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

Friday, September 30, 2005

Gen. Casey Downgrades Possibility of Troop Withdrawal

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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) Catches a Break

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

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

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

"We're very focused on serving as governor and first lady, and we think the state is making real progress," Hoeven said.
The Democrats' attempt at retaking the Senate just got slightly easier.

Bush Up 4 Points, Dems Maintain Ballot Advantage

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

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

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

The public is also losing patience with elected officials, as 77 percent say they are fed up with partisan bickering in Washington, D.C. This may be why, at least in part, the public thinks it is time for a change: by 40 percent to 32 percent, voters today say they think it would be better for the country if Democrats win next year’s mid-term elections. Last month, 38 percent said they wanted Democrats to win and 35 percent said Republicans (30-31 Aug 2005).
Although the President's numbers are bouncing back up this month, it must be disconcerting to see his party faring so poorly, even before the indictment of Tom DeLay.

Miller Testifies in Plame Probe

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

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

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

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

Miller said in a statement that her source — identified by the Times as Libby — had released her from her promise of confidentiality.
The Plame grand jury is slated to wrap up on October 28 -- one week after Tom DeLay is scheduled to appear in court to face criminal conspiracy charges. November might just prove to be a very long month for Republicans.

Army Misses Recruiting Target; Worst Year Since 1979

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

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

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

[...]

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

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.
There are many who believe that the only path to success in Iraq today would be to place more American troops on the ground. With this in mind, it is disconcerting to hear that the Army is finding it so difficult to sign up new recruits.

DeLay's Defense Debunked

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

Dick DeGuerin, the attorney representing DeLay, said Thursday that DeLay actually was invited to appear before the grand jury, where he would have been under oath. The Houston attorney was not yet on the legal team when DeLay was asked to appear, but he said other attorneys advised him not to testify — a decision DeGuerin supports.
If DeLay truly believes that his best line of defense is a massive media blitz, he would be well served to both get his facts in line and his message squared with his lawyers.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

A Breakthrough in the Plame Investigation?

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

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

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

The sources said Miller agreed to testify after securing an unconditional release from Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to testify about any discussions they had involving CIA officer Valerie Plame.
It seems the Republicans just can't catch a break these days, with the indictment of Tom DeLay, the investigation of Bill Frist, the probe of Jack Abramoff's many dealings, etc., etc.

DeLay to Appear in Court in Late October

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

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

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

[...]

Earle has consistently denied the investigation of DeLay and his associates was political and has pointed out he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans.
It looks like this story should have legs for at least a few more weeks, much to the chagrin of Congressional Republicans and the President.

Campaign 2006: More on the Senate

Pennsylvania

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

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

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

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

[...]

Among Independents, Casey leads 33 percent to 14 percent.
Given that Santorum is down 13 points and 14 points in other recent polling from the state, it would be safe to say he has his work cut out for him. And given his place in the list of Congress' 13 most corrupt, the recent focus on GOP improprieties is not going to help him at all.

New York

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

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

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

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

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

"Rudy Giuliani raised $7 million and Rick Lazio $5 million during their first fund-raising periods," said Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson.
This isn't a good start for those who want to damage Clinton in 2006 so she will be weaker in 2008.

Michigan

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

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

Debbie Stabenow 48%
Keith Butler 27%
Undecided 25%


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

Debbie Stabenow 51%
Jerry Zandstra 21%
Undecided 28%

And the Situation in Iraq Continues to Deteriorate...

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

Polling DeLay

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

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

[...]

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Americans correctly identified DeLay as a Republican while 36% were unsure of his party affiliation.
The survey was conducted yesterday, so it obviously did not catch the multitude of Americans who learned about the story from newspapers and the morning news shows. Nevertheless, the second set of numbers -- that less than three in five Americans know that Tom DeLay is a Republican -- should give Democrats pause if they believe they can simply allow the story to play out on its own without employing skilled spinmasters.

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

Chief Justice John G. Roberts

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

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

The Senate voted 78-22 to confirm Roberts — a 50-year-old U.S. Appeals judge from the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Md. — as the successor to the late William H. Rehnquist, who died earlier this month. All of the Senate's majority Republicans, and about half of the Democrats, voted for Roberts.
I'm not certain that I would call the vote "overwhelming," given that the other justices on the Court -- with the exception of Thomas -- have had much closer to unanimous support.

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

Who Turned on DeLay?

Kevin Drum asks an important question:

WHO'S THE SQUEALER?....Hmmm. Apropos of this post wondering if someone has agreed to squeal on Tom DeLay, a reader from Texas says: "Word down here already in late spring was that Sears, most likely, or another one of the corporations that agreed to participate in the TRMPAC shakedown, not Ellis, Colyandro, etc., would be the squealer."
In December we noted that campaign finance charges were dropped against Sears in return for their cooperation in the case, so maybe Kevin -- or his Texas reader -- is on to something.

Reuters: US Troops Inhibiting Coverage of War

Barry Moody has the story for Reuters.

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

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

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

A cameraman working for the U.S. network CBS has been detained since April despite an Iraqi court saying his case does not justify prosecution. Iraq's justice minister has criticised the system of military detentions without charge.
Is inhibiting the ability of the media to accurately report the situation on the ground actually necessary to fight a successful war in Iraq? Because if not, it is extremely troubling to hear of coercion, arrests and death of journalists in the country.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Quote of the Day

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

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

The Political Fallout from the DeLay Indictment

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

Coelho added, “They’re now facing a very strong headwind because Bush’s popularity is going way down and he no longer provides a protective umbrella for the Congress. It’s going to be a continuing, building story.”
[Update 10:30 PM Pacific]: One of Oregon's top pollsters echoes Kaplan's tone, notes The Washington Post's Dan Balz.

Tim Hibbits, an Oregon-based pollster, said the DeLay indictment by itself may be less significant in shaping the partisan environment than some others suggested, but he argued that it will deepen the disenchantment of swing voters toward the political system. For a multitude of reasons, he said, Republicans have much to fear about the year ahead. "I think the Republicans at this point are in more trouble than they realize," Hibbits said.
The AP's Larry Margasak, who has been working this story from all angles, writes today that the DeLay story might continue to grow from its present form.

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

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

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

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

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

Oregon's Death with Dignity Soon Before SCOTUS

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

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

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

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

Still, only a tiny portion of terminally ill Oregonians have used the law to take their lives — 208 people, representing about one in 1,000 deaths.
Gonzalez v. Oregon will provide an immediate glance into the judicial temperment of John G. Roberts (should he be confirmed, of course). If Roberts follows the classic states' rights argument, he should find that Oregon is free to maintain the law (remember, the drugs in question are not federally prohibited, only prescribed in large doses). However, if he is infact a conservative activist, as some worry, his states' rights tendencies would be overridden by his moral apprehensions about physician-assisted suicide. When the transcripts of the hearing become available, we'll try to let you know towards which direction Roberts appears to lean.

Is the White House Blocking Hurricane Aid?

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

But the administration has not revealed how much money will be in the fund, and senators questioned both the funding commitment and whether the administration has the authority to establish such a fund.
The key point to note, aside from the fact that the administration is delaying the aid, is that it was Republican Senators who leaked this story. Generally, the demise of a party comes not when the opposition gains strength but rather when the party itself begins to split at the seams.

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

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay Indicted

The AP's Larry Margasak has the story.

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

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

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

[...]

The indictment against the second-ranking, and most assertive Republican leader came on the final day of the grand jury's term. It followed earlier indictments of a state political action committee founded by DeLay and three of his political associates.
Even if DeLay eventually beats the rap, these are tough days to be a Republican, with an indictment of one leader and an insider trading investigation of another.

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

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

"I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County District Attorney today," he said in a statement.
[Update 10:30 AM Pacific]: Laylan Copelin explains the charge against DeLay for the Austin American-Statesman.

The charge, a state jail felony punishable by up to two years incarceration, stems from his role with his political committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, a now-defunct organization that already had been indicted on charges of illegally using corporate money during the 2002 legislative elections.
[Update 10:47 AM Pacific]: The SEC is opening up an official probe to look at Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's stock sales. More here.

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

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

"Congressman DeLay is a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people," McClellan said. "I think the president's view is that we need to let the legal process work."
[Update 11:26 AM Pacific]: The Hill's House GOP correspondent Patrick O'Connor adds another wrinkle to the story.

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

[...]

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

Sources say that leadership wants to install House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) as DeLay's temporary replacement as Majority Leader. [emphasis added]
[Update 12:23 PM Pacific]: The AP's Larry Margasak is reporting that DeLay has figured out his new line of defense -- the D.A. is a partisan Democrat.

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

"I have done nothing wrong ... I am innocent," DeLay told a Capitol Hill news conference in which he criticized the Texas prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, repeatedly. DeLay called Earle a "unabashed partisan zealot," and "fanatic," and described the charges as "one of the weakest and most baseless indictments in American history."
The only problem with this tactic: Earle has actually investigated more Democratic politicians than Republicans, as Media Matters notes.

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

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

Republicans selected Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the current Republican whip — No. 3 in the leadership ranks — to fill the vacancy temporarily.
Says Josh Marshall, "Will Dreier ascend? Cold hand of James Dobson grips the House."

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

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

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

Gibson, 76, a retired sheriff's deputy in Austin, said of DeLay: "He's probably doing a good job. I don't have anything against him. Just something happened."
Does this nix DeLay's attempt to make the indictment seem like a partisan attack by Earle?

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

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



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

SEC to Open Formal Probe of Frist's Stock Sale

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

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

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

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

FEMA Under Fire for Cruise Line Contracts

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

Wyden Says He Has Votes to Lower Rx Costs

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

Wyden declined to identify the two senators who have changed their minds, but he repeated several times that he and Snowe had the votes needed to approve the amendment.
President Bush is overwhelmingly against the Wyden plan, which would significantly lower prescription drug costs for senior citizens. If the Democrats want to make President Bush have to start vetoing some bills, this might be a good start.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Campaign 2006: The Senate

Fundraising

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

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

For example, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has given $500,000 from his campaign account. Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Carl Levin (Mich.) have each given $100,000. Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) has contributed $375,000, and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) has deposited $235,000.
Oregon's own Wyden, who raised a ton of money in the 2004 cycle despite not facing a serious challenge, gave close to 15% of all of the money donated by Senators. To give a comparison, the largest GOP donor was Mel Martinez, who gave his party's committee $89,000, or less than a quarter of what Wyden gave. If Schumer can keep up the heavy fundraising, including from members like Wyden (who still has more than $1.5 million on hand without another race for 5 years), perhaps 2006 won't be such a bad year for Democrats after all.

Outlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Charles (Chip) Pickering would likely carry the GOP banner, with either former state Attorney General Mike Moore or Rep. Gene Taylor running for the Democratic nod.
Harry Reid's coup in keeping Schumer in the Senate can not be understated. As chair of the DSCC, Schumer has proved to be an able recruiter, as Cook notes, and a prolific fundraiser. If the Democrats retake the Senate in 2006 -- which does not yet appear at all likely, but is nevertheless possible -- look for Schumer to ascend to a position of real power within the party, either within the Senate or on a larger stage.

Could DeLay be Indicted Soon?

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

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

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

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

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

The disclosure came as congressional officials said top House Republicans were quietly considering how to respond if an indictment were issued.
Although Ronnie Earle is indeed a Democrat, it would be extremely difficult for the Republicans to spin out any semblence of a victory should Tom DeLay be indicted. And if this situation plays out as Margasak indicates it might -- with the Majority Leader indicted for conspiracy charges -- the race to control Congres sin 2006 would shift immediately.

GOP Poll Shows Dems with Big Lead

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

President Bush

Approve -- 45%
Disapprove -- 52%


Generic Senate Ballot

Republican -- 42%
Democratic -- 49%


Generic House Ballot

Republican -- 40%
Democratic -- 48%
So much for writing off recent Democratic polling as merely partisan...

GOP Seeks to Assert Control over Public Broadcasting

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

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

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

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

With the changes, conservatives with close ties to the Bush administration have assumed control of every important position at the agency, which distributes about $400 million in federal funds to noncommercial radio and TV stations and is supposed to act as a buffer against outside political influence.
Do not be confused; this is a scorched earth policy as Republicans try to establish firm control over all levels of bureaucracy. It apparently is not enough that the Wall Street Journal's extremely conservative editorial board has its own show on PBS, as does former Nixon advisor John McLaughlin (who is joined by an overwhelmingly conservative panely) and the certainly-not-liberal Fareed Zakaria. No, some Republicans continue to try to rid public broadcasting of anything that deviates from the company line. It will certainly be interesting to see the public reaction if/when these two new leaders of the CPB make their presence felt.

Bush Strong Approval Down to 28%

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

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

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

Total approve -- 43
Total disapprove -- 53


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

Total Democratic incumbent/candidate -- 49
Total Republican incumbnent/candidate -- 42
Total (Other candidate) -- 1
The question is no longer whether or not the public has a preference for Democratic candidates today but rather if the Democratic Party will squander this lead before November, 2006.

Brown Says Culpability Lies on Local, State Officials

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

Brown said: "Those are not FEMA roles. FEMA doesn't evacuate communities. FEMA does not do law enforcement. FEMA does not do communications."
Is the entire purpose of Michael Brown's continued employment at FEMA to continue to shift any and all blame from the Bush administration on to Democrats in Louisiana? (Notice Brown hammers only officials in Louisiana, who are Democrats, and not the Republicans in Alabama or Mississippi.)

Ben Affleck for Senate?

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

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

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

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

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

It was about that time that party officials started batting Affleck's name around. "It's spread pretty widely, at least in the political underground," University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, Virginia's premier pundit, told Michael Shear, The Post's Richmond correspondent.
Affleck certainly has the money and name recognition to take on Allen. And if he's actually interested in the race, wait until this year's tightly contested gubernatorial race in the state is completed. If Democrat Tim Kaine can eke out a victory over Republican Jerry Kilgore, perhaps Affleck will take a serious glance at throwing his hat into the ring.

Quote of the Day

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

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

Monday, September 26, 2005

Was Abramoff Being Protected?

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

"Whatever the motivation in replacing Fred, his demotion meant that the investigation of Abramoff died," said a former colleague in Guam.
It's highly possible that this is merely a coincidence, that Black happened to be reassigned to focus on terrorism around the same time that he commenced the Abramoff probe. His barring from investigating public corruption could, too, have been a result of this.

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

George Bush: America's Conservationist President?

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

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

"We can all pitch in," Mr. Bush said. "People just need to recognize that the storms have caused disruption," he added, and that if Americans are able to avoid going "on a trip that's not essential, that would be helpful."
This certainly seems to be a great shift from the beginning of Bush's first term, as Leonhardt, Mouawad and Sanger report.

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

"The president believes that it's an American way of life," Mr. Fleischer said.
So is this a real shift in administration policy or rather an attempt to repackage the same old undesired nostrums?

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

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

[...]

In Washington, two House committees are expected to consider proposals this week that have been blocked in the past by environmental objections. Beyond making it easier to build new refineries, one proposal would allow states to opt out of Congressional bans on coastal oil drilling, and another would allow drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which has been controversial for years. [emphasis added]
If the President truly believes in conservation, rather than just use it as a ruse to further benefit wealthy energy conglomerates, he ought to call on Congress to raise fuel efficiency minimums and further subsidize energy efficient alternatives, such as hybrids.

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

Micheal Brown Rehired at FEMA

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

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

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

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

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

During that time, Brown will advise the department on "some of his views on his experience with Katrina," as he transitions out of his job, Knocke said.
Not too bad of a deal for "Brownie," though it's not entirely clear how much the American public benefits from him continuing to receive a full paycheck.

Frist Says He Didn't Trade on Insider Information

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

[...]

Frist has hired two private attorneys who specialize in securities litigation and insider trading cases: William McLucas, a former SEC enforcement director, and Harry Weiss, a former SEC attorney who was a co-author of a text titled "Preventing Insider Trading." Their representation of Frist was confirmed by their law firm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. The involvement of the firm was first reported in Monday's editions of The Wall Street Journal.
Even if it turns out that Frist's trades were completely above board -- and there's no reason to believe this isn't the case -- this lingering story is surely a drag on Frist's already faltering bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. It's unclear whether he'll be able to overcome this one.

An Old Candidate, a New Candidate

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

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

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

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

"His life is the Senate," said Robin Capehart, chairman of the West Virginia Republican Party.
With Byrd leading his nearest challenger -- who might not even run -- by 16 points, it's going to be difficult for the Republicans to deny Byrd another term, even in the "red" state of West Virginia.

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

Retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Jay Fawcett, a Democrat, will announce Tuesday that he'll run for Colorado's 5th Congressional District against Rep. Joel Hefley. (However, rumors continue to swirl, and not for the first time, that the 10-term congressman may retire.)
Although George W. Bush won the district with 66 percent of the vote in 2004, there's no reason to believe that the former Lt. Colonel can't at least make a race of it.

GOP Moves Right in Message to Appease Base

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

The leadership staffers also expressed worries that the entire party would be accused of endorsing all of the RSC's proposals, which included delaying the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug bill and other controversial suggestions.
The difficulty for House Republicans at this juncture is that they must pursue two completely opposite media strategies at the same time.

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

Campaign 2006: Gubernatorial Edition

Wyoming

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

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

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

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

"I don't care about Howard Dean," he said, referring to the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
I'm not certain that it's a detriment to the party when a Democrat bashes Howard Dean in order to win in Wyoming.

Maryland

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

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

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

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

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

Ehrlich is expected to run for a second term next year.
For those looking for clues as to how the 2008 Presidential campaign might play out, make sure to keep an eye on the governor races across the country in 2005 and 2006.

SEC Chair Cox Recuses Self from Frist Probe

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

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

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

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

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

GOP Rep. Caught Up in Homeland Security Scam?

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

Rohrabacher received a $2,000 campaign donation from Medawar two years ago but said his assistance was not a political favor.
There is no reason to doubt Rohrabacher's claims that his help in this case was unrelated to Medawar's contributions, but this case reminds us of questions that clearly need to be asked. Given that this is not the first time someone has used close ties to the administration -- or perceived close ties to the administration -- to make millions of dollars, what is it about the culture of Washington today that would lead investors, businessmen and indeed Congressmen to believe such hucksters?

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Romney Continues to Slide in Massachusetts

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

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

Yanek Mieczkowski, a presidential historian at Dowling College in New York, said that Lyndon B. Johnson had to separate himself from racist elements in Texas, and Ronald Reagan did the same with the hippie fringe in California. Looking further back, there was Grover Cleveland, who in 1884 used the slogan "Grover the Good" to separate himself from the political corruption in his home state of New York.
With this playbook, it's no wonder that Romney's approval rating and reelect numbers are fairly underwhelming, even for a blue state conservative. But if he believes that these tactics will give him the inside track on the GOP nomination, he might have to think again, says Amy Sullivan of The Washington Monthly, who posits that Romney's Mormonism is a non-starter among Evangelicals. Whether or not Sullivan is correct, however, it's clear that residents of Massachusetts are getting a bit tired of Romney.

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

"Well," van Overbeeke said, "what are you doing here?"
Maybe it's better that Romney is spending so much time in the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina after all...

The 13 Most Corrupt in Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note to Readers

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

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

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

GOPers Could Bolt on Bush's Next SCOTUS Nom.

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

On the conservative side of the party, [Kansas Senator Sam] Brownback and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, another member of the Judiciary Committee, devoted much of their time for questioning Judge Roberts to delivering messages to the White House about the importance of overturning precedents supporting abortion rights.
Although Roberts is likely to be a vote for social conservatives on a wide range of issues, it's not clear that he is as intent on actively overturning precedent as many on the religious right would have hoped.

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

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

Saturday, September 24, 2005

The Sunday Shows

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kitzhaber to Challenge Kulongoski in Dem Primary?

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

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

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

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

But, he added: "It would take an awful lot to make me believe that I could do more good for the world Logan (his 7-year-old son) will inherit with another four years as governor rather than with what I'm doing privately."
While many Democratic activists in Oregon revere Kitzhaber to the point that they would risk splintering the state party to renominate him, they might be wise to take at least one point into account.

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

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

Frist Peeked into Blind Trusts

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

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

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

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

[...]

Frist sold his HCA stock from several blind trusts this summer, at a time when insiders in the company also were selling off shares worth $112 million from January through June. Frist aides say he sold his stock to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.
Again, even if Frist did not commit insider trading -- and there is no indication that he has -- this is nevertheless becoming yet another drag on the Republican Party at a time when its top leader, President Bush, sees his approval rating falling to its lowest level ever. Maybe the President is now having second thoughts about installing Frist after forcing Trent Lott out of the position.

Friday, September 23, 2005

GOP Chair in Senate to Block Bush Immigration Nominee

Michigan's Democratic Senator Carl Levin, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, has pledged to block President Bush's immigration nominee Julie Myers, who is viewed by many to be underqualified for the position. Now a high ranking Senate Republican is joining his side. The New York Times' David E. Rosenbaum and Steven Labaton have the story.

Faced with accusations that the Bush administration is stocking the government with unqualified cronies, the Republican chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is holding up the nomination of a lawyer with little background in immigration or customs to head the law enforcement agency in charge of those issues.

Democrats have seized on the political fury that developed over the apparent lack of qualifications of Michael D. Brown, the director, and others in the Federal Emergency Management Agency who were called on to deal with the calamity caused by Hurricane Katrina. Day after day, Democratic lawmakers have begun aggressively challenging the credentials of people President Bush wants to place in midlevel government positions.

The homeland security chairwoman, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, says she now wants to inquire further into the qualifications of Julie L. Myers to be assistant secretary of homeland security for immigration and customs enforcement.
And Myers isn't the only administration official with quesitonable credentials (aside, of course, from the recently departed FEMA administrator Michael Brown).

At the same time, the Center for American Progress, a research institute for out-of-office Democratic policy experts, has questioned whether Andrew B. Maner is qualified for his position as chief financial officer of the Homeland Security Department, which has a budget of about $35 billion and more than 180,000 employees. Mr. Maner's main government experience before joining this administration was a job in the White House press office under the first President Bush.

The questions of credentials are not limited to homeland security. For example, the main experience of Brian D. Montgomery, who in June became assistant secretary for housing and federal housing commissioner, was performing advance work in the Bush presidential campaign of 2000 and in the current administration's first term.

Mr. Montgomery's responsibilities now include overseeing the $500 billion Federal Housing Administration insurance portfolio. His background in housing is limited to a few years as communications director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.
There is nothing conservative about appointing underqualified people to important positions. Cronyism, whether it comes from the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, is a danger to the country and must not be allowed to continue.

Republican Ethics Problems Come to the Fore

The AP's Donna Cassata takes a momentary break from hard news to take a step back and look at the status of Republican Congressional leaders and their problems with ethics rules.

Heading into a midterm election year, Republicans find themselves with not one, but two congressional leaders — Bill Frist in the Senate and Tom DeLay in the House — fending off questions of ethical improprieties.

[...]

For Republicans, the timing couldn't be worse.

"The last thing you needed was a Martha Stewart problem," Marshall Wittman, a one-time conservative activist who now works for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said of Frist. "He doesn't even have a good clothing line or a popular television show."

[...]

"The overall problem the Republican Party has is it is increasingly looking like Tammany Hall," Wittman said. "An odor of sleaziness is enveloping the Republicans and seeping into the administration."
With all of the gifts the GOP has handed to the Democrats since last November's election, the Dems would be remiss if they were unablt to capitalize next November.

Bush's FDA Chief Jumps Ship

We've thoroughly documented the woes of President Bush's FDA over the past several months, often coming to the conclusion that it was unclear that the agency had the right priorities. Now, as the AP's Lauran Neergaard reports, the oft-derided head of the FDA is calling it quits.

Embattled Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester Crawford resigned Friday, telling his staff that at age 67 it was time to step aside.

His resignation came just two months after the Senate, in a long-delayed move, elevated the longtime agency deputy and acting commissioner to the top job.

Crawford's three-year tenure at FDA was marked by increasing criticism, as the painkiller Vioxx was pulled off the market for safety problems, recalls of malfunctioning heart devices mounted and controversy grew over wider access to emergency contraception.

Last month, morale at the agency plummeted when Crawford indefinitely postponed nonprescription sales of morning-after contraception over the objections of staff scientists who had declared the pill safe. FDA's women's health chief resigned.

Still, Crawford's resignation, effective immediately, was a surprise. An affable veterinarian who specialized in food safety, he was elevated by President Bush from acting commissioner to the full job in part because his experience was deemed important as the FDA attempted to better safeguard the food supply against bioterrorism. Crawford gave a speech Monday in Washington during which he betrayed no sign he was planning to leave, instead discussing upcoming FDA policy on the safety of cloned beef.
It's about time Crawford left the FDA, which has fared poorly under his tenure. The only question now is if President Bush will hire another crony.

Big Government Conservatism

Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, published a report some time ago that showed President Bush's increases to both defense and non-defense discretionary spending eclipsed those of even Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of Vietnam and the Great Society. While not citing the study, The Economist's American columnist Lexington rails against the big government conservatism of the Bush administration (sorry, subscription required).

But has [Bush's plan of rebuilding New Orleans with conservative big government policies] any chance of success? The problem is that big-government conservatism is already stumbling under the weight of its own contradictions. The grandiose experiment in the Gulf could be enough to flatten it entirely.

The first contradiction is Mr Bush's insistence on governing like a big-government conservative while taxing like a small-government one. Even before the hurricane hit, federal spending had been growing by 7% this year (on the heels of a 30% hike during Mr Bush's first term). Mr Bush has now promised to spend an additional $200 billion of federal money on rebuilding the Gulf, while ruling out tax increases to pay for it. The money can supposedly come from cuts in other government programmes.

[...]

The second contradiction is that Mr Bush doesn't seem to be very good at running government. His detached management style—setting broad goals and letting underlings implement them—relies on putting good people in place. But he hasn't done that. The problem is not just limited to “Brownie” and the cronies at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr Bush's nominee to run the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Julie Myers, has little relevant experience other than being related to General Richard Myers and married to Michael Chertoff's chief of staff. The president also has a disastrous weakness for old bureaucrats, who sound efficient but no longer are (step forward Donald Rumsfeld). And the White House now has a sleaze problem: the administration's top federal procurement official, David Safavian, was arrested on Monday in a corruption probe linked to Mr DeLay's lobbying pal, Jack Abramoff.
One would hope that there would be positive tangible results from the massive increases to the federal deficit under President Bush. But as Lexington so eloquently notes, George W. Bush's experiment with big government conservatism is rapidly turning into a disaster.

Campaign 2006: The Senate

Despite claims by some on the right that freshman Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is in serious danger of being denied a second term, new polling indicates this might not be the case. The Associated Press reports.

Democratic US Senator Debbie Stabenow continues to lead her two potential Republicans challengers in a poll released today.

Stabenow leads the Reverend Keith Butler of Troy 49 percent to 25 percent, with 26 percent undecided.

She also leads Jerry Zandstra, a Cutlerville resident on leave from his jobs as a minister and as program director of a Grand Rapids-area think tank.

Fifty percent of the 600 likely residents polled say they'd vote for Stabenow while 22 percent say they'd pick Zandstra. Twenty-eight percent were undecided.
Stabenow isn't the only freshman Democrat who's maintaining a double-digit lead in the polls. According to the latest survey from Strategic Vision, a Republican polling outfit,

If the election for United States Senate were held today and the candidates were Maria Cantwell, the Democrat or Mike McGavick, the Republican, whom would you vote for?

Maria Cantwell 49%
Mike McGavick 39%
Undecided 12%
Note that Cantwell leads by 10 points even though the Republican poll neglects to mention that she is the sitting Senator. Of course Cantwell can't take it easy at this point, given her standing below 50 percent, but maybe she need not worry quite as much as some political analysts think she should.

Frist Family Records Subpoenaed

Jonathan M. Katz has continuing coverage of the story.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and federal prosecutors are investigating Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's sale of stock in HCA Inc., the hospital operating company founded by his family.

In a statement released Friday, the Nashville-based company said federal prosecutors for the Southern District of New York issued a subpoena for documents HCA believes are related to the sale of its stock by the senator.

Frist's office confirmed the SEC is looking into the sale.
With the window of opportunity to pass legislation before the beginning of the campaign season rapidly closing, this is not what one would want their party leader to have to deal with. If Frist can't get this issue settled soon, he might have a coup on his hands (and Bill Frist knows a thing or two about coups within the Senate GOP).

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Could Stock Sale Endanger Frist?

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has repeatedly shown a desire to run for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008, might have hit a snag, reports the AP's Jonathan M. Katz.

When Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist asked a trustee to sell all his stock in his family's hospital corporation, a large-scale sell-off by HCA Inc. insiders was under way.

Shares of the Nashville, Tenn.-based hospital company were near a 52-week peak in June when Frist and HCA insiders were selling off their shares — just about a month before the price dropped.

Information about the insiders' moves was publicly available through disclosures required by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

About 2.3 million shares, worth about $112 million, were sold by HCA insiders from January through June, with sales getting larger as the spring wore on, said Mark LoPresti of Thomson Financial. In May and June, 770,629 shares were sold for total gains of $42 million, he said.

The sales, which included moves by Hospital Corporation of America's chief executive, treasurer, senior vice president for government programs and several directors, were among the largest insider selloffs analysts had seen, LoPresti said. Many officers made their largest trades ever in April, only to top them again in May and June, LoPresti said.

Meanwhile, HCA shares continued a steep climb that would ultimately take the price up 56 percent from October 2004 to July 2005, peaking in late June, LoPresti said.
It's unclear whether this is a real story or just the appearance of a story. Nevertheless, it's never good for any politician to have to explain something like this.

Political Bloggers Reach the FEC

The AP's Donna Cassata reports that with the prospect of new regulations hanging in the air, political bloggers of all ideological stripes are taking their case to be exempted to the FEC.

Political bloggers who offer diverse views on Republicans and Democrats, war and peace argued on Thursday that they should be free of government regulation.

The notion was echoed by some members of the government agency trying to write rules covering the Internet's reach in political campaigns.

Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web.

The FEC, in its initial rules, had exempted the Internet.
Earlier this month FEC Commissioner David Mason appeared quite loath to begin regulating political blogs. Check out the full Mason interview for more information.

Polls, Polls, Polls

The latest installment of the Gallup poll shows Americans increasingly pessimistic about the situation in Iraq. CNN has the story.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday indicated fewer than half of Americans believe the United States will win the Iraq war, and 55 percent of those surveyed said it should speed up withdrawal plans.

Only 21 percent said the United States definitely would win the war in Iraq, which began when a U.S.-led coalition invaded in 2003 to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Another 22 percent said they thought the United States probably would win.

Twenty percent of respondents said the United States was capable of winning in Iraq -- but probably would not. And 34 percent said they considered the war unwinnable.

[...]

With the number of deaths nearing 2,000, 55 percent of those surveyed said they wanted to see the United States intensify efforts to withdraw from Iraq, while 41 percent said they wanted no change in policy.
Given the diminishing support for the war in Iraq, perhaps it should come as no surprise that the President's overall approval rating, as gauged by the American Research Group, sits well below 40 percent.

George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings remain unchanged from a month ago as over half of Americans believe the national economy will be worse a year from now according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 37% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 57% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 34% approve and 60% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 39% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 55% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 36% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 58% disapprove.
SurveyUSA also finds Americans generally holding a negative view of the President, with only 41% approving. Utahns are the most supportive of President Bush, with 63 percent voicing approval; Vermonters are the least supporters, with just 29 percent approving. Thirty five percent of Oregonians approve of President Bush -- a drop of six points in a month -- while 63 percent disapprove.

IMF Calls Bush's Deficit Reduction Plan "Unambitious"

As the AP's economics reporter Martin Crutsinger reports, the International Monetary Fund isn't very impressed by President Bush's pledge to half the deficit by 2009 (leaving aside whether he can even follow through with the pledge).

While billions of federal dollars are being spent to recover from Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration wants the world to know that it will be able to keep its pledge to cut the federal budget deficit in half by the time the president leaves office.

However, the International Monetary Fund is deriding that goal as "relatively unambitious" and suggesting that a better target would be to totally eliminate the deficit by 2010 with the help of tax increases.

The policy recommendation from the IMF staff was released Wednesday as part of the lending institutions' latest "World Economic Outlook." The IMF warned that various global imbalances, including huge budget and trade deficits in the United States, posed a significant risk to the world economy.

[...]

The IMF criticized the Bush administration's goal of cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009 for not going far enough and also for relying too much on what would be unprecedented cuts in government spending that left the entire program "subject to considerable risk."

As an alternative, the IMF recommended that the United States consider raising taxes through such methods as eliminating some current tax deductions, creating a national consumption tax or a new energy tax, all ideas that run counter to President Bush's tax-cutting goals.
Every cent borrowed today will cost more tomorrow, not just for our generation, but our children's generation and their children's generation. If we want America to succeed and thrive through the 21st century, we must stop saddling ourselves with debt -- and like the IMF said, the time is now.

Roberts Nomination Moves to the Senate Floor

The AP's Jesse J. Holland has the story:

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved John Roberts' nomination as the next Supreme Court chief justice, virtually assuring his confirmation by the Senate next week.

The official tally of 13-5 was anticlimatic, with the committee's 10 majority Republicans lined up solidly behind the conservative judge's nomination to the full Senate weeks in advance.

But the decision by three Democrats to join Republican efforts to make Roberts the nation's 109th Supreme Court justice outlined the division in the minority caucus over whether Democrats can, or should, mount even symbolic opposition to Roberts to send President Bush a message on his next Supreme Court nomination.

Five Democrats — Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois — opposed Roberts in the final vote, and many of the arguments merged with senators' worries about the upcoming replacement for the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
Russ Feingold, the hero of the anti-war left, voted in favor of the Roberts nomination. Given the flak Kos and others give to Joe Lieberman and other moderates for bucking the party from time to time, I wonder why Kos has yet to hammer Feingold for his vote (as of 1:01 PM Pacific)...

Campaign 2006: Around the Horn

National

Professional pundit Larry Sabato has provided a new prospective on the 2006 Senate elections and now sees a possibility, however slight, of the Democrats retaking the Senate next year.

With an effective lead of 55-45 in the Senate, Republicans continue to have the clear early edge to retain control--especially since they only have to defend 15 of the 33 seats up for election in next year. Yet Katrina, Iraq, gas prices, growing national debt, President Bush's unpopularity, and other factors might conspire to produce Democratic gains or even a takeover, as wild as that speculation appears today.
In Sabato's eyes, the Democrats' path to victory must include holding all three open seats (Vermont, New Jersey and Minnesota) and all incumbent seats (North Dakota, West Virginia, Washington, Florida and Nebraska) while picking up all close seats (Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Tennesee, Arizona, Montana and/or Missouri).

Interestingly, Sabato puts the Missouri race in the "solid Republican" camp despite the fact that incumbent Jim Talent is currently tied in the polls with Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill.

Florida

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris can't seem to catch a break. The latest round of Republican polling from Strategic Vision shows the former Florida Secretary of State still trailing incumbent Democratic Senator Bill Nelson by double digits.

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 48%
Katherine Harris 36%
Undecided 16%
Oklahoma

Oklahoma might be one of the "reddest" states to have a Democratic Governor, but it seems that the Sooners still overwhelmingly like Brad Henry. Now, as The Hill's Jim Snyder reports, new polling shows Henry with a somewhat comfortable lead over his strongest potential challenger.

A poll paid for by the Oklahoma state GOP shows Rep. Ernest Istook, now in his seventh term, as the strongest contender against Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat.

Istook is considering running for the chance to take on Henry, who was elected in 2002 with just more than 43 percent of the vote and is among the GOP’s biggest 2006 targets.

The poll measured five potential Republican nominees against Henry.

Istook finished the strongest but would not win, according to the poll. In that race, Henry would beat Istook 44 to 36 percent.
If a Dem can win here, I suppose he can win anywhere...

California

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, embroiled in a difficult political battle, is telling President Bush to stay out of his state for the time being. Carla Marinucci has the story for The San Francisco Chronicle.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday he wants President Bush to delay a planned October fundraising visit to California because the governor fears it will siphon off donations he needs to help his Nov. 8 special election measures.

"In the next two months, it would be better if we just do the fundraising," Schwarzenegger said in an interview with The Chronicle. "Then let us go (past) our special election -- and then they can pick it up again, the (Republican) national committee."

[...]

The event -- set right before the special election -- has dramatized the tug-of-war between state and national Republicans over the party's big donors in California. National party officials say Schwarzenegger appears to be keeping the president at arm's length while Bush is unpopular in California. But the governor's staff and state Republicans have made it clear to the White House that "the timing couldn't be worse," said one high-level state Republican who spoke on condition of anonymity.

With Schwarzenegger under pressure to raise millions of dollars to boost his special election measures, Republicans said donors in the state -- widely acknowledged as the cash machine of national politics -- are being maxed out.
Republican donors maxed out? If this isn't a sign of weakness in a state like California, I'm not sure what would be.

Abramoff Probe Back in the News

Although the news media have largely neglected the probe into the dealings of GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff for the past several months, that doesn't mean the prosecutors in the case have. And as Jonathan D. Salant reports for the Bloomberg news service, the probe continues to threaten some of the most major players in the Republican Party.

The widening investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff is moving beyond the confines of tawdry influence-peddling to threaten leading figures in the Republican hierarchy that dominates Washington.

This week's arrest of David Safavian, the former head of procurement at the Office of Management and Budget, in connection with a land deal involving Abramoff brings the probe to the White House for the first time.

Safavian once worked with Abramoff at one lobbying firm and was a partner of Grover Norquist, a national Republican strategist with close ties to the White House, at another. Safavian traveled to Scotland in 2002 with Abramoff, Representative Robert Ney of Ohio and another top Republican organizer, Ralph Reed, southeast regional head of President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who once called Abramoff ``one of my closest and dearest friends,'' already figures prominently in the investigation of the lobbyist's links to Republicans. The probe may singe other lawmakers with ties to Abramoff, such as Republican Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, as well as Ney.
If anything should concern Republicans, it is the arc of the investigation. Instead of being resolved now or in the near future -- allowing campaign spinmeisters more than a year to try to change the focus of voters -- it appears that the case is just heating up now, with possibility remaining that something (be it an indictment or a slap on the wrist) occuring in the height of the campaign season.

Quote of the Day

"He has calves like Baryshnikov and a mouth like Cheney."

-- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) on Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), who is also a former ballet dancer.
Link.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Specter to Bush: Delay Naming O'Connor Replacement

With John Roberts appearing headed for swift confirmation, talk is already beginning on President Bush's next nomination. But as Roger Runningen reports for Bloomberg news, at least one powerful Senator wants a little time to breath between nominations.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he urged President George W. Bush today to delay nominating a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said he talked to Justice O'Connor about staying on the high court. "She's prepared to do that" through the court's term ending in June, Specter said. The president "was noncommittal," Specter said. "The body language was not very positive," Specter said.

Specter said the delay would give Congress and the rest of America more time to know John Roberts as chief justice. "When we know a little more about Judge Roberts it's going to be easier with the next" nomination, Specter said.
Specter, who is pro-choice -- but also a pragmatist -- plans on voting aye on the Roberts nomination, at least in part (one would imagine) because Roberts similarities to Rehnquist mean that the Supreme Court won't radically change in the near term. With the retirement of O'Connor remaining on the table, however, the prospect of a major shift in the Court away from the right to choose and the right of privacy is still very imminent.

Is this a politically astute move by Specter? Very possible. But whether a short delay in the nomination of O'Connor's replacement would actually effect the direction of the Court is not so obvious.

Soros Continues Fundraising for Dems

George Soros, a currency speculator and philanthropist who has given hundreds of millions of dollars to foster Democracy around the world, has turned his sights towards fostering Democratic Party voters around the country. Alex Bolton has the story for The Hill.

Billionaire financier George Soros hosted a fundraiser for Senate Democrats last week at his Manhattan home, making his first foray into politics after spending $25 million of his money in an effort to defeat President Bush last year.

Soros gathered about 60 of his friends and acquaintances in his Upper East Side home Thursday to hear a presentation from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to a knowledgeable source. The event raised an estimated $250,000 for Senate Democratic candidates.

[...]

Until last week, Soros had kept his distance from Democratic fundraising circles since Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) loss to Bush last November. And Soros let it be known that he would not again donate to America Coming Together (ACT), the 527 soft-money group that mobilized swing-state voters for Democrats.

Already this election cycle, various liberal political groups have been vying for access to Soros’s deep pockets. But before the DSCC event, Soros had not opened his wallet to any of them.
Bolton inficates that the fundraiser might be a testament to the abilities of Schumer more than an indication of Soros' intentions. Nevertheless, the Democrats will need money -- and lots of it -- if they want any shot at making headway in the 2006 midterms, and bringing in cash from Soros and his friends is certainly a good start.

AP: Bush on Iraq Sounds Like LBJ on Vietnam

Leaving aside whether the situation in Iraq is analagous to the situation in Vietnam four decades ago, the AP's Douglass K. Daniel notes that President Bush's words on Iraq sound increasingly similar to those used by President Johnson to describe the situation in Vietnam.

Bush officials bristle at the suggestion the war in Iraq might look anything like Vietnam. Yet just as today's anti-war protests recall memories of yesteryear, President Bush's own words echo those of President Johnson in 1967, a pivotal year for the U.S. in Vietnam.

"America is committed to the defense of South Vietnam until an honorable peace can be negotiated," Johnson told the Tennessee Legislature on March 15, 1967. Despite the obstacles to victory, the president said, "We shall stay the course."

After 14 Marines died in a roadside bombing on Aug. 3, Bush declared: "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. And the job is this: We'll help the Iraqis develop a democracy."
Perhaps this is one reason why less than a third of Americans approve of the President's handling of the war in Iraq...

Army Lowers Standards for Recruits

The Iraq War is taking its toll on the Army's recruitment, as has been thoroughly documented in the media. Now Joseph R. Chenelly reports for the Army Times that the Army is lowering its standards for new recruits.

Army recruiters now have a wider pool to find future soldiers in. The Army is reaching out to a slice of America’s youth long ineligible to serve: non-high school graduates who don’t have a General Equivalency Diploma
Recruiters can now go after that demographic through the “Army Educations Plus” option, the Army announced Tuesday.

If an individual has been out of high school for at least six months, can pass a physical exam and the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, he or she may be eligible for help getting a GED.

The program allows recruiters to enlist a high school dropout, according to S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruiting Command. But the enlistee must have the GED before shipping off to basic training. The Army will pay for individuals to attend a course to prepare for the GED test and will cover the cost of taking the GED exam.
With thousands of National Guardsmen rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and another Hurricane headed for the Gulf Coast, maybe it is time to do whatever is necessary to meet recruitment goals -- even if it requires changing the standards.

Kulongoski, Others Want Feds to Examine Gas Price Gouging

With gas and oil prices rising in the face of another Hurricane, Oregon's Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski and seven other Democratic Governors are calling on Congress to investigate price gouging in the gasolene market. The Oregonian's Joseph B. Frazier reports.

Ted Kulongoski of Oregon, Christine Gregoire of Washington and a half-dozen other Democratic governors released a letter to the Bush administration on Tuesday requesting an investigation into possible gasoline price gouging in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

"We urge Congress to immediately commence an investigation into the excessive profits being made by oil companies who are taking advantage of this national crisis," the letter said.

It urged legislation refunding any excessive profits to consumers. It was also signed by the governors of Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, Iowa and Montana.

The letter cites University of Wisconsin economist Don Nichols, who "published a study showing that gas prices have risen disproportionately in comparison to the price increases per barrel of oil. This study affirms that a large profit is being made at the expense of American citizens."

Historically, Nichols said, the markup between the price of a gallon of crude and a gallon of gasoline is about 85 cents to 90 cents a gallon, including refining, distribution and taxes.

At $50 for a 44-gallon barrel of crude, he said, the pump price should be about $2 a gallon, a little more or less in some states depending on taxes. At $65 a barrel -- nearly identical to the price in Tuesday afternoon trading -- a gallon should be about $2.30.

But as of Monday, the average cost of a gallon of regular was $2.78 nationwide. A week ago, it was $2.95 a gallon.

For gasoline to be $3 a gallon, he said, crude should be selling for about $95 a barrel.
If the Nichols study is indeed correct and the gasolene companies are gouging the public, swift action by the federal government is the only course of action. Now it's entirely possible that the super increase in price is due to the shutdown of the Gulf Coast's refineries in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the possible shutdown due to Hurricane Rita. But these are just possibilities and should be investigated, either by Congress or an inspector general.

GOP Debates How to Pay for Katrina

With the federal deficit already north of $300 billion and the price of Katrina estimated at close to $200 billion dollars, Republicans in Congress are beginning to think of some ways to offset the new spending. As The Hill's Jonathan Allen reports, the Budget Committee Chairman in the Senate is thinking about a very novel idea (at least for someone in his party) -- a tax increase.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee refused to rule out increasing taxes yesterday as he and many of his GOP colleagues called for offsets to temper the effect of the next round of federal spending for disaster relief in the Gulf Coast.

“We’ve got two sides to the ledger,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). “I’m willing to look at a revenue solution … as part of a package.”

Though Gregg declined to specify or rule out any solution, there are limited options for generating revenue, many of which involve deferring expected tax cuts or increasing taxes in a targeted or across-the-board fashion.

Conservatives demanded accountability and offsets in the next package of spending for the recovery from Hurricane Katrina, but many of them, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), scoffed at tax increases.

“The so-called Katrina tax hikes are not about Katrina; they’re about tax hikes and will only serve to balloon the oversized, under-responsive emergency-management system that broke down three weeks ago in the wake of the hurricane,” DeLay said in a House floor speech, according to prepared remarks provided by his office.
So if raising taxes -- or even deferring tax cuts -- is off of the table in the House, what do House Republicans think the solution is? Massive spending cuts. Carl Hulse has the story for The New York Times.

Conservative House Republicans plan to recommend on Wednesday more than $500 billion in savings over 10 years to compensate for the costs of Hurricane Katrina as lawmakers continue to struggle to develop a consensus on the fiscal approach to the disaster.

At the top of a partial list of the potential cuts being circulated on Tuesday were previously suggested ideas like delaying the start of the new Medicare prescription drug coverage for one year to save $31 billion and eliminating $25 billion in projects from the newly enacted transportation measure.

The list also proposed eliminating the Moon-Mars initiative that NASA announced on Monday, for $44 billion in savings; ending support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $4 billion; cutting taxpayer payments for the national political conventions and the presidential election campaign fund, $600 million; and charging federal employees for parking, $1.54 billion.
This might be where the substantial small government contingent of the House GOP stands, but what does the party leadership think about this?

Before the list was made public, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, declared that delaying the Medicare plan was a nonstarter. Mr. DeLay also expressed skepticism that most lawmakers would want to revisit the transportation bill, saying he would be reluctant to sacrifice the projects that he won for his district in the Houston area.
So the answer? Using deductive logic, if Republicans won't allow for tax cuts and don't have the stomach for spending cuts, it seems the only alternative is to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit. Given that this plan commands the support of 14 percent of Americans, it will be interesting to see how the Republicans try to spin this come next November.

Quote of the Day

"Karl is not a pleasant person to deal with."

-- Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who is considering running for the 2008 GOP nomination on an anti-immigration platform, on speaking with Bush advisor Karl Rove.
Link.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

With Aye Vote on Roberts, Chafee Could Lose NARAL

Many on the left were outraged when NARAL provided moderate Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee an early and important endorsement. Now, as Jackie Kucinich reports for The Hill, Chafee might have just squandered the endorsement.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I) has said that he will vote for John Roberts’s nomination to the Supreme Court, a move that could jeopardize his endorsement from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“Absent anything unforeseen,” Chafee told The Hill last week, he would vote for Roberts to succeed the late William Rehnquist as chief justice of the United States. The senator reaffirmed his support of Roberts yesterday.

Although Chafee voted against the nomination of U.S. Circuit Court Judge Priscilla Owen, NARAL President Nancy Keenan blasted him June 8 for voting to confirm Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

“Given our recent conversations with Senator Chafee, this vote is surprising and extremely disappointing,” Keegan said in the release. “We’d like to know what pressure the Republican leadership put on him. We will be watching closely his future votes on judicial nominees, including William Pryor and those for the Supreme Court.”
As the article indicates, one of Chafee's top selling points in the overwhelmingly "blue" state of Rhode Island is that he is moderate and independent. An aye vote on Roberts, and more importantly the loss of NARAL support, could make 2006 very difficult for Linc.

Levin to Block Bush Immigration Nominee

Earlier today it became apparent that President Bush's nominee to head immigration and customs enforcement is not entirely qualified for the position. Now the AP's Lara Jakes Jordan reports that one Democratic Senator is preparing to block the nomination -- but for separate reasons.

A Democratic senator threatened Tuesday to block approval of a Homeland Security Department nominee until he receives a secret FBI memo about terror suspect interrogations that he's been seeking for months.

The threat against Julie L. Myers, tapped to head the department's bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, came amid lawmakers' concerns that she lacked the experience to head the federal government's second-largest investigative force.

Asked if he planned to use legislative delaying tactics against Myers nomination, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said: "Oh yeah. If we don't get the documents, sure."

At issue is a heavily edited May 2004 e-mail from FBI agents seeking guidance about questioning terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.
From our experience with Michael Brown at the head of FEMA, perhaps it's a good thing that Levin indends to block Myers' nomination -- even if it's for an unrelated reason.

Bush Approval Stagnant at 40%

The Associated Press is the latest news organization to commission a mid-September poll.

President George W. Bush's job approval rating remains at rock bottom for his presidency.

The latest AP-Ipsos poll found that just under six out of 10 people who were surveyed disapprove of how Bush is doing his job, about the same as before last week's nationally televised address from New Orleans.

A number of Republican leaders and consultants warned the White House that the president could be close to losing his political base.
The data from the poll reads as such:

Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?

Approve -- 40% (39% in early September)
Disapprove -- 57% (59%)


And when it comes to handling the relief effort for victims of Hurricane Katrina, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

Approve -- 46% (46%)
Disapprove -- 51% (52%)
Now that it's clear that President Bush's well orchestrated speech from the Gulf Coast has failed to give him much of a boost, what's going to come next?

[Update 7:07 AM 9/20/05]: More data...

If you had to choose, which one of the following options do you think is the best way for the government to pay for the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina?

Cut spending on Iraq -- 42
Delay or cancel additional tax cuts -- 29
Add to the federal debt and gradually pay it back -- 14
Cut spending for other domestic programs like education, welfare, transportation, and health care -- 11

How Does Your Governor Fare?

SurveyUSA has come out with a new round of polling on all of the nation's 50 governors. The Governors with the top four approval ratings (Rounds, SD; Rell, CT; Hoeven, ND; and Huntsman, UT) and the five worst approval ratings (Taft, OH; Murkowski, AK; Schwarzenegger, CA; Fletcher, KY; and Blunt, MO) are all Republicans. Oregon's Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski sits at 45 percent, up three points in a month and nine points since May. How does your governor fare? Check out the first link.

Reid to Announce Opposition to Roberts

The AP's David Espo has the story.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has told associates he intends to oppose confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice, Senate sources said Tuesday as rank and file Democrats began staking out positions on the man named to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist.

Reid scheduled a speech on the Senate floor for mid-afternoon, at which he was expected to make his announcement public.

Roberts has strong Republican support and appears headed for easy confirmation.

As party leader, Reid had urged fellow Democrats not to announce their positions until the conclusion of last week's confirmation hearings for Roberts.

By stating his own position first, Reid likely would set the stage for strong Democratic opposition to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and former Reagan administration lawyer.
To tell you the truth, I am somewhat surprised by this move. I had expected the Democrats to go somewhat soft on Roberts in order to show the American people that they can accept some nominees, therefore allowing them to filibuster the next nomination (which could be more meaningful given Justice O'Connor's position as a swing vote on the court).

And the Death Continues in Iraq

Although the media have neglected to talk about the situation in Iraq for some time, the American death toll continues to rise -- even if more slowly than in previous months. Steven R. Hurst has the story for the AP.

The U.S. military said Tuesday that four U.S. soldiers died in two roadside bombings near the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi and a fifth died in a blast north of Baghdad, pushing the toll of American forces killed in Iraq past 1,900.

Also Tuesday, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said a suicide car bombing killed four other Americans — a diplomatic security agent and three private security agents — traveling in a convoy Monday in Mosul. The four were attached to the embassy's regional office in the northern city, Iraq's third-largest, said spokesman Peter J. Mitchell.

[...]

Four of the soldiers were killed in two separate bomb attacks Monday during combat operations in Ramadi, a volatile city 70 miles west of Baghdad. The victims were U.S. Army soldiers attached to the 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force.

The fifth soldier, from the 18th Military Police Brigade, was killed Tuesday by a roadside bomb 75 miles north of the capital.
While our men and women on the ground in the Gulf Coast continue to amaze us with their ability to make the best out of any situation, let us not forget that there are hundreds of thousands of our young men and women around the world who remain in harm's way to ensure our freedom. Whether or not you agree with the war, we must all be greatful that they continue to be willing to put their lives on the line to serve our country.

WaPo: Another Admin. Official with Questionable Background?

In the days after Hurricane Katrina, it became apparent that FEMA chief Michael Brown, who had little to no emergency management experience before joining the administration, was ill prepared to deal with such a crisis. Naturally, one might have thought that this would have changed the hiring practices of the administration, right? Wrong. Dan Eggen and Spencer S. Hsu report for The Washington Post.

The Bush administration is seeking to appoint a lawyer with little immigration or customs experience to head the troubled law enforcement agency that handles those issues, prompting sharp criticism from some employee groups, immigration advocates and homeland security experts.

The push to appoint Julie Myers to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, comes in the midst of intense debate over the qualifications of department political appointees involved in the sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina.

Concerns over Myers, 36, were acute enough at a Senate hearing last week that lawmakers asked the nominee to detail during her testimony her postings and to account for her management experience. Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) went so far as to tell Myers that her résumé indicates she is not qualified for the job.
As one former Clinton administration official aptly put it, this move represents a continuation the "pre-Katrina thinking, where political relationships were a very large factor. Post-Katrina, we now see that people need to be eminently qualified."

Arrested Admin. Official Was Involved in Katrina Procurement

The Washington Post's team of R. Jeffrey Smith and Susan Schmidt provide an important detail about yesterday's arrest of a (former) Bush administration official.

The complaint, filed by the FBI, alleges that David H. Safavian, 38, a White House procurement official involved until last week in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, made repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002. [emphasis added]

Bloggers' Haste and the North Korea Story

Roughly 36 hours ago, news broke of a possible breakthrough in the multilateral nuclear disarmament regarding North Korea. Bloggers on the left and right quickly went to their computers to either praise President Bush or offer cautious optimism. It turns out that it might have been better to wait until the details of the early stages agreement were divulged to the public, because as the AP's Jae-Soon Chang reports, the deal might be more elusive than previously believed.

North Korea insisted Tuesday it won't dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the U.S. gives it civilian nuclear reactors, casting doubt on a disarmament agreement reached a day earlier during international talks.

Washington reiterated its rejection of the reactor demand and joined China in urging North Korea to stick to the agreement announced Monday in which it pledged to abandon all its nuclear programs in exchange for economic aid and security assurances.

North Korea's new demands underlined its unpredictable nature and deflated some optimism from the Beijing agreement, the first since negotiations began in August 2003 among the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia.
Perhaps this can serve as a reminder to all of us in the blogosphere that haste is not always a virtue.

Monday, September 19, 2005

Pombo Pushes Bill to Gut Endangered Species Act

The New York Times' Felicity Barringer reports on the latest effort by the Republican Party to ease the laws protecting the nation's environment.

The chairman of the House committee overseeing natural resources introduced a bill Monday that would make it more difficult for the federal government to set aside land it deems crucial to the health of endangered species.

The proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act also increase the obligation of government agencies to tell landowners quickly if the law limits their development options, and to compensate them.

The measure, which drew quick denunciations from groups like Environmental Defense, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, was proposed by the House Resources Committee chairman, Representative Richard W. Pombo, Republican of California. It was immediately put on a fast track, which is expected to bring it before the full House early next week.

[...]

The Endangered Species Act has been a flashpoint for landowners, property-rights advocates and state and local governments, most in the West, who see its provisions as onerous and costly, and chafe at the ability of people not directly involved in a dispute to sue the federal government to ensure compliance with the law.

At the same time, the law is credited with preventing the extinction of hundreds of species of insects, plants and animals in the past quarter-century, though only a handful of the more than 1,200 listed species have recovered sufficiently to be removed from the list.
Pombo, who represents a district that President Bush carried with 54 percent of the vote, is one of the few California Congressmen on either side of the aisle being targeted in 2006. While this move might endear Pombo to the farming interests in his district, it will surely bring out new environmentalist money from around the state and nation to help out whomever the Democrats nominate as his challenger. California's eleventh congressional district could become home to one of the closest House races of the next cycle if Pombo isn't careful.

Conservative Club for Growth Sued by FEC

Although some have criticized the Federal Election Commission fo being slow to act in some campaign finance cases, the Commission showed today this it is capable of acting in a major way. The AP's Sharon Theimer reports.

Federal election officials on Monday sued a political group to try to force it to comply with campaign finance limits, the first lawsuit of its kind to arise from controversial big-money fundraising during the 2004 elections.

The Federal Election Commission filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington against the Club for Growth. The pro-Republican group spent at least $21 million in the 2003-04 election cycle.

The FEC contends the Club spent enough in federal races to require it to file with the commission as a political committee and abide by contribution and spending limits. It wants the court to fine the group and to order it to comply with campaign finance rules.

[...]

FEC Vice Chairman Michael Toner called the case "one of the most important suits the commission has brought in recent years."

"At stake is whether Club for Growth will be able to continue raising and spending millions of dollars in soft money for activities influencing federal elections," said Toner, a Republican.

The lawsuit is the first to result from several complaints filed against pro-Republican and pro-Democratic "soft money groups," and could serve as a test case to see if the commission can rein in the groups without new congressional legislation or FEC rules.
Aside from reining in the Club for Growth, a good move in and of itself, this is a good first step towards strong enforcement of campaign finance limits by the FEC. Even if this harms the fundraising capabilities of 527s aligned with the Democrats, good government fans on the left must be pleased by this move.

(Former) Administration Official Arrested in Connection to Abramoff Case

The AP's Mark Sherman has the story.

A former Bush administration official was arrested Monday on charges he made false statements and obstructed a federal investigation into his dealings with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to court documents and government officials.

David Safavian, then-chief of staff of the General Services Administration and a former Abramoff lobbying associate, concealed from federal investigators that Abramoff was seeking to do business with GSA when Safavian joined him on a golf trip to Scotland in 2002, according to an FBI affidavit and the officials.

At the time, FBI agent Jeffrey A. Reising said in the affidavit, a lobbyist — identified separately as Abramoff — had enlisted Safavian's help in trying to gain control of 40 acres of land at the Federal Research Center at White Oak in Silver Spring, Md., for a not-for-profit organization.

For his part, Safavian edited a letter the lobbyist was preparing to send to GSA, and arranged and attended a meeting involving a GSA official, the lobbyist's wife and others to discuss leasing the property, the affidavit said.

Safavian took a job in the Office of Management and Budget last year. He resigned that post, effective Friday, OMB spokesman Alex Conant said.
I'm not entirely certain that leaving a job three days prior due to an impending arrest qualifies one as a "former Bush administration official," but let's leave this point aside for a moment and instead turn to the more pressing point.

Safavian -- a former employee of Abramoffs, as Josh Marshall notes -- was employed in the Bush administration in a fairly powerful position when the alleged crime took place. So can the adminstration continue to justifiably claim that is had no connection to the embattled lobbyist?

Bush Tumbles 6 Points in Latest Gallup Poll

Republicans might have been pleased last week when Gallup released polling showing President Bush's approval rating at 46 percent, but they will likely be none to happy when they see the latest survey from the polling outfit. CNN has the details.

President Bush's vow to rebuild the Gulf Coast did little to help his standing with the public, only 40 percent of whom now approve of his performance in office, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Just 41 percent of the 818 adults polled between Friday and Monday said they approved of Bush's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while 57 percent disapproved.

[...]

Bush's overall job approval number was 40 percent, with 58 percent of those surveyed telling pollsters they disapproved of his performance in office. It is the second time his approval rating has hit that low a mark.

His personal qualities hit fresh lows: Only 49 percent called him a strong and decisive leader, down from 54 percent in July and 51 percent in August. Just 42 percent said he cares about people like themselves, and 47 percent called him honest and trustworthy.

By contrast, 51 percent did not consider him strong and decisive, 50 percent would not call him honest and 56 percent said he didn't care about people like them.
Other recent polling (here and here) indicates that much of the President's drop is coming from conservatives within the Republican Party unhappy with the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. If this is indeed the case -- that Republicans are finally beginning to have qualms about the President -- Bush might soon fall into the 30s in Gallup and perhaps the low 30s in some of the other reputable polls.

Update [2005-9-19 16:39:45 by bassjhs]: Other key findings from the poll include:

Roy Moore to Make Decision Whether to Run Soon

Still don't believe our talk of a possible split within the Republican Party? The Associate Press is reporting today that former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore -- also known as the "Ten Commandments" judge for placing a two and a half ton replica of the tablets in his courthouse -- is coming close to making the decision whether to run for Alabama's GOP gubernatorial nomination against sitting Governor Bob Riley.

Former Chief Justice Roy Moore says he will decide early next month whether he will run for governor.

Moore made the comment during a recent speaking engagement in Ozark. Moore has maintained an active speaking schedule in recent months, which has led to speculation that he will return to politics.
Riley had solid conservative credentials in his three terms in the U.S. House, though he lost the support of some small government conservatives when in his first year as Governor he proposed a sweeping tax reform that would have made the state's regressive tax code more progressive. If Moore is able to steal away the GOP nomination next year with a combination of small government and religious conservatives, the moderate wing of the party will be further weakened nationally. And if this is indeed the case, what chance will either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain have at garnering the 2008 GOP presidential nomination?

House GOPer: Replace Grant with Reagan on $50 Bill

As Aaron Blake reports for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, one conservative Republican in the House of Representatives is pushing forward new legislation that would wipe Ulysses S. Grant off of the $50 bill and replace him with Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan has an airport, an aircraft carrier and buildings around the nation named for him, but his admirers aren't through. As the 25th anniversary of the beginning of the Reagan Revolution approaches, Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., is proposing legislation to put the late president on the $50 bill.

[...]

The faces on Federal Reserve notes haven't changed since they were standardized in 1929.

The current $50 bill honoree, Ulysses S. Grant, was plagued by scandal during his presidency. He is best known for his role as chief Union general in the Civil War. But Grant scholar Marie Kelsey of the College of St. Scholastica in Duluth says Grant's reputation has stood the test of time, while Reagan is benefiting from an outpouring of nostalgia in the aftermath of his 2004 death.

"Grant is really, in my opinion, a far more important person than Reagan, considering that he saved the Union," said Kelsey, who has written a Grant bibliography due out at the end of the month.

Even in the weeks after Reagan died, in June 2004, an ABC News poll found that Americans decisively rejected subbing him for Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill or for Franklin D. Roosevelt on the dime.
To many Americans, Ronald Reagan was a great President. In the eyes of many, he helped lift America out of the morass of stagflation and expedited the peaceful end of the Cold War. But are either of these accomplishments (Reagan's role in which is still contentiously debated) really tantamount to saving the Union?

SUSA Also Finds Bush Down Following Katrina Speech

SurveyUSA released a new poll today that echoes the findings of yesterday's Rasmussen Reports poll: Americans are increasingly losing faith in the President's response to Hurricane Katrina.

3 polling days after George W. Bush's prime-time speech to the nation from Jackson Square in New Orleans, a "can't win" dynamic is unfolding for the President, according to exclusive SurveyUSA data gathered Friday 9/16, Saturday 9/17 and Sunday 9/18. The number of Americans who now approve of the President's response to Hurricane Katrina is down: 40% today compared to 42% before he announced the Gulf Opportunity Zone. The number of Americans who disapprove of the President's response to Katrina is up: 56% today compared to 52% before the speech. Bush went from "Minus 10" on his Response to Katrina before the speech to "Minus 16" today. One way to make sense of these numbers is to look at the number of Americans who today say the Federal Government is doing "too much" for Katrina victims. That's up to 16% today, more than triple what the number has been on 7 of the 19 days that SurveyUSA has conducted daily tracking since the storm. The more cash President Bush throws on the fire, as compensation for what some see as an inadequate initial response, the more it antagonizes his core supporters. [emphasis added]
Small government conservatives like Mike Pence are clearly unhappy with President Bush's big government response to Hurricane Katrina. And because the President does not appear to be picking up much new support in the middle or on the left on account of his belated but massive plans to rebuild the Gulf Coast, the discontent brewing on the far right of the GOP could lead to a schism that ultimately undercuts his second term.

A Breakthrough in the North Korea Talks?

Burt Herman has the story for the AP:

North Korea agreed Monday to stop building nuclear weapons and allow international inspections in exchange for energy aid, economic cooperation and security assurances, a breakthrough that marked a first step toward disarmament after two years of six-nation talks.

The chief U.S. envoy to the talks praised the development as a "win-win situation" and "good agreement for all of us." But he promptly urged Pyongyang to make good on its promises by ending operations at its main nuclear facility at Yongbyon.

"What is the purpose of operating it at this point?" said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. "The time to turn it off would be about now."

Despite the deal's potential to help significantly ease friction between the North and the United States after years of false starts and setbacks, Hill remained cautious.

"We have to see what comes in the days and weeks ahead," he said.
More on the impact of this development to come.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Bush Loses Support from Conservatives After Katrina Speech

Although President Bush's primetime address from the Gulf Coast was favorably received in the media, Rasmussen Reports finds that at least one group -- conservatives -- were turned off by the speech.

Thirty-five percent (35%) of Americans now say that President Bush has done a good or excellent job responding to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. That's down from 39% before his speech from New Orleans.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that 41% give the President poor marks for handling the crisis, that's up 37% before the speech.

[...]

The spending plan has not been well received by conservative voters--just 43% favor the huge federal commitment partisan while 37% are opposed. This is especially striking given how supportive the President's base has remained throughout his Administration.

[...]

Following the speech, the President's rating for handling the Katrina crisis fell eight points among Republicans (from 71% good or excellent to 63%). The President also draws good or excellent marks from 11% of Democrats and 31% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
Although President Bush's overall rating among Republicans remains relatively high, conservatives' wavering support of the federal response to Katrina must be disconcerting for Karl Rove and the other political operatives within the administration. If these conservatives' ill feelings towards Bush's Katrina speech begin to take root -- even if only among pockets of the most conservative in the country -- 2006 could be a very difficult year for Republicans.

Quote of the Day

"You can't have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle-class people up."

-- Former President Bill Clinton on the current administration's response to Hurricane Katrina
Link.

And the Emmy Goes To...

For the second straight year, "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" was honored as the best variety, music or comedy series. The program also won best writing for the category. Not an entire surprise for longtime fans of the program, though nevertheless exciting.

GOPers in House Want Cuts Equal to Katrina Spending

Although the Republican policy of continual tax cuts has robbed the treasury of trillions of dollars, House Republicans seeking to reduce the federal deficit are seeking to make budgetary cuts equal to the new spending on relief and rebuilding in the Gulf Coast. Douglass K. Daniel has the story for the AP.

House Republicans are looking at delaying some federal spending, including money for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare and thousands of highway projects, to offset the cost of rebuilding the Gulf Coast, a leading GOP fiscal conservative said Sunday.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said there is a need for dramatic spending cuts in "big-ticket items."

[...]

Raising taxes or not making permanent the president's tax cuts is not the answer now, said Pence, head of the Republican Study Group, the spearhead group for the GOP's most conservative members.
Pence's comments today are very telling. The American people should note that the Republican Party, which prides itself on being a more populist alternative to the "liberal elite" is at its core an elitist institution bent on cutting taxes for the extremely wealthy above all else -- even if that means less spending on America's infrastructure or delaying prescription drugs to senior citizens.

Reid: Pricilla Owen Would be Filibustered

Judge Priscilla Owen, who made it on to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as a result of the agreement among the Gang of Fourteen to block the nuclear option, is one of the most talked about possible nominees to fill the Supreme Court seat currently held by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But as Bob Novak reports for the Chicago Sun-Times, the Democrats are already lining up to play hardball on her potential nomination.

According to Senate sources, Democratic Leader Harry Reid has informed Majority Leader Bill Frist that Federal Appeals Court Judge Priscilla Owen will be filibustered if President Bush names her to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Republican senators are divided on whether former Texas Supreme Court Justice Owen is vulnerable because she underwent a filibuster for the appellate seat and was confirmed under the compromise agreement. Frist is known to believe Owen can be confirmed in the face of a filibuster.

Republican Senate strategists believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the only possible Bush nominee to replace O'Connor who would not face a filibuster.
While Judge John G. Roberts' stance on abortion is unclear -- he seems to believe in the right of privacy, which is the backbone of women's right to choose -- it's entirely clear that a Justice Owen would move to overturn not only Roe v. Wade, but dozens of Court rulings dating back to the 1930s. While Novak seems to indicate that the Democrats might not be able to sustain a filibuster against Owen, this one might become the vote to watch of the 109th Congress.

Saturday, September 17, 2005

The Sunday Shows

I'll be camping at Joshua Tree, but for those with access to a television...

CBS' "Face the Nation" -- Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen.

NBC's "Meet the Press" -- Former President Bill Clinton; Allen.

ABC's "This Week" -- Clinton; Sen. David Vitter (R-LA); Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN); Caroline Kennedy, editor, "A Family of Poems."

"Fox News Sunday" -- Russian President Vladimir Putin; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Allen.

"CNN Late Edition" -- Sens. Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ); Allen; Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz.

GOP Begins to Reach on Estate Tax Repeal

Although Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says there's "zero chance" of repealing the estate tax, Time magazine's Massimo Calabresi reports that some on the right fringe of the Republican Party are still fishing for a victory.

Federal troops aren't the only ones looking for bodies on the Gulf Coast. On Sept. 9, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions called his old law professor Harold Apolinsky, co-author of Sessions' legislation repealing the federal estate tax, which was encountering sudden resistance on the Hill. Sessions had an idea to revitalize their cause, which he left on Apolinsky's voice mail: "[Arizona Sen.] Jon Kyl and I were talking about the estate tax. If we knew anybody that owned a business that lost life in the storm, that would be something we could push back with."
When people complain of the cynicism of today's politicians, they're referring to moves like this one. Is the repeal of the estate tax really so important to Sens. Sessions and Kyl that they manipulate the deaths of innocent people to further their cause?

Gen. Shinseki Says No to Run in Hawaii

Retired General Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff who before the war predicted America would need hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq (and may have been let go from his post early as a result), has been championed as a possible candidate by many Democratic politicians. But the AP's Audra McAvoy reports that Shinseki is not yet ready to make the jump into elective politics.

Retired Army Gen. Eric Shinseki said Wednesday he plans to move back to Hawai'i but doesn't intend to run for governor.

[...]

Shinseki, 62, has never run for political office and his party affiliation is unknown. Democratic Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, however, has publicly expressed hope that Shinseki would run for office, saying he would make a good legislator or governor.
Although this might dash Democrats' hopes at defeating Hawaii's Republican Governor Linda Lingle next year, this doesn't come as too much of a surprise. Last year Shinseki flat out told us, "I don't see politics in my future, so let's put that aside."

Clinton Calls for Repeal of Bush Tax Cuts

President Bush has pledged to increase the federal deficit by refraining from raising taxes, but at least one former President believes it's time to spread around the cost of Hurricane Katrina. Crooks and Liars provides the video of Bill Clinton calling on President Bush to repeal his tax cuts on NBC's "Today Show."

Friday, September 16, 2005

Schwarzenegger to Seek Second Term

Despite his abysmal approval ratings, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) announced today that he intends to seek a second term. Beth Fouhy has the story for the Associated Press.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger confirmed an open secret Friday, telling supporters that he's running for re-election next year — an early announcement designed to re-energize his sagging political momentum.

"I'm going to follow through with this here. I'm not in there for three years. I originally got into this ... to finish the job. I'm in there for seven years," he told an enthusiastic crowd of about 200 invited guests. "Yes, I will run for governor."
Michael Finnegan writes for the Los Angeles Times that this early announcement might actually be a sign of weakness rather than a sign of strength.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to announce his re-election bid today reflects the gravity of his political and financial troubles as he strives to restore a battered public image in time to win approval of his November ballot measures.

Timed largely to inspire a burst of donations to his initiative campaigns, Schwarzenegger's noon reelection launch in San Diego could help him narrow the huge financial advantage that labor unions hold as they wage a blistering ad assault against him and his election agenda, strategists say.

But like other major problems that Schwarzenegger faces, his poor financial shape is at least partly a self-inflicted injury. His campaign committees reported spending nearly $26 million in the first six months of the year, leaving his political accounts all but depleted by the end of June. The $1.2 million in cash left was entirely offset, and then some, by $3.8 million in debts.
Should Schwarzenegger's ballot measures go down to defeat this fall, it's going to be awfully difficult for him to be successfal next fall. Perhaps the large amounts of money currently being spent by the Democrats and unions are an investment today so they won't have to spend quite as much in 2006.

Durbin Wants New Investigation for GOP Memo Peeker

Last year, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's top aide on judiciary matters, Manuel Miranda, was fired for peeking at secret Democratic memos. With the investigation into Miranda seemingly going nowhere, The Hill's eNews reports that Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin wants a new prosecutor appointed in the case.

Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the assistant Democratic Senate leader, has sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales demanding that he assign a new U.S. attorney to investigate what has become known as Memogate. Last year, Manuel Miranda, a top aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill First (R-Tenn.), resigned from his Senate job after admitting to reading internal Democratic strategy memos on the Judiciary Committee computer network. The Senate sergeant at arms referred its investigation of the matter to the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York, but since then little has been heard on the matter. Some of the memos, which had been stored on an unsecure Judiciary Committee server, were posted on the Web and reported on by the media in 2003, enraging Senate Democrats. In his letter, Durbin said that Miranda now heads an organization known as the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots conservative groups, serves as an adviser to various lawmakers on judicial issues and may be using his knowledge of the memos "to further his career." Durbin asked Gonzales to assign the investigation to the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts whose office "was able to successfully conclude an investigation into the illegal electronic access of hotel heiress Paris Hilton's cell phone." Durbin said that it's unclear what progress the U.S. attorney in New York has made on the investigation and that "repeated attempts to discover the status of the investigation have been unsuccessful." Miranda said Durbin is trying to create a distraction because conservative groups plan on asking Durbin and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to ask for the release of the full complement of memos that the Senate sergeant at arms still has in his possession as a result of last year's investigation. "I didn't expect the desperation showed by the extent they're willing to go to distract from the memos," said Miranda, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, who added that he believed Durbin was also retaliating against him for his written opinions.
This one's a sticky situation, but it seems that if Miranda did break the law by peeking and possibly disseminating Democratic Party memos (which may or may not be the case), he should be investigated.

Where Did the Electricity Go?

NBC News anchor Brian Williams raises some disturbing questions with his latest blog entry.

I am duty-bound to report the talk of the New Orleans warehouse district last night: there was rejoicing (well, there would have been without the curfew, but the few people I saw on the streets were excited) when the power came back on for blocks on end. Kevin Tibbles was positively jubilant on the live update edition of Nightly News that we fed to the West Coast. The mini-mart, long ago cleaned out by looters, was nonetheless bathed in light, including the empty, roped-off gas pumps. The motorcade route through the district was partially lit no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through. And yet last night, no more than an hour after the President departed, the lights went out. The entire area was plunged into total darkness again, to audible groans. It's enough to make some of the folks here who witnessed it... jump to certain conclusions.
While this could just be the result of brownouts or power conservation, I think the residents of the area deserve to know if their access to electricity is actually contingent on a staged event by the President of the United States.

Santorum Down Double Digits in Yet Another Poll

The Keystone Poll is the latest to report on the state of politics in Pennsylvania, which isn't particularly fond of its junior Senator these days.

If the election for Pennsylvania's U.S. Senator were being held TODAY and the candidates were Bob Casey, Jr. and Rick Santorum, would you vote for...

Today (June, March)
Santorum -- 37% (37, 43)
Casey -- 50% (44, 44)
These numbers aren't substantially different from those in a recent Republican poll of the state, leading this blogger, for one, to believe that Santorum's low numbers are not an aberration.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Bush Promises, But Can He Deliver?

President Bush told America tonight that he would follow through with an ambitious agenda to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina rebuild their homes and lives. But can he really deliver all that he has promised? Carl Hulse sheds some light on this question in tomorrow's issue of The New York Times.

The drive to pour tens of billions of federal dollars into rebuilding the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast is widening a fissure among Republicans over fiscal policy, with more of them expressing worry about unbridled spending.

On Thursday, even before President Bush promised that "federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone," fiscal conservatives from the House and Senate joined budget watchdog groups in demanding that the administration be judicious in asking for taxpayer dollars.

One fiscal conservative, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said Thursday, "I don't believe that everything that should happen in Louisiana should be paid for by the rest of the country. I believe there are certain responsibilities that are due the people of Louisiana."

[...]

Despite those comments, many Republicans are increasingly edgy about the White House's push for a potentially open-ended recovery budget, worried that the president - in trying to regroup politically - was making expensive promises they would have to keep.

"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.
It sounds like President Bush needs to spend a little more time trying to convince members of his own party of the importance of a strong federal response to Katrina before he continues to make such large budgetary promises -- especially given the fact that the Congressional GOP is loath to raise taxes to balance a budget (let alone lower a deficit).

Intra-party squabbles aside, it's time for America to make some serious choices. Obviously, the President has some ambitious goals for rebuilding the Gulf Coast, whether you agree with them or not. But these items will cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars that will be paid for by borrowing from Chinese and Japanese creditors.

While it is imperative that every necessary cent is spent on allaying the problems caused by Katrina, perhaps its time for President Bush to allow all Americans to make a collective sacrifice by instituting a short-term tax increase. It need not be massive. But Americans appear ready to make the sacrifice and should be allowed to do so.

Fox News: Bush Approval at 41%

Dana Blanton writes up the latest poll from Fox News.

Today, 41 percent of voters approve and 51 percent disapprove of President Bush’s performance, which is the lowest job rating he has received in a FOX News poll. The president’s approval rating is down 4 percentage points from two weeks ago (45 percent, August 30-31), around the time the magnitude of Katrina’s damage was becoming clear. Before the hurricane, 47 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved (July 26-27).

For most of Bush’s presidency, approval among his party faithful has not only been well above 80 percent, but also for a significant amount of time above 90 percent. The average approval rating for his presidency among Republicans is 90 percent; today 81 percent approve. Bush’s approval rating has gone into single digits among Democrats, coming in at 8 percent in this week’s poll. For independents, 30 percent approve.
Pew also has some new data that should have Congressional Dems feeling pretty happy.

As was the case in the spring, Americans are largely critical of the overall performance of both major parties. But the Republicans face greater political dangers. In an early test of strength on next year's midterm elections, Republicans trail by 52%-40% among registered voters. Equally important, Democrats are favored on most major issues. Even on terrorism, which consistently has been a Republican strength, the GOP's advantage has narrowed.

[...]

In addition to favoring the Democratic Party on its traditional strengths such as reforming the health care system and protecting the environment, pluralities today also pick the Democrats to handle energy problems, Social Security, and education. On the important issues of the economy and Iraq, the public is more divided, with the Democrats holding only a slight edge. And on the issue of ensuring that the government can handle major disasters, 40% favor the Democrats, while 34% choose the Republicans.

The single issue that still works to the Republican Party's advantage is dealing with the terrorist threat at home ­ 45% say the Republicans can do a better job on this, while 34% choose the Democrats. But even here, the GOP's edge has narrowed significantly as the Democrats have made gains. In the lead-up to the 2002 midterm the Republican Party held a two-to-one (44% vs. 22%) edge on this issue.
Importantly, independents are heavily leaning towards the Democrats. While non-affiliated voters are less likely to turn out on election day -- particularly during mid-terms -- this is a trend that should please those hoping to see a change in the Congressional leadership.

My Interview with CQ/MSNBC Pundit Craig Crawford

This morning I had the distinct pleasure of speaking with Craig Crawford, author of the recently released book Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You against the Media. Crawford, a columnist for Congressional Quarterly, appears frequently as a political analyst on MSNBC programs such as "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", CBS' "The Early Show", and "Imus in the Morning". Previously, Crawford ran National Journal's The Hotline and was a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel. Crawford also maintains a very interesting blog, Crawford's List.

Jonathan Singer: You’ve been covering politics for quite some time. Do you get the sense that you and your fellow reporters have become more biased over the past few years? Or is it that there has been a more concerted effort by people on the right and left, be they politicians or activists, to call bias on your part?

Craig Crawford: I don’t think there’s any more bias than there’s ever been. It’s just been talked about a lot more and outed to an extent that it’s never been.

Singer: Do you think there is an inherent bias? Or is it just an attempt to send new messages to activists on the right and left?

Crawford: I think it’s human nature to have bias. Anybody who cares about a political system is going to have an opinion. The issue is whether that bias creeps into what’s labeled as objective reporting.

I don’t think bias is in objective reporting anywhere near the extent that people think. But it has become a classic tool in the toolbox of politicians to accuse reporters of bias when unfavorable stories are done about them.

Singer: In your book, you point to the Dan Rather interview with George H.W. Bush in 1988 where Bush went straight at Rather, making some accusations about walking off the set, if my memory serves me correctly. Can you talk a little bit about how, as you say in Attack the Messenger, how it’s grown from that point to where we are today?

Crawford: There’s always been a state of simmering war between the politicians and the media. It’s a natural state, and probably a healthy one. I just think since that campaign in ’88, we’ve seen an escalation of hostilities between the media and politicians that’s gone from conventional warfare to nuclear warfare and reached an unhealthy point, partly because politicians have settled upon this strategy to blame the messenger when they want to avoid answering questions or taking responsibility for anything that goes wrong. And it’s working because the media has become such a whipping post that the public has gotten into a frame of mind that the media can’t be trusted and can’t be believed. And some of that is the media’s fault. I just argue in this book that a large part of it is the result of politicians trying to turn the public against the media so they can get their own propaganda out.

Singer: And I think something that perhaps buttresses this claim is if you look at the Washington reporting of either The Post or The New York Times, it’s not significantly different in terms of point of view from what your paper Congressional Quarterly would do, or what you would do at The Hotline, or what The Hill or Roll Call are doing. But you don’t hear that same type of attack on those papers, do you? Do you get quite a bit of negative feedback to your CQ column every week?

Crawford: I write an opinion column, but I’d prefer to call it “conclusionary journalism.” I have this theory that reporters and most especially columnists have a responsibility to repost both sides of a story but go ahead and draw conclusions about who might be right or wrong in a particular debate. That may be a real fine distinction in some people’s mind, but it’s something I try to do in my column. And as a result, I get hate mail from both sides. I seem to tick off both sides pretty regularly.

Both: [Laughter]

Crawford: I’ve got the hate mail to prove it. I think journalists are on the front lines of a lot of stories, and sometimes – and in particular columnists – ought to go ahead and say, “I think this side’s right and this side’s wrong.” But not come at it with a preordained philosophy. It’s almost like a Supreme Court Justice ought to take each case on its merits and not approach the cases from an overriding ideology.

Singer: Let’s take a specific case from the recent past: Hurricane Katrina. You’ve covered your fair share of hurricanes, I would assume, coming out of the Orlando area. You have a base of knowledge. To hear someone – whether it’s a local official, a statewide official or someone as high as [Secretary of Homeland Security] Michael Chertoff blanketly dismissing any lines of criticism when you’ve seen what you’ve seen… how do you respond to them just saying, “It’s just rumors. You’re not really reporting the facts.”

Crawford: Coming from my background of covering hurricanes and politicians after hurricanes, I have been as tough on the Bush and the administration in my writings on this as I’ve ever been in the Bush presidency. And at the risk of getting accused of being a Bush-bashing liberal media blue stater, I have come down hard. But I would swear on a stack of copies of the First Amendment that I would be writing this same thing if this were a Democrat administration, because I think the stonewalling, the blame shifting we’ve seen is just a classic example of politicians trying to get the media out of the equation so the public just gets their point of view unfiltered.

Singer: There is a danger right now, not just attacking what reporters write, but not even allowing them to have access to the scene in almost unprecedented ways domestically. Certainly it’s one thing to keep a reporter away from Fallujah if you feel that they might – as Geraldo Rivera did – give away troop destinations. But it’s a whole other thing not to let reporters into New Orleans. What do you feel about that?

Crawford: I think the most dangerous consequence of what I see as the subjugation of the media is that there’s too much filtered news which is the media’s fault. The phenomenon that we’ve seen in both 9/11 and Katrina, particularly in the early days after each disaster, is unfiltered reporting that shows Americans what a news media can do and can do for them. The information straight and raw that they can get in the early days after Katrina… we saw television correspondents and print reporters on the front lines with no officials around telling them what they could and couldn’t do, then we got the full story. As time went by and the National Guard got there and started pointing guns at reporters telling them what they couldn’t take pictures of.

My biggest concern with the news media is not bias, it’s wimping out and not standing up to power, which should be its job.

Singer: There is perhaps a contradiction, though, that there is – maybe bias isn’t the right word – but a tendency within the media to cover, perhaps, the easier stories. Maybe this isn’t as evident today, but certainly jumping from scandal to scandal, whether it’s some of the minor scandals covered in this administration or some of the minor scandals covered in the past administration. What do you see along that track? Do you see a tendency now, after Hurricane Katrina, to go after tougher stories and really cover them with the right amount of rigor? Or will they go back to covering what’s happening in Aruba or what happened to Laci Peterson, etc.?

Crawford: It’s another great danger to our free press. It’s a danger that’s almost exclusively the media’s fault, which is to turn the news into entertainment. It inflates ratings and readers and circulation numbers. The bottom line pressure on the news media to deliver the biggest audience possible to advertisers converts the process and leads to a lot of phony boloney stories that unfortunately the public wants. So there’s always this tension between what the public ought to be getting and what they want. At the end of the day, much of that fault is with the public, because no matter how much complaining there is, the public tends to flock to celebrity-driven, personality-driven, scandal-driven stories that ultimately aren’t very significant. But it’s what the market’s telling the news media.

Singer: Let’s just shift into a rapid-fire political thing before I let you go. Yesterday in Arizona Jim Pederson, former Democratic Party chair, filed to run against Jon Kyl, who in his two races for Senate really has not faced any strong competition. Is this a race that could turn into a race, or is it too early to tell?

Crawford: I think Arizona is a fascinating state politically because it has its roots of pure conservatism of Barry Goldwater plus you’ve got the almost contrasting strain of Bruce Babbitt’s liberalism. I would like to see that race become interesting, because it will be a real test of where Arizona is going.

Singer: One of Senator Kyl’s fellow members of the class of 1994, Rick Santorum, seems to be struggling right now. The new Strategic Vision poll has him down 14 points. His supporters will say Casey was up by about the same margin over Rendell in 2002. Do you foresee Santorum being able to make a race out of this? Or is Casey going to walk to victory?

Crawford: I see that one tightening, but very difficult to predict. I think this is probably the most telling race in the midterm elections of where we might be going in the 2008 presidential race, simply because Pennsylvania is a state that always is close in presidential elections. It’s going to be a major test whether the Republican message can carry the day there.

Singer: Is there one Senate race that the inside-the-Beltway types are missing? One race that could pop out of nowhere and surprise everyone?

Crawford: That’s a good question. I’m not sure I have an answer to that. The first one that popped into mind was the Florida race, but I think the Beltway crowd is fairly focused on Katherine Harris. But I guess what I’d say is that I think there’s a tendency to write off Katherine Harris as not being able to make that a race. I come from a Florida background, and I think she’s got a well of support there that might surprise a lot of us. Turn that race into a hotter contest.

Singer: Just a final question. Looking at the House, although redistricting has certainly made House elections less competitive within even the last handful of years, do you see more potential for volatility in the House than in the Senate in 2006?

Crawford: I do. I think there is a possibility of a tidewater effect from Katrina, actually. I sense that the administration’s handling of Katrina has connected in people’s minds to the overall Republican image as above it all and not in the game for the average people. And if Democrats can successfully make that stick and hold and last, I think we might get some surprises in closer House races and maybe a few that aren’t close.

I always think Democrats naturally should have an advantage in the House and the Republicans in the Senate, because Republicans tend to be more elitist in their message and Democrats more egalitarian, and that’s what those two bodies Constitutionally were set up to be.
[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Bloomberg: GOP Social Security Reform Dead

Jeff Bliss and Laura Litvan have the interesting report for the Bloomberg news service.

Prospects that the U.S. Congress will pass an overhaul of Social Security this year have vanished, leaving Republicans to debate how best to walk away from the centerpiece of President George W. Bush's second-term domestic agenda.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate said a comprehensive proposal had no chance of being acted on this year, even though Republican leaders such as House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Representative Roy Blunt haven't publicly abandoned the effort.

"It certainly doesn't appear to me it's going to happen," said Representative Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican and a supporter of Bush's proposal to create private investment accounts using Social Security funds.

[...]

"I don't think there's any chance at all it's going to move this year," Senator Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican, said in an interview. "We've really got an impasse."
As one political scientist quoted by Bliss and Litvan expertly opines, Hurricane Katrina has finally provided the Republican Party with "an exit strategy" on private accounts.

Dems Officially Have Candidate to Challenge Sen. Kyl

Although the potential Senate bid of former Arizona Democratic Party chair was first mentioned on this site during our interview with former Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) some five months ago, it has taken until now for the candidacy to become official. Jon Kamman reports for The Arizona Republic.

Returning to his hometown and promising he would work to give others a chance to follow his path from humble beginnings to millionaire, real estate developer Jim Pederson announced Wednesday that he is running for U.S. Senate.

The announcement, expected for months, sets the stage for a competitive, and likely expensive, race between Democrat Pederson and incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Kyl.

[...]

Immigration will be his top issue, he said, taking the unusual step of endorsing a bill that originated with three Arizona Republicans: Sen. John McCain and Reps. Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake. This year, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has joined in sponsoring the bill, with refinements.

[...]

This is the first run for office by Pederson, who served 4 1/2 years as state Democratic chairman and was a major force behind Gov. Janet Napolitano's victory in 2002. He also bankrolled the 2000 campaign in which voters created an independent commission to perform congressional and legislative redistricting.

Kyl, who began his political career with four terms in the House and is seeking a third Senate term, had no Democratic opponent in the 2000 election.
Given the paltry performance of one of Kyl's fellow members of the Senate's class of 1994 -- Rick Santorum -- the possibility remains that now being challenged for the first time in his Senate career, Kyl might actually stumble. Although Arizona is a Republican state, Kyl is nonetheless situated to the right of the electorate. Should Pederson effectively thread the needle by sticking to the middle (a la DeConcini and Napolitano), there's a real shot that this could become one of the premier races of 2006.

NBC News/WSJ Poll Finds Bush at 40 Percent

President Bush's approval rating is hitting new lows in almost every recent poll, with the exception of Gallup, which is increasingly becoming an outlier. As NBC News' Mark Murray reports, the newest poll provides further evidence of this trend.

Rocked by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, record-high gas prices, and the continued debate over Iraq, President George W. Bush’s public standing has sunk to new lows, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.

[...]

According to the poll, Bush’s job approval has plummeted to 40 percent, an all-time low for the president. That’s a drop of 6 points from the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in July, and it’s consistent with results from other recent national surveys. The poll also finds that just 37 percent of respondents approve of Bush’s job handling Iraq, compared with 58 percent who disapprove — another all-time low. In addition, 55 percent want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq, while just 36 percent want to maintain the current level there.
At what point do the media no longer see a "popular" President and instead see an "embattled" or even "unpopular" President?

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Santorum Trails by 14 in Latest GOP Poll

Two-term Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) appears to be in quite a pickle according to the latest round of partisan polling from the Republican side of the aisle. The Hill's Peter Savodnik provides some details.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is losing ground to his Democratic challenger, state Treasurer Bob Casey, a GOP poll to be released today shows.

The Strategic Vision survey, conducted Saturday through Monday, gives Casey a 14-point lead over the second-term senator, with the Democrat at 52 percent and the Republican at 38 percent. Seven percent of the 1,200 likely voters interviewed were undecided.

A poll released in early August by the same firm showed Casey leading Santorum by 11 points.

[...]

The Strategic Vision poll gives President Bush a 39 percent overall job approval rating, with 51 percent disapproving and 10 percent undecided. Forty percent of respondents back Bush’s stewardship of the economy, and 35 percent support his handling of Katrina.
No incumbent wants their reelect numbers to be below 40 percent, and certainly no incumbent wants to trail by 14 at this point -- in a Republican poll. Suffice it to say this is going to be a tough 14 months for Rich Santorum.

CBS News/NY Times Poll: Bush at 41 Percent

The latest CBS News/New York Times poll is now available, and like the recent trend, President Bush and the Republican Party appear to be faltering.

For the first time, just half of Americans approve of Mr. Bush's handling of terrorism, which has been his most consistent strength since he scored 90 percent approval ratings in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 6 in 10 now say that he does not share their priorities for the country, 10 percentage points worse than on the eve of his re-election last fall, while barely half say he has strong qualities of leadership, about the same as said so at the early low-ebb of his presidency in the summer of 2001.

[...]

Over all, 41 percent of respondents approved of Mr. Bush's performance in office, while 53 percent disapproved. Those figures are in line with other national polls conducted in the last week, roughly equal to the worst ratings Mr. Bush has ever received, comparable to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton's worst ratings, but well above the worst ever posted by the president's father, Jimmy Carter and Richard M. Nixon.
The poll also finds that Americans are not quite as afraid of taxes as some on the right might have you think.

Overall, Americans would rank the New Orleans rebuilding efforts as a higher urgency than two items that have been high on the Bush Administration's priority list for some time -- tax cuts and changes to Social Security. In separate questions, 73 percent of Americans said they'd prioritize rebuilding New Orleans over cutting taxes, and 63 percent would put reconstructing the Crescent City ahead of changing Social Security.

[...]

Most Americans would be willing to pay more in taxes to help recovery efforts, generally, and to help pay for housing and job re-training for the displaced victims, as well.
Will the GOP still move forward with its attempt to rid the country of the estate tax?

My Conversation with FEC Commissioner David Mason

This afternoon, I had the opportunity to attend a luncheon at which David M. Mason, a Commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, spoke. The title of Commissioner Mason's address was "Should Bloggers Be Regulated?", a topic particularly germane to this blog and others.

Mason indicated that he -- along with his fellow FEC Commissioners -- was loath to regulate political activity on the Internet, though court cases have forced his hand on the matter. Although he arrived at this belief from conservative (or libertarian), rather than liberal perspective, it is a conclusion almost all liberal bloggers would agree with.

After the address, I was able to speak with Commissioner Mason for a few moments. To begin with, I asked about his feelings towards Sen. John Thune’s (R-SD) payments to bloggers in return for positive coverage.

David Mason: The first pertinent point about the South Dakota situation is to note that it came to light because of existing campaign finance regulations. So rather than pointing to it as a failure, point to it as a success of the existing disclosure regime.

And so the complaint, really, if there is one, is that it was not disclosed contemporaneously with the activity. There are sort of two ways, if you think that’s a problem, to go at it.

One is to say in certain circumstances, bloggers who are paid by campaigns are going to have to disclose just the way a campaign ad on radio would include a disclaimer or a campaign direct mail piece would include a disclaimer. The problem with that is that you start to get into some distinctions that are difficult to make in terms of whether the blog belongs to the campaign – in which case yes, it ought to have a disclaimer, just like the campaign’s own website – or whether the blog belongs to the person who writes it.

Markos Moulitsas, who runs the Daily Kos, was a paid consultant to the Dean campaign. He did disclose that informally. He said, “I was a consultant to them about how they use the internet and that didn’t influence what I print on my blog.” So if you ask the Commission to come in and make a decision at what point a payment from a campaign turns an individual’s blog into a campaign’s blog, it becomes a distinction that’s very hard to police. In other words, you’re going to find very mushy lines because what you’re going to find is that the blogger was already out there doing stuff, and the campaign paid them to get them to do more of what they were already doing and not necessarily to change what they were saying, for instance. So while you could try to do that, I think you’d run into some close calls and great difficulty in defining with any clarity when somebody crossed that line.

The other alternative would be to require some kind of more rapid disclosure from the campaigns. There already exists in the law a statute which could be construed to require continuous, daily disclosure from campaigns. It’s conceivable with large campaigns that are already filing electronically, that they could in essence be required to file every 24 or 48 hours. And I think if you’re really determined to find out what campaigns are doing, then you ought to be determined whether it’s the Internet or something else. And that would probably be a better solution because it takes advantage of a regulation that already exists, technology that already exists, and doesn’t require us to go then and make new rules about this issue of when the blog is the blogger’s blog and when it’s the campaign’s blog.

Jonathan Singer: [At the end of the Ohio-02 special election last month, the campaigns were required to file every day.] Is that something that you have the power to…

Mason: No. The Commission does not have the ability to change the dollar thresholds or the reporting frequencies. That would have to be done by Congress. And they could either change those thresholds and frequencies or they could give the Commission the power to change them or increase them. Either way it would require legislation, unless the Commission interprets this existing provision that I mentioned in a way that it hasn’t up until now.

Singer: Is that a possibility?

Mason: It’s a possibility. It’s not something that’s going to happen in the next year or two simply because a) it’s not something on our front burner, because it takes in issues way beyond this narrow Internet that you asked and b) because the interpretation I’ve offered is not the only possible interpretation, so if we took that step, it would be very controversial.
[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Hurricane Ophelia Hits North Carolina

Kristen Gelinaeu has the story for the AP:

Hurricane Ophelia picked up strength as it closed in on North Carolina on Wednesday, soaking the region with a half-foot of rain, washing away a barrier island street and causing power outages.

The storm had sustained wind of 80 mph Wednesday morning, up from 75 mph a few hours earlier, the National Hurricane Center said. Hurricane warnings were shifted northward, covering the entire North Carolina coast from the South Carolina line to Virginia, where a tropical storm warning covered the mouth of Chesapeake Bay.
Though Ophelia is less powerful than Katrina was, I certainly hope that residents still take its threat seriously and are able to stay out of harm's way.

Roberts on the Right to Die

The AP's Jesse J. Holland reports that John Roberts addressed an issue today that is of great importanct to Oregonians (and many non-Oregonians, too, I would suppose).

Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Wednesday that the law, not his own personal views, would be his guide in deciding right-to-die cases that might come before the Supreme Court.

At the same time, Roberts stopped short of providing his specific views on the issue — as he has steadfastly done on other contentious subjects in three days of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. That left Democrats chafing.
Oregon's right to die law goes to the Supreme Court next month with the outcome truly up in the air. Should Roberts vote on the law rather than his conscience in the case, the Oregon law -- which was approved twice by voters -- has a shot at remaining on the books.

Weiner Steps Out of the NYC Mayoral Race

Despite the fact that he currently is not out of contention to be New York City's next mayor, Congressman Anthony Weiner gracefully bowed out of the Democratic primary this morning, ceding the nomination to former Bronx President Freddy Ferrer. For a full report, check out the AP article.

Weiner, a protoge of Sen. Chuck Schumer, clearly aspires to be more than just a member of the minority party in the House of Representatives. And although this move means he will be unable to challenge Bloomberg this year, this move leaves open -- and indeed forwards -- the possibility that he will run again for mayor in four years or take a shot at another key New York office.

Knight Ridder: "Chertoff Delayed Federal Response"

The Knight Ridder newspapers' trio of Jonathan S. Landay, Alison Young and Shannon McCaffrey have the latest -- and perhaps most interesting -- recent scoop regarding the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

The federal official with the power to mobilize a massive federal response to Hurricane Katrina was Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, not the former FEMA chief who was relieved of his duties and resigned earlier this week, federal documents reviewed by Knight Ridder show.

Even before the storm struck the Gulf Coast, Chertoff could have ordered federal agencies into action without any request from state or local officials. Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown had only limited authority to do so until about 36 hours after the storm hit, when Chertoff designated him as the "principal federal official" in charge of the storm.

As thousands of hurricane victims went without food, water and shelter in the days after Katrina's early morning Aug. 29 landfall, critics assailed Brown for being responsible for delays that might have cost hundreds of lives.

But Chertoff - not Brown - was in charge of managing the national response to a catastrophic disaster, according to the National Response Plan, the federal government's blueprint for how agencies will handle major natural disasters or terrorist incidents. An order issued by President Bush in 2003 also assigned that responsibility to the homeland security director.

But according to a memo obtained by Knight Ridder, Chertoff didn't shift that power to Brown until late afternoon or evening on Aug. 30, about 36 hours after Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi. That same memo suggests that Chertoff may have been confused about his lead role in disaster response and that of his department.
And there are still some who believe there shouldn't be an independent commission investigating what went wrong in the aftermath of the storm?

Quote of the Day

It's actually an exchange between VA GOP Gov. hopeful Jerry Kilgore and debate moderator Tim Russert, as quoted by the Richmond Times-Dispatch's Tyler Whitley:

As he did in the first Kaine-Kilgore debate, in July, Kilgore refused to say whether he would seek to outlaw abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court were to reverse itself. .

"That's a hypothetical," Kilgore said, when pressed repeatedly by moderator Tim Russert on his views. "I support a culture of life." He said he would not criminalize the act of a woman who receives an abortion.

Russert then asked whether Kilgore would veto a tax increase if the legislature passed one.

"I would veto a tax increase," replied Kilgore.

"That's a hypothetical," said Russert, as the audience laughed.

Oy Vey

More than a dozen explosions ripped through the Iraqi capital in rapid succession Wednesday, killing at least 152 people and wounding 542 in a series of attacks that began with a suicide car bombing that targeted laborers assembled to find work for the day. Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility.

The one-day death toll was believed to be the worst in the capital since major combat ended in May 2003, and Al-Jazeera said Al-Qaida in Iraq linked the attacks to the recent killing of about 200 militants from the city of Tal Afar by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Before dawn Wednesday, 17 men were killed by insurgents in the village of Taji north of Baghdad, which pushed the death toll in all violence in and around the capital to 169.
Link.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

HSA IG to Investigate Fraud in No-Bid Contracts

At a time when the Republican Congress appears loath to initiate an independent, non-partisan commission to look into the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, The New York Times' Philip Shenon reports that the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security is just beginning his investigation.

The inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that his office had received accusations of fraud and waste in the multibillion-dollar relief programs linked to Hurricane Katrina and would investigate how no-bid contracts were awarded to several large, politically well-connected companies.

The inspector general, Richard L. Skinner, who serves as the department's internal watchdog, said in an interview that he intended to be "extremely aggressive" in monitoring the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which will receive most of the $62 billion in disaster-response financing approved by Congress last week.

FEMA, which is part of Homeland Security, was harshly criticized in recent months as mismanaging millions of dollars in relief funds after a 2004 hurricane in Florida.

[...]

[Skinner] said that his investigators would focus on several no-bid contracts awarded over the last two weeks to large, politically influential companies, including the Fluor Corporation of California, a major donor to the Republican Party, and the Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, La. Shaw is a client of Joe M. Allbaugh, a consultant who is the former head of FEMA and was President Bush's campaign manager in 2000.

Another of Mr. Allbaugh's clients - Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the giant defense contractor once led by Vice President Dick Cheney - is doing major repairs at Navy facilities along the Gulf Coast that were damaged by the hurricane. That work is being done under a $500 million contract with the Defense Department.
It's amazing that the Inspector General would even have to field such inquiries regarding no-bid contracts going to companies connected to the Republican Party. Would it be impossible to create an expedited bidding process? (This is not a rhetorical question; I do not actually know the answer to this.) If the answer is no -- that for the rebuilding to occur, there must be no-bid contracts -- why not just spread around the largesse to remove any doubt in the minds of critics? Are Halliburton and other such corporations really the only companies equipped to undertake such tasks?

NYC Mayoral Primary: Ferrer Wins Plurality...

... but falls just short of the 40 percent necessary to avoid a runoff

The results, with all precincts reporting, show former Bronx President Freddy Ferrer receiving 39.95 percent of the vote (182,273 votes) to 28.82 percent for Congressman Anthony Weiner (131,476 votes), meaning that there just might be a runoff for the Democratic mayoral nomination. Though Ferrer has picked up some key support as of late -- most notably from Al Sharpton -- Weiner seems to have some momentum. Endorsements of the other candidates will likely play a role in the runoff, but be prepared to watch a heck of a campaign in the coming weeks.

Two More Indictments of DeLay Associates

The Associated Press has the story:

Two associates of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay were indicted Tuesday on additional felony charges of violating Texas election law and criminal conspiracy to violate election law for their role in the 2002 legislative races.

The indictment was the latest from a grand jury investigating the use of corporate money in the campaigns that gave Republicans control of the Texas House.

In Texas, state law prohibits using corporate contributions to advocate the election or defeat of state candidates.

The two men indicted Tuesday, Jim Ellis, who heads Americans for a Republican Majority, and John Colyandro, former executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority, already faced charges of money laundering in the case. Colyandro also faces 13 counts of unlawful acceptance of a corporate political contribution.

The money laundering charges stem from $190,000 in corporate funds that were sent to the Republican National Party, which then spent the same amount on seven candidates for the Texas Legislature.
And the plot thickens...

I'm off to go see "The Aristocrats" for my political theory class (yes, "The Aristocrats"). I'll let you know how it went later tonight...

Campaign 2006

Nationwide

Former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Martin Frost has some advice for his successor at the DCCC and the heads of the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: run a candidate in every district across the country next year.

It’s time to throw out the traditional playbook and be bold as you plan for the 2006 elections. There is a real possibility that next year’s contest will be a landslide for Democrats and you need to be prepared to win.

Specifically, Emanuel and Schumer should file candidates for every single Congressional seat and ever single Senatorial seat in the country, even those that have traditionally been Republican. And the DNC should be encouraging state legislative leaders throughout the country to take similar action on the state house and senate levels.

In 1964, Democrats picked up 37 House seats. Republicans picked up 54 House seats, in 1994. At the depths of the Great Depression in 1932, Democrats picked up 90 House seats. History could repeat itself in 2006, but only if Democrats expand the playing field.

[...]

Now back to the strategy of the 2006 election. Ever since losing the House and Senate in 1994, Democrats have narrowed rather than expanded the playing field. The theory was to concentrate resources in those races where we had the best chance to win. That strategy was successful for House Democrats in 1996 and 1998 when we picked up a total of 14 seats despite being badly outspent by Republicans. But it didn’t get us back into the majority and it led to a stalemate in the next three elections. Senate Democrats picked up a few seats last time around, but ultimately were dealt a significant loss in 2004.

It’s now time to shoot the moon. Recruit and file everywhere and then late in the cycle decide which races present the best opportunities. Be prepared to win some seats that you don’t deserve because the “force is with you.”

If necessary, the Party should pay the filing fees to encourage some candidates to enter the fray. Remember that the Republicans elected some “accidental Congressmen” in 1994 that only lasted one term — like those who defeated Dan Rostenkowski and Jack Brooks — but were there when they took control.
Although I don't think Frost is breaking any particularly new ground here -- other Dems have been saying the same thing for quite some time now -- this article is reflective of the new trend in Democratic thinking. And although this could lead to the problem of spreading money too thinly across the nation, perhaps it is time for the Democrats to try to "shoot the moon."

Oregon

Oregon's Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski, facing reelection next year, has raised slightly more than $400,000, reports Dave Hogan for The Oregonian. Nevertheless, this puts him behind not one but two of his Republican challengers.

With eight months to go until the May primary, Gov. Ted Kulongoski and his challengers have raised more than $1.3 million, according to campaign finance reports filed Monday.

[...]

Most of the money raised has been collected by Kulongoski, a Democrat, and Kevin Mannix of Salem and Ron Saxton of Portland, two Republicans who also ran for governor in 2002. Through the start of this month, the three had collected more than $400,000 each.

Saxton had raised the most, but he knows that campaign money doesn't guarantee a victory with voters. Saxton raised nearly $2 million for the May 2002 primary, more than any other candidate, but he lost to Mannix. Kulongoski then defeated Mannix in the November 2002 election.
The numbers for the three candidates are as follows:

While it's true that the Republicans will spend all of that money and more on a bitter GOP primary and that neither of Kulongoski's Democratic primary challengers has raised more than $20,000, this filing should carry some warnings for the Governor's reelection campaign. If he wants to avoid a difficult election season next year, he might want to raise a lot more money this year.

Montana

New polling from Rasmussen Reports seems to indicate that GOP Senator Conrad Burns is a bit weaker than many inside the Beltway seem to think.

In his bid for re-election, Republican Senator Conrad Burns currently attracts 51% of the vote and holds a double digit lead against two potential challengers--State Senate President John Tester and State Auditor John Morrison.

The first Rasmussen Reports Election 2006 survey in the state finds Tester earning 38% of the vote and Morrison 39%.

[...]

For both Democrats, name recognition is much lower--nearly half of all voters have no opinion. For Tester, the numbers are 28% favorable, 25% unfavorable, and 46% no opinion. Morrison is viewed favorably by 30%, unfavorably by 23%, and 47% have no opinion.

The low name recognition of his challengers means that the [race] is all about Conrad Burns at this time. But, that will change as the Democrats' select their nominee and voters learn more about him.
Do not get me wrong -- 51 percent is not a bad place for an incumbent to sit. Nevertheless, this race offers the Democrats more of an opportunity than many others across the nation, so Chuck Schumer and the folks at the DSCC should strongly consider dumping a lot of money into the state once the Democratic primary voters choose their candidate.

Current Trends in the Economy

Many have been sounding alarms about possible inflation for months, but is it possible that the concerns are actually coming to fruition now? The AP's Martin Crutsinger provides a bit of an answer.

Soaring costs for gasoline and other energy products fueled inflation at the wholesale level in August for a second consecutive month even before the impact of Hurricane Katrina was felt.

The Labor Department reported that wholesale prices rose 0.6 percent last month following an even bigger 1 percent jump in July. Outside of energy and food, inflation pressures continued to be moderate with so-called core inflation showing no change in August, the best showing since a decline of 0.1 percent in June.

But economists worried that this benign inflation picture may change with a continued onslaught of higher energy costs, reflecting shutdowns in production in the Gulf of Mexico caused by Hurricane Katrina.
New data out of Oregon is a bit more optimistic -- but not by much -- reports Brent Hunsberger for The Oregonian.

Oregon employers continued to hire at a rapid clip in August, state officials said Monday, yet the state's unemployment rate inched upward for the third consecutive month.

How can employment and unemployment be rising at the same time?

More job seekers, it seems, are moving here.

[...]

Oregon's job growth ranked sixth-highest in the nation in July and might keep a similar ranking when August figures become available next week.

Reports released Monday by the Oregon Employment Department showed the state added 5,300 jobs in the most recent month, a number adjusted for seasonal fluctuations.

Overall state employment has grown 3.4 percent since August 2004, rivaling the state's growth rates in the boom years of 1990s.

Still, Oregon's unemployment rate remains unusually high, ranking second-highest in the nation in July. The rate increased to 6.7 percent in August from 6.6 percent a month earlier. The nation's unemployment rate, in contrast, dropped slightly in August from 5 percent to 4.9 percent.
Hunsberger reports that more Californians are moving up to Oregon than any time in the past decade, and that this might have had an effect on unemployment rate.

Senate to Vote to Overturn Bush's Mercury Rule

Despite President Bush's veto threat, the Senate appears poised to vote to overturn President Bush's regulations on mercury emissions. The AP's Jim Abrams reports.

Senators are challenging the Bush administration over its approach to reducing power plant emissions of mercury, a toxic metal that poses serious threats of neurological damage to newborn and young children.

The White House insists its market-based approach to curtailing mercury pollution is effective and founded on sound science, and warned that the president will veto any legislation that would overturn rules on mercury emissions finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency last March.

The Senate votes Tuesday on a measure that would repeal those rules, and the outcome is uncertain. At least three Republicans have said they will join Democrats in moving to strike down the regulations and force the administration to come up with stronger measures to combat the health hazard.

[...]

The debate highlights two very different approach to environmental protection. The administration rules, backed by the utility industry, would set a nationwide cap on mercury emissions and put a ceiling on allowable pollution for each state. But individual plants, through a cap-and-trade system, can avoid cleanups by buying pollution credits from plants that are under allowable levels.

[...]

But opponents say the rules are too weak and would prolong a health risk that leaves newborns vulnerable to birth defects and mental retardation.
As in the case of stem-cell funding, President Bush would much rather have the ball in Congress' court than in his own. If the issue doesn't move because of Congress' propensity not to act, he cannot be blamed; however, if he vetoes the move, critics can genuinely place the onus on him.

[Update 11:55 AM Pacific]: The vote finished recently, failing by a 47-51 margin. Six Democrats voted against the measure, allowing nine Republicans to vote in the affirmative without forcing the President to follow through with his veto threat. If the Democrats indeed want the President to make tough decisions, they have to show a little more unanimity in their voting.

Site Info

A few notes before we move forward with the blogging...

First, Blogads is still down, meaning that Basie! is not generating any ad revenue from that source. If you're interested in supporting the site, please consider making your book, DVD and electronics purchases through my Amazon.com link.

[Update 10:13 AM Pacific]: Blogads are back up now, but we'd still appreciate it if you'd consider making your purchases through the aforementioned Amazon link.

Second, there have been some questions about where the site stands with regard to interviews. To answer briefly, we're working dilligently to line up interviews with some major political players -- Senators, high ranking members of former administrations, and the like. We have an interview lined up with a top pundit for this Thursday, and the possibility of another interview tomorrow. Thanks for bearing with us through this process.

Bush Up One Point in New Gallup Poll

David W. Moore has the story for the Gallup News Service.

Despite initial criticisms of the federal government's slow response to Katrina, Bush's overall job approval rating remains essentially where it was at the end of August. Currently, 46% approve of his overall performance, compared with 45% in an Aug. 28-30 poll, both up slightly from a 40% reading earlier in mid-August. Fifty-one percent disapprove of the way Bush has been handling his job as president.

Americans are slightly less positive about Bush's handling of the response to Hurricane Katrina, with 43% approving and 54% disapproving.
While it is highly possible that Bush's approval rating has surged up to 46 percent recently, looking at the trend over the past year, it is clear that Gallup is an outlier of all other polls. Check out the graph from Pollkatz.com -- in almost each case since last fall, the Gallup poll (the pink circles) finds President Bush's approval rating to be higher than that of all other polls. So perhaps the President's approval is actually closer to the low forties or high thirties than the middle to upper forties.

[Update 9:37 AM Pacific]: In this week's "Off to the Races" column for National Journal (a free subscription to view the rest that can be accessed by clicking here), Charlie Cook takes a look at an important piece of data from the recent Newsweek poll.

In the only generic congressional ballot test released this month, Democrats led Republicans by 12 percentage points in the Newsweek poll, 50 percent to 38 percent.

Pre-Katrina polls indicated considerably smaller Democratic leads -- three points in the Fox poll and five points in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey.
Maybe it's the Democrats, not the President, who are getting the bounce these days...

John Roberts and the Right to Privacy

Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts suprised many today with his comments on the rights of privacy and choice, reports the AP's Jesse J. Holland.

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent," as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[...]

Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited several amendments in the Bill of Rights and said, "I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways."

[...]

Troy Newman, leader of Operation: Rescue, said anti-abortion activists weren't surprised by Roberts' comments but would watch him closely.

"We're concerned about these statements, but the proof will come when it's time for him to rule on these cases as a justice," Newman said.
I think Newman and the anti-abortion lobby are correct in their assessment of Roberts' views in this way: although Roberts' statements should give pause to those on the left adamant on opposing him regardless of what the hearings expose, the fact remains that Judge Roberts is by no means bound by the comments made in his appearance before the committee today. That is to say, if confirmed, he can rule however he wants to.

[Update 12:21 PM Pacific]: Roberts sounds a bit stronger on the issue of privacy than he did this morning. From National Journal's Mark Ambinder:

"I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy...extends to contraception."

Monday, September 12, 2005

DeWine to Join Specter in Tough Questioning of Roberts

The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports that Judiciary Committee Democrats and Republican Chairman Arlen Specter won't be the only Senators to offer up tough lines of questioning to Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts.

If Specter and DeWine do not partake in a more defensive line of questioning, as most GOP senators are expected to do, it would undermine a tactical rhetorical advantage Republicans maintain on the committee. Republicans control 10 seats on the committee, compared to the Democrats’ eight.

More significantly, the appearance that Specter and DeWine are not already fully committed to Roberts may embolden Democrats to become more aggressive. DeWine’s plans may rankle some Republicans already miffed over his role in the so-called Gang of 14. The group of centrist senators who brokered a deal on judges earlier this year is considered a Senate bellwether on judicial nominations.

[...]

Before the scheduled start of the confirmation hearings, which were originally slated for last week, aides to Republican members of the Judiciary Committee received word from DeWine’s staff that he would join Specter and Democrats on the panel in posing tough questions.

“We’re all going to try to defend [Roberts] on various stuff,” a GOP aide said. “Specter and DeWine have made it clear that they’re going to ask questions that are hostile.”

“He’s going to ask hostile questions about the 11th Amendment,” the aide said. “We expect him to be bad.”
Bolton indicates that most expect DeWine and Specter to eventually vote in favor of the Roberts nomination. That said, these nominations can either be made or broken during the committee hearings (Justice Thomas' nomination didn't become jeopardized until about this point in the process), and if Specter or DeWine come up with anything damning enough -- perhaps a view, on the part of Roberts, that there is no constitutional right to privacy -- Roberts' nomination, or that of whomever President Bush nominates to replace Justice O'Connor, could be placed in moderate danger.

Campaign 2006: NRCC v. DCCC

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's fundraising and recruitment success over its Republican counterpart has been well documented, but not much has been said lately about the relative effectiveness of the two parties' House campaign committees, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

While the NRCC has raised more money than its Democratic counterpart, anecdotal evidence seems to point out that the Democrats under new chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) are doing better than previously expected. The Hill's Jonathan E. Kaplan documents the degree to which NRCC chair Tom Reynolds (R-NY) -- who is unhappy with Emanuel's characterization of House Republican ethical improprieties -- is stooping in order to claim ethics problems on the part of his Democratic counterpart.

Reynolds inaccurately alleged in a press release last week that Emanuel accepted donations from William Tomasso, a partner in a major construction firm in Connecticut who is under federal indictment for paying bribes, rewards and gratuities for getting contracts from jailed former Gov. John Rowland (R). Tomasso never gave to the DCCC while Emanuel has been chairman, and he never contributed to Emanuel’s personal campaign funds.

Tomasso, however, has given donations to Connecticut Democrats, some of whom returned them, and to Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.), who have not.

Reynolds also cited that Emanuel had accepted campaign money from Joe Cari, a former Democratic National Committee official, who was indicted last month along with Stuart Levine, a major GOP donor and former trustee of the Teachers’ Retirement System in Illinois.

Prosecutors allege Levine used his position with the system to arrange kickbacks from companies seeking to invest in the fund. Cari is expected to plead guilty this week; Levine has pleaded not guilty.

Cari donated $5,000 to Emanuel between 2001 and 2003 and $5,000 to the DCCC. Emanuel said he would return the money.

But Levine donated to both parties. He gave $3,250 to the House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s (R-Ill.) campaign committee and $5,000 to his political action committee (PAC) in 2003. Levine gave a total of $2,000 to Hastert in 2001 and 2002. He has also helped Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.) and Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who returned Levine’s $1,000 donation this year.
If Reynolds is trying to peddle such junk, might that mean that he's at least a little concerned that Democratic attacks on the ethics (or lack thereof) of House Republicans is beginning to stick?

[Update 8:26 PM Pacific]: Apparently the Dems' fundraising isn't so bad after all...

Bush Hits New Low in WaPo/ABC News Poll

Just two weeks ago we noted that President Bush had hit a new all-time low for the Washington Post/ABC News poll, which tends to be in the middle -- or slight right of middle -- of the major polls. Now, as Richard Morin reports for The Post, Bush has done it again by hitting another all-time low.

President Bush's public standing has hit record lows amid broad support for an independent investigation of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina and calls for postponing congressional action on $70 billion in proposed tax cuts to help pay for storm recovery, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

President Bush's overall job approval rating now stands at 42 percent, the lowest of his presidency and down three points since Hurricane Katrina savaged the Gulf Coast two weeks ago. Fifty-seven percent disapprove of Bush's performance, a double-digit increase since January.

Bush's handling of Iraq and terrorism also have never been lower, according to the poll. Thirty-eight percent approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq and half the county now approve of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism.

A clear majority--54 percent -- now disapprove of the way Bush is handling the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Importantly, much of the loss of support came from Republicans, whose approval of their President has fallen to 78 percent -- still a strong number, but not nearly as impressive as it had been throughout the first four and a half years of the Bush 43 presidency.

Bush is also losing his base on the question of whether there should be an independent investigation on the response to Hurricane Katrina, as there was following the attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. A majority -- 64 percent -- of Republicans agree with the 83 percent of Democrats who are calling for the creation of such a commission. Half of all Republicans and two thirds of all Democrats also oppose moving forward with the new round of tax cuts given the situation in the Gulf Coast.

Campaign 2005: The Eve of the NYC Dem Primary

Tomorrow, New York City's Democratic voters will begin the process of choosing their nominees for Mayor and District Attorney (a race we examined here). On the eve of the election, a new poll from Marist College shows that the race for the mayoral nod is still as close as ever.

Former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer narrowly leads his closest opponent Congressman Anthony Weiner by six points among Democrats likely to vote in tomorrow’s primary for mayor. Ferrer receives the support of 35% of likely Democratic voters compared with 29% for Weiner. Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields and Council Speaker Gifford Miller trail with 14% each. 8% of likely Democratic voters are undecided. When undecided likely Democratic voters who lean toward a candidate are included in the results, Fernando Ferrer receives 36%, Anthony Weiner has 29%, C. Virginia Fields has 16%, and Gifford Miller receives 15%. Only 4% of likely Democratic voters remain undecided.
Ferrer got the nomination of Al Sharpton yesterday, which could yield him an unexpected boost tomorrow. Should it not, however, and Weiner indeed forces a primary, look for the runoff between the two to be as toughly fought as any in the nation.

How Pro-Choice Are Americans?

SurveyUSA polled voters in every state asking them whether they consider themselves to be "pro-life" or "pro-choice." The findings include:

So much for claims by inside-the-Beltway pundits that the Democrats are out of touch with Americans on the issue of abortion.

Brown Out at FEMA

When FEMA chief Mike Brown was relieved of control of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina but not fired from his post, I was a bit confused. In what situation would one be qualified to run FEMA but unqualified to lead a federal cleanup effort? Apparently, the answer is never. The AP's Ron Fournier reports.

Federal Emergency Management Agency director Mike Brown said Monday he has resigned "in the best interest of the agency and best interest of the president," three days after losing his onsite command of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

"The focus has got to be on FEMA, what the people are trying to do down there," Brown told The Associated Press.

His decision was not a surprise. Brown was abruptly recalled to Washington on Friday, a clear vote of no confidence from his superiors at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security. Brown had been roundly criticized for FEMA's bearish response to the hurricane, which has caused political problem for Bush and fellow Republicans.
It's about time.

Bush Threatens to Veto Stronger Mercury Rules

Unhappy with the Senate's moves towards overturning an E.P.A. regulation of mercury (that some view as too lax), President Bush has come out with a veto threat, reports the AP's Jim Abrams.

The White House on Monday defended its anti-pollution policies and threatened to veto a Senate proposal to negate new Environmental Protection Agency rules on limiting mercury emissions from power plants.

Senate Democrats, joined by several Republicans, claim that the EPA rules favor the utility industry while slowing action on a serious public health hazard. A Senate vote to overturn the rules was slated for later Monday.

The White House, in a statement, said it supports efforts to reduce mercury emissions and protect public health based on sound science. It said the Senate resolution "would unnecessarily delay the first-ever reduction of mercury emissions from power plants" and that, if it reaches the president's desk, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto it.

The chances of the bill reaching that stage are not high: passage in the Senate is uncertain and is less probable in the House, where the GOP majority rarely deviates from the White House.

The bill's sponsors, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, turned to a little-used 1996 law that allows Congress to challenge agency rules with a guaranteed floor vote. The law has been successfully invoked only once, when Congress in 2001 repealed Clinton administration workplace ergonomics regulations.

By repealing the EPA rules finalized last March, the Senate would force the agency to return to the tougher Clean Air Act rules imposed during the Clinton administration that requires the nation's 600 coal-burning power plants to use the best available technology to reduce mercury emissions.
Given the severe environmental damage facing New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (oil and chemical refineries spewing out their pollutants across the city and region), it is an interesting contrast that the President would issue such a veto threat at this time.

Blogger Slowdown and Issues

Well, blogger.com froze me out for the past hour or so, so my apologies for the delay. And now my blog doesn't appear to open correctly. This should be a fun process! Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would bear with me through this process.

[Update 10:04 AM Pacific]: The issue appears to be with Blogads.com, which hosts advertisements for this site and many more throughout the blogosphere. I've turned off the ads for now until the problem is solved on their end.

The John Roberts Hearings

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of John G. Roberts has already commenced. If you're interested, you can watch it at C-SPAN.org.

A New Orleans Convention in 2008

Gregory L. Giroux reports of CQ Weekly that some are lobbying both parties to consider the possibility of holding their political conventions in New Orleans in 2008.

As the Gulf Coast region struggles to recover from the catastrophe inflicted by Hurricane Katrina, a campaign is under way to persuade both parties to hold their 2008 presidential nominating conventions in the now-devastated city of New Orleans — and to announce the decision jointly as a powerful display of comfort and support for the battered region.

”It would help the city and area both symbolically and substantively,” said Ron Faucheux, a prominent political analyst and former Louisiana officeholder who is promoting the idea with state party chairmen and executive directors, as well as national party officials.

”National conventions bring a lot of attention and a lot of money to a local economy, and it is also an opportunity to have a bipartisan show of support for the city and the area — which is needed, given the partisan sniping that’s been going on,” said Faucheux, the former editor-in-chief of Campaigns and Elections magazine, once owned by Congressional Quarterly.

The two parties typically choose and announce their convention sites independently. But there is precedent for both gatherings to be held in the same city, as they were in 1972 when Miami Beach played host to both party gatherings.
This sounds like a great political move for either political party -- or both.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Four Years Later

I would be remiss if I neglected to lay down some thoughts today given that it is the fourth anniversary of Al Qaeda's attack on our homeland and also given the status of hundreds of thousands of our brethren in the Gulf Coast. At this time last year I began to consider America's mortality, and I think my thoughts are still as germane today as they were then.

In August of last year, a massive power outage swept across the Northeast and millions were without electricity. Throughout the region, skyscrapers were rendered unusable (people could not get to the 64th floor easily or quickly by foot), thoroughfares impassable (no traffic lights meant much more traffic), and cities uninhabitable (without refrigeration and fresh water pumped in, people simply could not continue to reside in them indefinitely). In this moment, we were provided with a glimpse into the future; this is how a civilization in decay and disrepair (perhaps our own civilization, one day) might live.

While all of this was occurring, by sheer coincidence I found myself in Córdoba, Spain, a city that shows these same scars centuries of a civilization in decline. Though many history books might not mention it, Córdoba was the greatest cosmopolitan city in the world just over 1,000 years ago--the New York City of its times.

During the time of Islamic rule, as the seat of the Muawiya Caliphs, Córdoba was the largest city and embodied the most sophisticated culture and the most developed bureaucracy in Europe. [...] The 10th century Caliphate of Córdoba was the largest, culturally the most sophisticated polity in all Europe (link).
As I walked through the Mezquita--the Great Mosque--which was at the focal point of the immense Moorish Empire (a highly tolerant nation in which Muslims, Christians and Jews lived side by side in peace and prosperity), I realized that at the same time the denizens of New York and countless other cities and towns in the Northeast were gazing upon our great buildings which were then just as dead as the mosque I was in. With our failed system unable to provide the necessary power, our great buildings were about as useful as the Pyramids, the Parthenon, the Coliseum, or the Mezquita.

This was a wake up call for me. Getting a glimpse of what our country might be like a thousand years on as I stood in the greatest building in the capital of a once great nation like our own, I could not help but be aware of our mortality as a nation.
The images out of New Orleans this month have been more akin to those of the most indigent swaths of Southeast Asia than any part of America in recent memory. The initial response to Hurricane Katrina was underwhelming (to put it lightly). And although the government is beginning to respond with tens of billions of dollars, it is incumbent upon all Americans to think about what exactly our social contract entails.

No country can prevent every danger, whether it is the natural variety that hit us in the Gulf Coast just two weeks ago or the man-made variety that hit us just four years ago. But a country's viability is dependent on swift and effective responses to such catastrophes when they occur.

If we truly want America to live and thrive for decades, if not centuries to come, we must not only examine what went wrong two weeks ago -- as we did following the attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania -- we must decide what role our government will play in protecting us from the worst. We must ask questions.

Do we want a government shrunk to the point at which it can no longer protect us? Or do we want a robust government that can effectively deal with the unforseeable and forseeable problems of tomorrow?

Do we want to bankrupt government to the point at which it can no longer help the most downtrodden at their greatest point of need? Or do we want a government that has the resources necessary to help each of us when we need it the most?

Do we want our Presidents to represent the 50.1 percent of us necessary for election or reelection? Or do we want our Presidents to govern in such a way that benefits and respects all Americans, regardless of their partisan leanings?

These are all serious questions that we must answer in order to ensure that America succeeds in the years to come. Our conversation began four years ago, but we must continue it today and in the future so we can maintain this great country through our lifetimes and the lives of our children and grandchildren.

NYC DA Morgenthau's Battle for Reelection

The AP's Larry McShane provides a good look into this coming Tuesday's primary in which New York City's Democratic voters will choose their nominee to serve as District Attorney (click here for information on the Democratic mayoral primary, which will also be held this Tuesday). And as McShane notes, the winner of the Democratic primary is almost assured of winning the spot in November, so this is an important vote to watch.

How old is too old? And how long is too long?

n the case of 86-year-old Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau — in office since 1974 — the answers come Tuesday, when his re-election campaign goes to the voters in a Democratic primary.

For the first time in 20 years, Morgenthau faced a real challenger with a real chance to win: Leslie Crocker Snyder, 63, a no-nonsense ex-judge who raised the incumbent's age and tenure as campaign issues.

[...]

The campaign reached at times into the fictional DA's office of "Law and Order." Snyder, in a television ad, pointed out that the television show had three district attorneys during its 17 years on NBC.

The real office had just one: Morgenthau, the model for the first TV prosecutor, Adam Schiff. Snyder herself has appeared on the program as a judge.
For more on the race, check out Jeffrey Toobin's masterful piece in a May issue of The New Yorker. And if you're a "Law & Order" fan like this blogger, check out the complete first season or the complete third season of the series, a particular favorite.

Specter to Probe Roberts on Right to Privacy

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) went on NBC's "Meet the Press" today and told host Tim Russert that he would not ask Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts how he might rule if Roe v. Wade were revisited. At least this is what the Associated Press found interesting about the appearance. Perhaps more importantly, though, Specter pledged to probe Roberts' beliefs on the right to privacy -- the backbone of a woman's right to choose.

Specter said he was uncertain whether Roberts would favor overturning the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 that established a right to abortion. Specter supports a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy.

"I think it is inappropriate to ask him head-on if he's going to overturn Roe, but I believe that there are many issues close to the issue, like his respect for precedent," Specter told NBC's "Meet the Press."

[...]

But Specter said asking Roberts, now an appeals court judge, whether the high court correctly found a right to privacy in the Constitution when rationalizing its abortion decision would be fair "and I intend to ask it."
Are there still some on the left who would have rather seen Specter defeated in 2004, leaving ultra-conservative Jon Kyl (R-AZ) as chair of the Judiciary Committee?

Bush Falls to 38% Approval in Newsweek Poll

President Bush is clearly faltering in the minds of Americans, as evidenced by his clear slides in almost every recent poll. In the latest indication of this trend, Marcus Mabry writes up the results of newly-released Newsweek poll.

Hurricane Katrina claimed her first political casualty Friday. Michael Brown, the head of FEMA, the federal disaster readiness and response agency, was sidelined from the largest disaster relief project in the nation’s history. Brown was recalled to Washington by his boss, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. But a new NEWSWEEK Poll suggests the post-Katrina political storm may just be rising. And her ultimate casualty could be President George W. Bush.

In Katrina’s wake, the president’s popularity and job-approval ratings have dropped across the board. Only 38 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is doing his job overall, a record-low for this president in the NEWSWEEK poll. (Fifty-five percent of Americans disapprove of his overall job performance.) And only 28 percent of Americans say they are “satisfied with the way things are going” in the country, down from 36 percent in August and 46 percent in December, after the president’s re-election. This is another record low and two points below the satisfaction level recorded immediately after the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal came to light. Fully two-thirds of Americans are not satisfied with the direction of the country.
The poll also found that 52 percent of Americans don't trust Bush "to make the right decisions during a domestic crisis" and 49 percent rate his leadership as "strong" -- a drop of 14 points since the week before his reelection.

The latest Time magazine poll echoes Newsweek's findings, with President Bush reaching his all-time low approval mark for the poll.

Majorities of those surveyed believe officials at all levels, including the victims themselves, are responsible for what went wrong in the hurricane's aftermath. Almost three quarters (73%) blame state and local officials, 70% blame Federal agencies, such as FEMA, 61% blame President Bush, and 57% blame the victims themselves.

[...]

President Bush's overall approval rating has dropped to 42%, his lowest mark since taking office. And while 36% of respondents said they were satisfied with Bush's explanation of why the government was not able to provide relief to hurricane victims sooner, 57% said they were dissatisfied.
[Update 1:24 PM Pacific]: I seem to have missed the following from the Newsweek poll:

Reflecting the tarnished view of the administration, only 38 percent of registered voters say they would vote for a Republican for Congress if the Congressional elections were held today, while 50 say they would vote for a Democrat.
While the Senate might not be in play in 2006 -- the metrics are simply difficult for the Dems -- with numbers like these, perhaps the House elections across the country will reflect Americans' generally unhappiness with the administration.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

The Sunday Shows

I'll be in the mountains of Idyllwild, but for those still in the epicenters of civilization...

CBS'"Face the Nation" — Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore; Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.

NBC's "Meet the Press" — New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin; Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Ivor van Heerden, director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center; historian John M. Barry.

ABC's "This Week" — Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen; Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.; the Dalai Lama.

CNN's "Late Edition" — Honore; Sen. David Vitter, R-La.; Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.; Gov. George Pataki, R-N.Y.; American Red Cross President Marty Evans; Baton Rouge, La., Mayor Melvin Holden; former Sept. 11 Commission Co-Chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton; Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

"Fox News Sunday" — Allen; Landrieu and Vitter.
As for me, as I said before, I'm heading up into the mountains east of Los Angeles. I'll be back tomorrow morning, so until then, have a great weekend.

Did Iraq Deployment Delay Response to Katrina?

It seems that at least one official within the National Guard seems to believe the answer to this question is yes, as Robert Burns reports for The Washington Post.

The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day at most of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum.

Blum said that to replace those units' command and control equipment, he dispatched personnel from Guard division headquarters from Kansas and Minnesota shortly after the storm struck.
I am truly in no position to either affirm or negate Blum's assessment of the situation on the ground, though I would be interested to hear how the President -- who prides himself on listening to the military brass -- would respond to this particular Lieutenant General.

Friday, September 09, 2005

Campaign 2005: The NYC Dem Primary

Former Bronx Borough President Freddy Ferrer had been leading the race for the Democratic nomination throughout the race, but Congressman Anthony Weiner is coming on strong late in the game (the primary is on Tuesday) according to the newest Marist poll.

Congressman Anthony Weiner has surged ahead of Council Speaker Gifford Miller and Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields to take sole possession of second place in next Tuesday’s Democratic primary. Although former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer still leads the field, he has not gained much ground towards the 40% needed to avoid a runoff. Among registered voters, Fernando Ferrer receives 34% compared with 27% for Anthony Weiner. Gifford Miller follows with 14%, and C. Virginia Fields has 13%. 12% of registered Democrats remain undecided.

[...]

Among Democrats who are likely to vote on primary day, the contest becomes a statistical tossup. Mr. Ferrer has the support of 32% of likely Democratic voters, and Mr. Weiner receives 30%. Manhattan Borough President Fields and Council Speaker Miller lag with 15% and 13%, respectively. 10% of likely Democratic voters are undecided. When undecided likely Democratic voters who lean towards a candidate are included in the results, Fernando Ferrer receives 33%, Anthony Weiner has 31%, C. Virginia Fields has 17%, and Gifford Miller receives 14%. Only 5% of likely Democratic voters remain undecided.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a longtime Democrat before becoming a Republican around the time of his 2001 mayoral bid, will be a formidable opponent for any Democrat. That said, its interesting to see at least one Democrat -- Weiner -- getting a little momentum.

Will the GOP Cut Medicaid, Student Loans?

We have been wondering for some time if Congressional Republicans would move forward with their plans to make $35 billion in cuts to social programs, including student loans and Medicaid. Earlier it seemed that their plans had been scuttled by Hurricane Katrina, but the AP's Andrew Taylor seems to indicate that the GOP's intention to enact massive spending cuts is still evident.

Republicans are going ahead with long-standing plans to trim Medicaid, food stamps and other benefits, even though party moderates are balking at cutting programs that aid the poor while hundreds of thousands are homeless from Hurricane Katrina.

The amount of savings — no more than $35 billion spread over five years — is modest at best, but it is the first time in eight years that Congress has shown any seriousness about reining in the automatic growth of such benefit programs.

Republican leaders have decided to delay the budget-cutting effort for at least a few weeks following widespread complaints that the government reacted too slowly in coming to the aid of Katrina's victims. When the effort resumes next month, there's less likelihood it will succeed because of Katrina's affect on the political landscape.

[...]

Cuts are planned for the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, student loan subsidies for banks, farm subsidies and food stamps, among others. Katrina has helped solidify opposition to them among moderates in both parties.

"At a time when millions are displaced and seeking federal and state assistance, we believe it is inappropriate to move forward on ... a legislative package that would cut funding for Medicaid, food stamps ... housing and education," Sens. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., wrote in a letter this week to the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Smith and Snowe's votes are needed if $10 billion in Medicaid cuts are to advance over unified Democratic opposition, and their hesitance puts those cuts in doubt.
When the budget vote came up the first time around, Smith voted for in the affirmative despite seeming promises not to support the cuts to Medicaid. So while the AP's Taylor might believe Smith's current apprehensiveness towards Medicaid cuts, I'm holding out until I see Smith vote.

FEMA Chief Brown Axed

I didn't think President Bush would do it given his aversion to firing members of his adminstration, but as the AP's Lara Jakes Jordan reports, Michael Brown has been relieved of his leadership of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown is being relieved of his command of the Bush administration's Hurricane Katrina onsite relief efforts, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced Friday.

He will be replaced by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, who was overseeing New Orleans relief and rescue efforts, Chertoff said.

Earlier, Brown confirmed the switch. Asked if he was being made a scapegoat for a federal relief effort that has drawn widespread and sharp criticism, Brown told The Associated Press after a long pause: "By the press, yes. By the president, No."

"Michael Brown has done everything he possibly could to coordinate the federal response to this unprecedented challenge," Chertoff told reporters in Baton Rouge, La. Chertoff sidestepped a question on whether the move was the first step toward Brown's leaving FEMA.

But a source close to Brown, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the FEMA director had been considering leaving after the hurricane season ended in November and that Friday's action virtually assures his departure.
But before we give President Bush major kudos for getting rid of Brown, we find the following:

Less than an hour before Brown's removal came to light, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Brown had not resigned and the president had not asked for his resignation.
So he's been relieved of control of the federal response but remains head of FEMA? Interesting.

AP-Ipsos Poll: Bush Approval Falls into 30s

It was only a matter of time, but President Bush's approval rating has finally fallen into the 30s in a major nationwide poll (after havinging previously hit 36% in an ARG poll). Looking at the data from the AP-Ipsos survey conducted September 6-8, we find:

Bush Approval

Approve: 39% (42% in early August)
Disapprove: 59% (55% in early August)
Bush's approval rating on "Handling foreign policy issues and the war on terrorism" has also dropped by four points to a 43-55 spread and his rating on Hurricane Katrina at 46-52. Congress doesn't fare well in the poll, with its disapproval rating hitting a recent high of 65 percent.

[Update 9:57 AM Pacific]: The AP's Will Lester also writes up the results of the poll, but buries Bush's numbers towards the bottom of the article (not until the 13th graf).

USA Today on Bush's Response

USA Today's Judy Keen and Richard Benedetto do a good job of noting the President's recent flippancy in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

President Bush has shown that he can be empathetic, sensitive and decisive. But those qualities eluded him for days after Hurricane Katrina, and the lapse could become a defining moment of his White House tenure.

The most stirring image of Bush's presidency came when he spontaneously grabbed a bullhorn at Ground Zero and vowed retribution against 9/11 terrorists. Tears filled his eyes when he took the oath of office in 2001, and he has wept publicly when talking about U.S. troops slain in battle and his respect for his father. He has hugged countless victims of fires, hurricanes and other tragedies. During his 2000 campaign, he told recovering teen addicts, "I used to drink too much. ... I want you to know that your life's walk is shared by a lot of other people."

But there's another side to Bush. He can seem detached and unaware of the messages conveyed by his words and conduct. Bush decided to see Katrina's destruction for the first time from his jumbo jet and joked on his first trip to the disaster zone about youthful partying in New Orleans. He didn't cancel his vacation until two days after Katrina struck and didn't visit the region until four days after the storm. It's not the first time that side of the president has been visible. He taped a video for a 2004 black-tie dinner showing him hunting under White House furniture for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the death toll there mounted. His visit to Ground Zero came three days after the 9/11 attacks.

Powell Unhappy with Governoment Response to Katrina

Colin Powell, in one of his first major interviews since finishing his stint as Secretary of State, told ABC's Barbara Walters he has been more than underwhelmed by the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. The Associated Press writes up the details.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell criticized the response to Hurricane Katrina, saying "a lot of failures" occurred at all levels of government.

Powell, the highest ranking black official in President Bush's first term, also said he does not believe race was a factor in the slow delivery of relief to the hurricane victims.

"I think there have been a lot of failures at a lot of levels — local, state and federal. There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. Not enough was done," Powell told ABC News' Barbara Walters in an interview to be aired Friday night.

"I don't think advantage was taken of the time that was available to us, and I just don't know why," said Powell, who recently visited storm survivors at Reunion Arena in Dallas.
I wonder if this means Powell will start geting the Paul O'Neill/Richard Clarke treatment...

Quote of the Day

"We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

-- Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA)
Link.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Pew: Bush Losing Support of GOP, Conservatives

Pew has the latest in the early round of September polling, and its results are somewhat ominous for the President.

The American public is highly critical of President Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Two-in-three Americans (67%) believe he could have done more to speed up relief efforts, while just 28% think he did all he could to get them going quickly. At the same time, Bush's overall job approval rating has slipped to 40% and his disapproval rating has climbed to 52%, among the highest for his presidency. Uncharacteristically, the president's ratings have slipped the most among his core constituents ­ Republicans and conservatives.

[...]

The deep and enduring differences over Bush's presidency are once again evident in attitudes toward government's response to the disaster. Fully 85% of Democrats and 71% of independents think the president could have done more to get aid to hurricane victims flowing more quickly. Republicans, on balance, feel the president did all he could to get relief efforts going, but even among his own partisans 40% say he could have done more.
Breaking down the data of the survey, President Bush's approval among Democrats and Independents stayed statistically the same as it was in July while his approval among Republicans fell a precipitous nine points to 79 percent. His disapproval rating among GOPers more than doubled from nine percent to 19%. However shocking as it comes to this blogger, it appears the President is actually beginning to lose some support from those who were once his most ardent supporters.

Campaign 2006: A Look at Congress

West Virginia

By every indication, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) will seek an unprecendented ninth term next fall, and already polling has emerged that shows him to be in a relatively safe position. Beth Gorczyca writes up the details of the survey for The State Journal.

If the 2006 United States Senate election were held right now, incumbent Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., likely would win in a race against potential opponent U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. according to a poll recently released by Charleston-based RMS Strategies.

Byrd, 87, was expected to announce his plans this week to run for a record ninth consecutive term, but he decided to delay his announcement because of recovery efforts from Hurricane Katrina, as well as the funeral for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, which was scheduled for Sept. 7.

According to the poll, about 55 percent of registered voters in West Virginia said they would support Byrd in the election. Only 39 percent said they would support Capito.

Capito long has been touted as a potential opponent to Byrd in next year's election. But the two-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives has not made a formal announcement whether she will run.
In other data from the poll, Byrd's favorable rating stands at 72% and his approval rating is a sky-high 75%. Although West Virginia appears to be a solidly Republican state on the Presidential level, at least for now the shift from the Democratic Party to the GOP has clearly yet to take hold on the Congressional level.

Rhode Island

Out of Rhode Island comes word that the primary challenge of the year will indeed be duked out as Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey plans to challenge moderate Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee. The Associated Press reports.

Stephen Laffey, the outspoken mayor of Rhode Island's second-largest city, announced Thursday he plans to challenge fellow Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee in the 2006 Senate race.

[...]

Laffey said Thursday he wanted to give the smallest state in the union "the strongest voice in Washington" and promised to fight big drug companies, big oil companies and special interests, and work for a fairer tax code.

Chafee, a moderate who represents a heavily Democratic state, was mayor of Warwick before he was appointed to the Senate in 1999 after his father, Sen. John Chafee, died. He was elected to a six-year term in 2000.

National Republican leaders have supported Chafee, and other state Republicans have said little publicly about Laffey's expected entry into the race. However, last month, Robert Manning, the party's national committeeman in Rhode Island, said he did not want national party funds spent on candidates until after the primary.
This is going to be a tough fight for Chafee, though most probably still view him as an odds-on favorite to win his party's nomination -- though winning in the general election might be another story all together.

Oklahoma

Michael McNutt reports for The Oklahoman that the GOP might finally have its candidate to challenge popular Democratic Governor Brad Henry.

U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook says he is leaning more toward running for governor after meeting recently with about 35 Republican state legislators.
Istook, R-Warr Acres, also has met with other GOP lawmakers, business leaders, party leaders and supporters.

He wants to talk with colleagues this week in Washington and plans to make a decision within a month.

“Almost universally, people tell me it’s doable, I should do it and they’re very excited about my doing it,” he said. “That last part is what has most surprised and humbled me.”

Several legislators who attended a recent lunch with the 13-year congressman said an Istook gubernatorial candidacy would give the Republicans a candidate with statewide name recognition to oppose the popular incumbent, Brad Henry, a Democrat who is enjoying 60 percent to 70 percent support in various polls.

[...]

Several legislators who met with Istook said they are concerned a decision by Istook to leave the U.S. House of Representatives would hurt the state in getting helpful federal legislation and leave Istook’s 5th Congressional District - a Republican stronghold for decades - vulnerable for a Democrat to win.
Henry will have a tough time winning reelection in this overwhelmingly Republican state should Istook indeed jump in the race. However, Henry was able to eke out a victory in 2002 against the Republican national tide, so I wouldn't put anything past him.

Dems Say No to Unbalanced "Bipartisan" Investigation of Katrina

When it became apparent that some members of Congress had already decided to move forward with their own investigations into the response to Hurricane Katrina, the House and Senate leadership decided to preempt such inquiries in favor of a so-called "bipartisan and bicameral" panel. Now, as CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) reports, the Democrats are saying to to such a move, which they believe would be a whitewash for the administration.

Congressional Democrats today announced that they will not participate in a bicameral review committee heralded by the Republicans as the vehicle by which Congress will examine the government response to Hurricane Katrina.

Although GOP leaders from both chambers yesterday described the panel of senior lawmakers as “bipartisan,” they did not agree to an even party split for the membership or equal subpoena powers for Republicans and Democrats.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today that they will not appoint members to the committee. “It’s not bipartisan,” Pelosi said. “We have no idea what this committee is about.”

Pelosi characterized the committee as a “charade” that would “whitewash” the government’s disaster response.

Instead, both Democratic leaders continued to call for creation of an independent commission modeled on the Sept. 11 commission to examine the Katrina response.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., dismissed the Democratic criticism and said an independent commission is not needed because Congress can do the job.
One has to wonder why the Republicans would be so concerned about an independent panel that would investigate what went wrong. Why are they so worried or apprehensive?

Cheney Challenged in Gulf Coast

So much for locals welcoming help from the administration. While delivering a press conference in the Gulf Coast, Vice President Dick Cheney was told "to perform an anatomical sexual impossibility," as The Washington Times once described it. Check out the CNN video, as provided by the folks at ThinkProgress.org.

More Indictments of DeLay Allies

The case against the ethical improprieties of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's associates has continued slowly, but surely, with citations by the Federal Elections Commission and a continuing civil investigation. Now, as Laylin Copelin reports for the Austin American-Statesman, a slate of indictments have been handed out by a Texas grand jury.

The Texas Association of Business and Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee have been indicted on charges of illegally using corporate money to help Republicans win control of the Texas Legislature in 2002.

The indictments, released publicly this morning, include 128 counts against the business group and two against the political action committee, which was created by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land.

[...]

If convicted, the state's largest business group faces the threat of fines — up to $20,000 for each count. But the indictments also complicate the group's defense against civil lawsuits filed by losing Democratic candidates. Damages in those suits could be double the $1.7 million that the association spent on 4 million mailers to voters in 2002.

[...]

TRMPAC, in the lone indictment against it, is is charged with two counts of illegally accepting corporate donations, including $100,000 from the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care.

[...]

Last fall, a separate grand jury indicted three officials with TRMPAC. That committee spent about $600,000 of corporate money on committee activities, including sending $190,000 in corporate donations to the Republican National Committee which, in turn, donated the same amount of non-corporate dollars to Texas candidates.
DeLay was not named in any of the indictments, nor does Copelin seem to think he will. That said, it is a stain on the Majority Leader's reputation to have a political action committee he founded indicted for money laundering.

Energy Dept.: Expect Higher Energy Prices

As Reuters' Tom Doggett reports, top leaders within the Department of Energy are sending out some interesting signals these days.

The U.S. economy will face a tough winter due to high energy prices caused partly by a disruption in oil and natural gas supplies from Hurricane Katrina, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman warned Thursday.

There is no doubt that this is going to be a very tough winter season for the American economy (and) for American homeowners," Bodman said in an interview on the Fox news channel.

The Energy Information Administration said on Wednesday Americans who warm their homes with natural gas could see their fuel costs jump by as much as 71 percent this winter in some parts of the country.

Residential heating bills for heating oil will increase by 31 percent, and electricity users will see their costs rise by 17 percent, the Energy Department's analytical arm said in its latest monthly energy forecast.
For those who believe that Americans' unhappiness with the cost of energy will go away because of an understanding of the role Katrina has played in boosting prices, think again. If gas prices continue to climb to $3.50-$4.00 per gallon and home heating bills nearly double, a lot of politicians will have some explaining to do come next election season.

Bush Approval Still Stuck in the Low 40s

There is a slew of new polling available this morning, none of which shows an American public particularly happy with the actions of the Bush administration. To begin with, the latest survey from Zogby finds:

President Bush’s job approval rating took a hit in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, dropping to a historic low of 41%, a new Zogby America poll reveals. The same survey found the nation’s forty-third president would lose election contests against all of his predecessors since Jimmy Carter.

[...]

The public rates the performance of all levels of government in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina negatively, with 36% giving the President passing marks on his handling of the crisis—slightly higher than the 32% who give government in general good marks for its handling of the storm that devastated New Orleans and much of the Gulf coast.

[...]

In a sign of just how severe the damage to the President’s standing caused by Katrina is, the Zogby America survey finds that, despite his re-election last fall, President Bush would lose to every modern president since Jimmy Carter, the one-term Democrat who left office amid record unpopularity and a presidency rated, at the time, dismally. He would also lose to his own father, who left office amid an economic recession triggered, in part, by a devastating hurricane.

However, in one of the few bright spots for the President, he would still beat Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, by a narrow, one-point margin.
Carter actually does better in the head-to-head matchup against Bush than Clinton does, surprisingly. Can you believe that Americans would favor Carter -- who has in recent years proved to be an unabashed liberal -- over Bush by a 50-42 margin? I wonder what that says about the direction the Democratic Party needs to go in*...

CBS News also finds widespread unhappiness towards President Bush's handling of the crisis in the Gulf Coast.

President George W. Bush's overall response to Katrina meets with disapproval today – a dramatic change from the public’s reaction just after the storm hit on August 29th. Last week, in the two days immediately after Katrina made landfall, a majority of Americans said they approved of Bush's response, although more than a third were not sure. Now, only 38% approve. A majority disapproves.

[...]

Now, just 48% of Americans say Bush has strong qualities of leadership – the lowest number ever for the President in this poll. A year ago, as he was campaigning for re-election, 64% of voters said Bush was a strong leader. And in the weeks after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, 83% of Americans said the President had strong qualities of leadership.

Moreover, just 32% express “a lot” of confidence in the President’s ability to handle a crisis. This is a sharp change from four years ago when, in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks, 66% expressed “a lot” of confidence in Bush’s ability to handle a crisis.

[...]

Despite the fallout from Hurricane Katrina, Bush’s overall approval rating is virtually unchanged from last week. Now, 42% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as President, while 52% disapprove.
Throughout his presidency, George W. Bush has seen his approval rating buttressed by his high favorability scores, which have been based on his honesty and leadership abilities. Recent surveys (here and here) have shown that the public is beginning to question Bush's honesty. Should the public's confidence in Bush's ability to lead continue to diminish, as indicated by this CBS News poll, President Bush runs the real risk of bogging down his party in the 2006 midterms.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Democrats on the Offensive

Tomorrow, The New York Times runs a couple of stories on the newly-found spine among Democrats. First, the team of Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse write that the Dems are beginning to heat up the rhetoric on Hurricane Katrina.

After 10 days of often uncertain responses to the Bush administration's management of Hurricane Katrina, Democratic leaders unleashed a burst of attacks on the White House on Wednesday, saying the wreckage in New Orleans raised doubts about the country's readiness to endure a terrorist attack and exposed ominous economic rifts that they said had worsened under five years of Republican rule.

From Democratic leaders on the floor of Congress, to a speech by the Democratic National Committee chairman at a meeting of the National Baptist Convention in Miami, to four morning television interviews by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrats offered what was shaping up as the most concerted attack that they had mounted on the White House in the five years of the Bush presidency.

[...]

The display of unity was striking for a party that has been adrift since Mr. Kerry's defeat, struggling to reach consensus on issues like the war in Iraq and the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. The aggressiveness was evidence of what Republicans and Democrats said was the critical difference between the hurricane and the Sept. 11 attacks: Democrats appear able to question the administration's competence without opening themselves to attacks on their patriotism.

Not insignificantly, they have been emboldened by the fact that Republicans have also been critical of the White House over the past week, and by the perception that this normally politically astute and lethal administration has been weakened and seems at a loss as it struggles to manage two crises: the aftermath of the hurricane on the Gulf Coast and the political difficulties that it has created for Mr. Bush in Washington.

Their response may have allowed the Democrats to seize the issue that Republicans had hammered them with in the past two elections: national security. "Our government failed at one of the most basic functions it has - providing for the physical safety of our citizens," Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat who is considering a run for president in 2008, declared in a speech on the Senate floor.
Looking specifically, Eric Lichtblau details recent Democratic attacks on Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff.

Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary who has been the Bush administration's point man in fielding criticism of the hurricane relief effort, came under fire Wednesday from some Congressional Democrats for private remarks about the conditions faced by storm survivors that struck the lawmakers as insensitive.

The new criticism was set off by a private and sometimes contentious briefing that Mr. Chertoff and other senior administration officials gave to House members on Tuesday night on the status of relief efforts.

Exactly what was said at the closed-door briefing remained in some dispute Wednesday.

Administration officials and Democrats at the briefing agreed that Mr. Chertoff and other speakers emphasized that news images showing horrendous conditions for evacuees in shelters did not reflect the totality of the federal government's response.
As both articles indicate, the new tact taken by Democrats runs some risks, primary among which is the chance that they become viewed simply as the party of complainers and naysayers. That said, polling in recent months has indicated that the public generally and independents, in particular, would like to see stronger opposition from the Democrats. Given the lackadaisical federal response to Hurricane Katrina, at least initially, this might be just the time for Democrats to hammer away at Republican policies and actions.

Could Katrina Scuttle GOP Plans for Big Cuts?

Earlier this week we wondered if Congressional Republicans would have the stomach to gut entitlement programs, including student loans and Medicaid, and repeal the estate tax as hundreds of thousands reeled in the Gulf Coast. Early signals indicate that the GOP will not immediately move forward with a vote on estate tax repeal, and now, as Jeffery Young and Josephine Hearn report for The Hill, it appears that the GOP is having some trouble with the spending cuts.

Hurricane Katrina, or at least its political wake, could give congressional Democrats an opportunity to do something they had been powerless to do earlier this year — scuttle the GOP’s plans to cut taxes and entitlement spending.

An impending parliamentary ruling could strip the final budget-reconciliation bill of its special limitations on debate, effectively enabling Democrats to stall the measure when it reaches the Senate floor and robbing the GOP of a major fiscal-policy victory.

The minority party could seek to amend the bill, wrench concessions from Republicans or filibuster budget reconciliation in its entirety.

The Republican leaders of the Senate and the House are under pressure to push back their deadline of Friday next week for committees to complete packages of tax and spending cuts required by the fiscal 2006 budget resolution. Congress is required under the budget conference report to develop a five-year plan to cut taxes by $70 billion and reduce entitlement spending by $35 billion.

[...]

For the Senate Republican leadership, however, the reconciliation waters are murkier. Pressing ahead with budget legislation that would provide tax benefits to the well-off while trimming spending on programs, such as Medicaid, that benefit mainly low-income people would be politically difficult.

But extending the deadline without relinquishing the special rules that limit debate and allow passage with only 51 votes would probably require a unanimous-consent agreement in the Senate.
Although sheer numbers are obviously important in Congress -- the majority party in either house has wide authority and power -- never underestimate the importance of parliamentary rules. Senate Democrats, with several members who have been in the chamber for more than 30 years (Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Dan Inouye, Joe Biden, and Patrick Leahy), have a great wealth of parliamentary tactics under their belts (particularly in the case of Byrd) and are not likely to give up their current advantange on this issue.

FEMA Website Directed Visitors to Pat Robertson Charity

CQ Weekly's Rebecca Adams picks up on a story in this issue of the magazine that went widely unreported (or I at least failed to pick up on it yet): until recently, FEMA's website directed visitors to one of Pat Robertson's controversial enterprises, a charity called Operation Blessing. Adams writes,

Amid the many delays and miscalculations marring the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency also managed to inflict some public relations damage on itself. Concerned Americans consulting FEMA’s Web site in search of agency-approved charities found a prominently placed listing for televangelist Pat Robertson’s global relief enterprise, Operation Blessing.

Robertson’s charity has been a source of controversy since it was founded in 1978. The organization was the target of an Virginia investigation into alleged improper use in a mining business partnership linked to the late strongman Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire. In 1997, state Attorney General Mark Earley — who had received $35,000 in campaign donations from Robertson — declined a recommendation to prosecute.

The charity drew similar fire in 2002, when it was linked to a number of gold-mining agreements Robertson had struck with disgraced Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, whom Robertson championed as a model Christian statesman on “The 700 Club,” the flagship show for his nonprofit Christian Broadcasting Network. And Robertson himself continues to spark controversy, most recently for his televised call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Adams also notes,