything is going to be automatically okay."

Gingrich's reaction came after Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and vocal critic of President Bush's Iraq policy, came within 4,000 votes of upsetting Republican Jean Schmidt in the solidly GOP 2nd Congressional District in southwestern Ohio.

[...]

Gingrich, the architect of the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, cited evidence that voter unrest is fueling Democratic hopes.

"There is more energy today on the anti-Iraq, anti-gas-price, anti-changing-Social Security and I think anti-Washington [side]," he said. "I think the combination of those four are all redounding to weaken Republicans and help Democrats. . . . I don't think this is time to panic, but I think it's time to think. If we don't think now, then next September [2006], people will panic when it's too late."
In related news, both The Post and The New York Times hit on another issue that could prove important in the 2006 midterms -- GOP spending. The Times' Carl Hulse writes that the recently passed surface transportation bill, a behemoth at over $285 billion, could be even larger than originally believed.

President Bush has never exercised his veto power, but he brandished it over major transportation legislation for two years, threatening Congress with the V-word should lawmakers break the bank in pursuit of home-state road and bridge work.

So when Congress delivered transportation legislation with a price tag put at $286.4 billion, the administration claimed victory, noting the final amount was just $2 billion above the White House's limit and far below what senior members of Congress wanted.

But as details of the measure came under closer inspection this week, the spending picture got a bit blurry. In a piece of legislative legerdemain, Congress managed to stuff an extra $8.5 billion into the highway bill and still meet Mr. Bush's demands by requiring that the added money be turned back to the Treasury on Sept. 30, 2009, the day the bill expires.

The question of whether that new bottom line translates into financial flexibility or fiscal irresponsibility now depends on who is adding things up.

Budget watchdog groups, already upset at spending they equate to highway bill robbery, say the maneuver is the crowning offense perpetrated by a profligate Congress and exposes the administration as co-conspirators.
Jonathan Weisman pens a page one article in The Post noting the larger trend among Republicans away from fiscal restraint.

GOP leaders this week sent House Republicans home for the summer with some political tips, helpfully laid out in 12 "Ideas for August Recess Events." Drop by a military reserve center to highlight increased benefits, the talking points suggest. Visit a bridge or highway that will receive additional funding, or talk up the new prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Having skirted budget restraints and approved nearly $300 billion in new spending and tax breaks before leaving town, Republican lawmakers are now determined to claim full credit for the congressional spending. Far from shying away from their accomplishments, lawmakers are embracing the pork, including graffiti eradication in the Bronx, $277 million in road projects for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and a $200,000 deer-avoidance system in New York.

When the year started, President Bush made spending restraint a mantra, laying out an austere budget that would freeze non-security discretionary spending for five years and setting firm cost limits on transportation and energy bills. But now, as Congress fills in the details of the budget plan, there is little interest in making deep cuts and enormous pressure to spend.

Lawmakers have seen little to fear from a political backlash, some acknowledge, and Bush has yet to wield his veto pen. In fact, the White House has proved itself largely unable to overcome the institutional forces that have long driven lawmakers to ply their parochial interests with cash.

When lawmakers return in the fall, they are almost certain to vote for more tax cuts. They also will vote on a huge new defense spending bill. But proposals for cutting entitlement programs including Medicaid have yet to pick up much support.
Despite the fact that the short-term budgetary outlook has improved in the past year as a result of increased tax revenue (or at least revenue that exceeded the very conservative estimates of the GAO and the CBO), the long-term deficit situation is clearly deteriorating. Although it is uncertain that voters today will punish politicians for saddling future Congresses with massive debts, it is nevertheless clear that there is an opening for fiscal hawks -- be they conservative Republicans, centrist Democrats, Libertarians or others -- to make a case that the current direction of the country is unsustainable. In a year that could evince dissatisfaction with the status quo, as Gingrich suggested, this could prove to be a boon for these deficit-cutting outsiders, just as in 1994.

John Roberts and Civil Rights

The New York Times' team of Robin Toner and Jonathan D. Glater present an interesting look into Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' past views on civil rights.

He produced a torrent of memorandums explaining why the Reagan administration was right to oppose new provisions in the Voting Rights Act that had just passed the House with an overwhelming majority.

He drafted op-ed articles for his boss, Attorney General William French Smith, and he circulated talking points warning that Congress - by trying to make it easier to prove voting rights violations - was on the verge of creating "a quota system for electoral politics." He scribbled angry notes on newspaper articles that showed an official from another department was veering off-message.

It was 1981 and John G. Roberts Jr. was 26, two years out of Harvard Law School and an eager combatant in the political wars - including the one over the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was up for renewal in Congress. In general, he wrote to one of his mentors after three months on the job: "This is an exciting time to be at the Justice Department. So much that has been taken for granted for so long is being seriously reconsidered."

With his position as a special assistant to the attorney general, Mr. Roberts became engaged in one of the most bitterly divisive struggles of the Reagan revolution - the effort to develop a new, more conservative approach to civil rights and voting rights, according to documents released by the National Archives.
Fodder for the Dems?

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Dem Afflicted by Ethics Crunch

Apparently, Republicans aren't the only ones in serious ethics -- and possibly criminal -- tangles these days. The AP's Mary Foster has the story.

FBI agents searched the Washington, D.C., and New Orleans homes of a Louisiana congressman Wednesday, hauling away boxes and bags from one of the residences.

The Justice Department refused to say what agents were looking for during the searches of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record)'s homes and vehicle.

"As it is a criminal investigation we will not be able to comment any further," said Bryan Sierra, a Justice Department spokesman.

Jefferson, 58, an eight-term Democrat from New Orleans, said in a statement that he did "not know the extent or precise nature of this investigation" but said he was cooperating fully.

[...]

His name surfaced earlier in a case involving his brother-in-law, a former state judge convicted in June of mail fraud in a wide-ranging probe of bail bond corruption in suburban New Orleans.
At least the Duke Stir will have some company...

Campaign 2006: 'Round the Horn

In New York state, The Post's Fredric U. Dicker reports that Hillary Clinton's most able challenger has bowed out of the US Senate race.

Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro has ruled out running against Hillary Rodham Clinton for the U.S. Senate, and instead is weighing a race for governor or attorney general, GOP insiders said last night.

The insiders said Pirro, who announced two months ago that she wouldn't seek re-election in order to run for statewide office next year, was in the final days of making her decision — and was consulting such important party figures as Gov. Pataki, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and, possibly, Mayor Bloomberg.

State Republican leaders had viewed Pirro as their strongest challenger to Clinton and were trying to persuade her to take on the former first lady.
The Senate race in West Virginia is also heating up these days. The Charleston Gazette's Tom Searls reports.

With the general election still 15 months away, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd launched a television ad campaign this week to counteract commercials being run by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

“It’s not the beginning of a campaign, but a response,” said Charleston attorney Ned Rose, who heads the Friends of Robert C. Byrd Committee.

While three Republicans have announced plans to run against the state’s senior senator in 2006, most political observers are awaiting an announcement by Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., about her plans.

So far, neither Byrd nor Capito have announced their candidacies.

But not all political observers see it that way. “This has to be the earliest start of any Senate election in West Virginia,” Robert Rupp, a West Virginia Wesleyan professor, said of the warring ads.
And in Kansas, the strongest challenger to Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius has decided against running, reports Scott Rothschild for the Lawrence Journal-World.

U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran on Tuesday announced he would not seek the Republican nomination for governor, a decision that Democrats touted as more evidence that the GOP was mired in internal political warfare.

“The extreme conservative leadership of the Kansas Republican Party continues to alienate its moderate members,” Kansas Democratic Party Chairman Larry Gates said.

Moran, of Hays, is one of those rare Kansas Republicans who appealed to both moderates and conservatives.

[...]

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, who is expected to run for re-election may have had something to do with Moran not running, Washburn political science professor Bob Beatty said.

Even though Republicans enjoy a significant advantage over Democrats in voter registration, Moran would have had a tough race against Sebelius, Beatty said.

Oy Gevalt

A Marine amphibious assault vehicle on patrol during combat operations near the Syrian border hit a roadside bomb Wednesday, and 14 Marines were killed in one of the deadliest single attacks in Iraq against American forces.

A civilian interpreter also was killed in the bombing, which came two days after seven Marines died in the same area during combat with insurgents. At least 1,820 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Also, an American freelance journalist was found dead in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, the U.S. Embassy said. Steven Vincent had been shot multiple times after he and his Iraqi translator were abducted at gunpoint hours earlier, police said.
Link.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

GOP Unhappy Democrat Got Job on K Street

The Hill's Jonathan E. Kaplan has the story.

Time Warner’s decision to hire Carol Melton as its top lobbyist has garnered “quiet attention” from House Republican aides who have raised questions about her political affiliation.

“The entertainment industry continues to prove they just don’t get it,” a top House Republican aide remarked.

[...]

House GOP leadership aides and their allies on K Street (many of whom are former Hill staffers) continue to monitor closely the political background of lobbyists whom the biggest corporations hire. The effort is known as the “K Street Project,” a research project that tracks lobbyists’ party affiliations, and is led by GOP activist Grover Norquist, who heads Americans for Tax Reform.

Since Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, several congressional leaders, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley (R-Ohio), have been accused of trying to pressure corporations to hire Republican staffers for their highest-paying and most powerful lobbying posts. In 1998, the House ethics committee reprimanded DeLay for holding up legislation that would have benefited the electronics industry to penalize the Electronic Industries Alliance for hiring Oklahoma Democrat Dave McCurdy.
Should Democrats be allowed to get cush lobbying positions on K Street, or should all of the top-paying positions be reserved for Republicans? You be the judge.

Republican Schmidt Wins in Tight Race

In the special election to replace former Rep. Rob Portman, who resigned this year to become US trade representative, Republican Jeane Schmidt pulled off a four point victory -- in a district Bush carried with 64 percent of the vote in 2004. The AP's Dan Sewell writes up the results of the election as follows:

A Republican former state lawmaker claimed a seat in Congress on Tuesday by narrowly defeating an Iraq war veteran who drew national attention to the race with his military service and a series of harsh attacks on President Bush.

With all precincts reporting, Jean Schmidt had 52 percent, or 57,974 votes, compared with Democrat Paul Hackett's 48 percent, or 54,401 votes. Schmidt's margin of victory amounted to about 3,500 votes out of more than 112,000 cast.

Schmidt, 53, will replace Republican Rob Portman, who stepped down this year after being named U.S. trade representative by Bush. Portman held the seat for 12 years, consistently winning with more than 70 percent of the vote in the Cincinnati-area district.

Democrats had viewed the race as a bellwether for 2006, saying even a strong showing by Hackett in such a heavily GOP district would be a good sign for them in the midterm elections.
As Charlie Cook notes this week (we've already quoted him once today), special elections like the one held today have often forshadowed the results of future elections.

Special elections in 1993 and early 1994, for example, gave us a sneak preview of the storm clouds Democrats were headed for down the road.

In Kentucky's 2nd District, Republican Ron Lewis easily won a special election in May of 1994 to replace longtime popular Democrat Bill Natcher -- an early sign of the beating Democrats were going to take that November in southern districts across the country.

In Wisconsin, a special election in May of 1993 to replace popular Democratic Rep. Les Aspin -- who had been tapped by President Clinton to serve as secretary of Defense -- proved to be a political canary-in-a-coal-mine as well. Democrat Peter Barca beat Republican Mark Neumann by just 675 votes in a district that Aspin had easily carried for 23 years. Just a few months earlier, Aspin had crushed Neumann with 58 percent of the vote. In 1994, Neumann beat Barca by 1,120 votes.
[There's more, but you need to have the free subscription to view the rest. To sign up for Cook's Off to the Races column, click here.]

Certainly at this point, it would be absurd to imply that the Democrats will see monumental gains in 2006 simply because of the results of this election. All politics are local, and the situation in Ohio is quite grave for the Republicans, who are embroiled in the monumental "Coingate" scandal. What's more, we stand more than a year away from the 2006 midterms. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Democrats nearly won in a district that has not been competitive in my lifetime. And if anyone believes that that is not in and of itself a significant occurence, I'm not sure what would surprise them.

[Update 10:05 PM Pacific]: The New York Times' James Dao raises another important fact from today's election.

Perhaps most important, the Republican organization in Clermont County, Ms. Schmidt's base, turned out voters in greater numbers than expected, pushing her over the top. The returns showed that Ms. Schmidt won handily in most of the affluent Cincinnati suburbs, while Mr. Hackett won the district's more rural counties. [emphasis added]
A Democrat mopping up in rural areas?

The Special Election to Watch

As the AP's Dan Sewell reports, voters in conservative southern Ohio are taking to the polls this morning to choose the next member of the United States House of Representatives.

Republican Jean Schmidt was first in line when the polls opened Tuesday as voters in a southwestern Ohio congressional district chose between her and Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran who is critical of the war.

Tuesday's special election in the heavily GOP district was for the seat of former Rep. Rob Portman, who stepped down this year to become U.S. trade representative.

[...]

It was the final stage of a campaign that has drawn national attention largely because of Hackett's military service and his criticism of President Bush.

Hackett, who would be the first Iraq war combat veteran in Congress if elected, campaigned with fellow vets Monday. He also had weekend campaign help from two other veterans, former Sens. John Glenn of Ohio and Max Cleland of Georgia.

[...]

Both campaigns had TV and radio commercials sweeping the district, while campaign workers focused on get-out-the-vote efforts. Elections officials said turnout could be as high as 25 percent, a strong showing for a summertime special election.

Hackett has been the strongest Democratic candidate in decades in Ohio's 2nd District, where Portman regularly received more than 70 percent of the vote during his 12 years in Congress.
Swing State Project has great continuing coverage of the election.

Just a note about the election: Paul Hackett has raised a nearly unprecendented $450,000 online in this special election. It looks like Democrats across the nation -- and especially in this overwhelmingly GOP district, in particular -- are really energized.

[Update 8:30 AM Pacific]: Charlie Cook weighs in...

Will today's special election in Ohio's 2nd District be that crystal ball for 2006? On its face, this heavily Republican district sure doesn't look like it should be any sort of bellwether. President Bush's 64 percent last year suggests that any Democrat has an enormous amount of ground to cover just to break even. When Republican former state Rep. Jean Schmidt narrowly won the 12-way Republican primary on June 14, besting early favorites Hamilton County Commissioner Pat DeWine and former Rep. Bob McEwen with 31.4 percent of the vote, it was assumed that her hard work was over. After all, the Cook Political Report 'Partisan Voting Index' rating is R+13, which means that in the combined two-party vote in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, this district voted 13 percentage points more Republican than the country as a whole.

[...]

Bottom line: Schmidt, the Republican, is still favored to win the election, but don't rule out the possibility of an upset, given the vagaries of August special election voter turnout and the problems unique to Ohio this year. But even assuming a GOP win tonight, the margin of victory can give us some insight into just how radioactive the governor's troubles and the "time for a change" sentiment in the state will be for other Republicans in the Buckeye State next year. If Schmidt's victory margin is in double digits, this tells us that there is not much of an anti-GOP wind in Ohio right now. If the margin is say six to nine points for Schmidt, then there is a wind, but certainly no hurricane. A Schmidt win of less than five points should be a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something is very, very wrong, while a Hackett victory would be a devastating blow to the Ohio GOP.
[There's more, but you need to have the free subscription to view the rest. To sign up for Cook's Off to the Races column, click here.]

Santorum Down 11 in GOP Poll

From Republican pollster Stragic Vision:

If the election for United States Senate were held today, and the choice was between Robert Casey, Jr., the Democrat and Rick Santorum, the Republican, whom would you vote for?

Casey 51%
Santorum 40%
Other 2%
Undecided 7%
It looks like Rick Santorum's appearance on The Daily Show did little to boost his reelection bid...

Oy Vey

The U.S. military said Tuesday that six Marines were killed in action in western Iraq, pushing the death toll for Americans since the start of the war past 1,800.

The Marines, assigned to Regimental Combat Team-2 of the 2nd Marine Division, died Monday in Haditha, 140 miles northwest of Baghdad.

A seventh Marine was killed Monday by a car bomb in Hit, 50 miles southeast of Haditha in the volatile Euphrates River valley.

Insurgents posted handbills in Haditha, claiming to have killed 10 U.S. troops, seizing some of their weapons.

At least 1,801 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,382 died as a result of hostile action. The figures include five military civilians.
Link.

Monday, August 01, 2005

A New Way to Supply American Energy

This past week has provided a great window into the choices facing this country as it attempts to meet its ever-growing energy needs. Last week, Congress decided the country should sate itself with foreign oil, nuclear power and some wind power. Now, as Gail Kinsey Hill reports for The Oregonian, the Beaver state is making good use of the third option.

Orion Energy of Oakland, Calif., plans to develop a wind farm in Sherman County with 225 turbines and a 450-megawatt capacity, the largest project of its kind in Oregon and, perhaps, the country.

The breezy Columbia River Gorge has established itself as a choice spot for wind generation. But Orion's Biglow Canyon project, to sprawl across thousands of acres near the towns of Rufus and Wasco, is notable for its size. Along with other recent wind-farm announcements, Orion's plans underscore not only developers' interest in ever larger-scale projects, but the rapid maturing of a business sector.

[...]

Wind is a variable resource and doesn't produce the nonstop electricity of traditional natural gas- or coal- fired power plants. Adjusted to account for wind's ups and downs, a megawatt of wind energy capacity is estimated to generate enough power to continuously light up 250 homes.
It's good to see some regions of the country making good use of the new energy bill.

Two Years for Bolton

It looks like John Bolton will get at least a couple of years as UN Ambassador. The AP's Terence Hunt reports.

President Bush sidestepped the Senate and installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on Monday, ending a five-month impasse with Democrats who accused Bolton of abusing subordinates and twisting intelligence to fit his conservative ideology.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform," Bush said. He said Bolton had his complete confidence.

Bush put Bolton on the job in a recess appointment — an avenue available to the president when the Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007.

Will Bob Novak Ever Learn?

Last week, while I was walking back from work, I spotted Bob Novak chatting in a parking garage about a block west of the White House. Overcoming my urge to kick him in the shins, I wisely decided to just walk on.

Anyway, it looks like our good friend has once again taken to the task of attempting to inflate his ego. In the Chicago Sun-Times, he writes:

A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.

Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.

In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."

This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.
Click to read the rest of his non-mea culpa.


To support this site, please make your DVD, music, book and electronics purchases through my Amazon link.

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Listed on BlogShares This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

My Other Blogs
The Blogs I Read
The Political Sites I Visit
The Newspapers I Read
The Media I Consume
Oregon Media
Oregon Blogs
Blogroll
News Digests
Design by...