This week, I accepted an offer to become the chief weekend blogger at MyDD.com, a leading political weblog that consistently receives 30,000 or more pageviews every day, or about 20,000 daily readers. Starting tomorrow, I will be writing for MyDD every Friday, Saturday and Sunday, providing analysis primarily on campaigns and elections.

Naturally, this will decrease the amount of time that I will have to devote to Basie!. But this is not the only new item in my life.

In addition to the increased workload that is expected of student towards the end of every semester and the added responsibilities required of seniors, I am preparing to take the LSAT in order to apply for law school, an endeavor that both asks for, and deserves, more of my focus. As a result, for the time being, I am going to have to drastically curtail my activities on this blog.

Basie! has been going strong now for more than a year and a half, a period that has seen over 3,200 posts, including interviews with four major party presidential candidates, two Congressmen, two Governors, ten Senators, and many more politicians and journalists. During this time, Basie! has received nearly 115,000 page views, and has been mentioned in some of the most influential political websites, including National Journal's The Hotline and Daily Kos.

I could not have achieved any of this without the support of you, the reader. I am both thankful and humbled by the response you have given to this site over the past several months.

I hope that you would consider revisiting this site if and when I resume my stewardship in earnest -- perhaps as early as a month from now. In addition, I hope you will consider making the move with me to MyDD tomorrow.

Once again, thank you for your continued support of Basie!

Yesterday, The Washington Post's duo of Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig set off somewhat of a firestorm with a front page article reporting that The Post's Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward had testified in the Plame investigation that he had been the recipient of the leak -- but not from Scooter Libby. The New York Times' Todd S. Purdum does some further reporting on the story and comes up with the following:

The disclosure that a current or former Bush administration official told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post more than two years ago that the wife of a prominent administration critic worked for the C.I.A. threatened Wednesday to prolong a politically damaging leak investigation that the White House had hoped would soon be contained.

[...]

Mr. Woodward said he provided sworn testimony to Mr. Fitzgerald on Monday, only after his original source went to the prosecutor to disclose their two-year-old conversation. But because Mr. Woodward said that source had still not authorized him to disclose his or her name, he set off a frantic new round of guessing about who that source might be and a wave of public denials by spokesmen for possible suspects.

A senior administration official said that neither President Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward's source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell; the former director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet; and his deputy, John E. McLaughlin.

A lawyer for Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff who has acknowledged conversations with reporters about the case and remains under investigation, said Mr. Rove was not Mr. Woodward's source.

Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on a continuing investigation. Several other officials could not be reached for comment.

Editor & Publisher reads the Purdum story as follows.

In an article for Thursday's New York Times, reporter Todd Purdum, through the process of elimination, leaves Vice President Cheney still standing as a high ranking Bush administration official who has not denied being Bob Woodward's newly revealed key source in the Plame/CIA leak case.

This would certainly add some credence to the theory that Libby's alleged perjury and obstruction of justice were attempts to inhibit the special prosecutor from reaching Cheney with the probe.

Despite a relative dearth of coverage in the past few days, the case against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is still trodding along, as The New York Times reports.

Texas prosecutors in the criminal case against Representative Tom DeLay issued a subpoena on Wednesday for records of transactions between his national political action committee and a political committee run by his successor as House majority leader, Roy Blunt of Missouri.

The subpoena, issued in Austin, the Texas capital, asked for all records from Mr. DeLay's committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, about its contributions from 2000 to 2002 to Mr. Blunt's committee, Rely on Your Own Beliefs Fund, and to the state Republican Party in Missouri, where Mr. Blunt's son is governor.

The subpoena offered no explanation of why prosecutors wanted the records, although news reports have recently questioned why thousands of dollars raised by Mr. DeLay and his committee to entertain delegates at the 2000 Republican convention were shifted to Mr. Blunt's committee.

Mr. Blunt's committee made a $10,000 contribution at about the same time to a charity controlled by Mr. DeLay.

DeLay, of course, is not the only Republican whose actions are coming under scrutiny these days. Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports for The Times that there are new calls to broaden the investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

A consumer advocacy group called Wednesday for the Securities and Exchange Commission to expand its inquiry into the stock trades of Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, saying it had uncovered "questionable transactions lucrative to Frist family members."

The commission is already investigating the senator's decision to sell all of his stock in HCA Inc., the healthcare giant founded by his father and brother, shortly before the price hit a peak and then plummeted. Mr. Frist, whose records, along with company's, have been subpoenaed, has repeatedly said that he has done nothing wrong.

Now the advocacy group, Public Citizen, says financial disclosure documents filed by Mr. Frist reveal several additional "exceedingly well-timed transactions" made by trusts that manage investments for his three sons. All involve healthcare companies that at one point had ties to the Frist family.

"We're not sure what this means," said Frank Clemente, director of Congress Watch, Public Citizen's government watchdog arm. But, he added, "It has the smell of the HCA stock trading, and we just thought it was important to bring this to light."

Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo is currently soliciting funds one or two reporters to report exclusively on Republican scandals such as those afflicting DeLay and Frist.

With Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine's victory in the New Jersey gubernatorial election last week, the Governor-elect is faced with a major decision: who to pick as his replacement in the Senate. As Chris Cillizza reports over at The Washington Post's political blog The Fix, one possible appointee is already ramping up his campaign.

It's no secret that New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez (D) wants to serve out the remaining year of Gov-elect Jon Corzine's term in the Senate. Menendez's public courtship of Corzine took a step forward Wednesday afternoon when a national Hispanic organization issued letters to two party leaders urging Menendez's appointment to the Senate.

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials sent nearly identical letters to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) making the case for Menendez. "As Senate Democratic leader, we urge your leadership and influence in ensuring the appointment" of Menendez, wrote NALEO executive director Arturo Vargas in the missive to Reid.

Vargas added a warning if Menendez is passed over for the opening. "We are also committed to holding Democrat and Republican Party leaders accountable when they fail to recognize the growing Latino political clout and relegated qualified candidates to the back of the line," he wrote.

The letter is the latest in what is expected to be a series of public endorsements of Menendez to create the impression that his appointment is inevitable. It also shows that should Corzine pass over Menendez, he (as well as the party nationally) could face a backlash among Latinos -- the nation's fastest-growing voting bloc.

If Menendez gets Corzine's nod, he's still likely to face a primary challenge next June and a tough GOP candidate in the fall.

To some campaign watchers, New Jersey is now the Democrats' most endangered seat. The presumptive Republican candidate in next year's election, Tom Kean, is the son of an extremely popular former Republican Governor and appears to be free of the ethical problems that have plagued members of both parties in the state. Within the Democratic Party, there are quite a few pols interested in making the step up to the Senate.

Menendez, no doubt, would be a strong candidate for the Democrats. He has over $4 million on hand and, perhaps more importantly, would indicate to Hispanic voters across the country that the Democratic Party is very interested in their support. However, Menendez does have ties to a political machine, which could be a major drawback. Whether the first two attributes trump the third is one of the major questions that Corzine will have to weigh in the next few weeks.

For more on the race, check out this previous post entitled "Corzine Considers African American Woman as Replacement."

With gasolene prices still near historic highs, oil companies and their executives are not particularly popular among voters, and today's news from The Washington Post's Dana Milbank and Justin Blum doesn't make either of the two look any better.

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

[...]

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.

As H. Josef Hebert reports for the AP, some members of Congress are unhappy about being mislead.

The chief executives of five major oil companies were asked Wednesday to clarify their recent Senate testimony about the companies' involvement in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force four years ago.

Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., made the request in letters to the executives after a published report said officials from four of the companies visited the White House complex in early 2001 to discuss energy issues with task force staff members.

[...]

Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he sent a letter to the oil company executives seeking clarifications that would resolve any "apparent inconsistencies" in their testimony. He was joined in the letter by Bingaman, the energy panel's ranking Democrat.

[...]

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and five other Democrats asked Domenici to recall the executives and require them this time to testify under oath.

It's not hard to imagine today's news becoming the center of an ad campaign next year.

Former President Bill Clinton had some strong words to say about American involvement in Iraq during a speech delivered today in the Middle East. The Associated Press has the story.

Former President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.

Clinton cited the lack of planning for what would happen after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," Clinton told students at a forum at the American University of Dubai.

"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

While this statement is certainly meaningful in and of itself, it should not be viewed outside of the context of Hillary Clinton's (assumed) bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

For many Democrats, Hillary Clinton's longstanding vocal support for the Iraq War has been the greatest determinant of their opposition to her candidacy. On Tuesday, however, Senator Clinton broke with Iraq hawks from both parties by voting in favor of Carl Levin's amendment, which Republicans said would have mandated a timetable for withdrawal. One day later, her husband calls the Iraq War a "big mistake."

While these actions by the Clintons might not be enough to quell the concerns of the significant portion of the Democratic Party -- and indeed the nation -- that has serious misgivings about the War in Iraq, they seem to indicate a noticeable, however slight, shift in Senator Clinton's stance towards the war. And I would not be surprised to seem more of this in the coming weeks and months.

SurveyUSA has released its November polling (accidentally perhaps -- you must click each state's tracking graph to see the new numbers), and once again, the situation looks grim for the President. A majority of voters in only three states -- Utah, Idaho and Wyoming -- approve of the President, with Bush scoring exactly a 50 percent approval rating in Mississippi. Voters in Nebraska and Oklahoma are divided on the President, a plurality of Alabamans disapprove of President Bush and exactly 50 percent of Alaskans disapprove of the President. In every other stat -- 42 in all -- a majority of voters disapprove of the President.

Residents of Utah and Idaho are currently the most supportive of the President with 59 percent of voters in each state voicing approval (note that Bush's approval is not above 60 percent in any state). Rhode Islanders are the least supportive of President Bush, giving him a mere 26 percent approval (with New Yorkers' 27 percent not far behind).

President Bush's approval rating has ticked up in a handful of "blue" states on the coasts, including Massachusetts, Maine, Washington, Oregon and California (though none of these increases are statistically significant). However, the President has lost substantial support in some of the "reddest" states, including 6 percent more disapproving in Alabama, 5 percent more disapproving in both North Dakota and Montana, and 7 percent more in Kentucky.

We'll have more data on the poll as it comes out...

Florida

Yesterday we noted recent polling from Quinnipiac University showing the leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Jim Davis, ahead of the two leading Republican candidates for governor in head-to-head matchups. In response to these numbers, Hotline on Call's Marc Ambinder writes, "the Q-poll has a shaky track record in FL, but the numbers are a confidence booster, and Republicans aren't disputing them." Now, a second poll -- from Rasmussen Reports -- finds almost exactly the same results.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush has a 60% Job Approval Rating but term limits prevent him from seeking another term. The race to be Florida's next Governor is a toss-up at this time.

Democrat Jim Davis is tied with Republican Tom Gallagher in a hypothetical match-up for Election 2006. Both Davis and Gallagher earn 40% of the vote.

When Davis is matched against Charley Crist, he leads the Republican 41% to 38%. In January, Rasmussen Reports will begin polling on the Republican Primary between Crist and Gallagher.

At the beginning of the year, this was a race that few political analysts expected to be competitive. Although Florida is still a battleground state on the Presidential level, it currently has only one statewide elected Democrat (Senator Bill Nelson). So it looks like the Democrats shouldn't write off Florida quite yet -- because if ever the party needed a big win in the South, now is that time.

Indiana

In 2004, Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) was one of only a handful of House members to be defeated in a reelection bid. Hill, who is running to reclaim his seat in next year's election against the man who beat him last year, is briefly profiled today by the Associated Press.

Former Rep. Baron Hill said he will run to reclaim his seat after narrowly losing last year to Republican Mike Sodrel.

The Democrat was the first incumbent in Indiana to lose a congressional race in a decade. Sodrel, who owned and operated trucking companies, won the 9th District by fewer than 1,500 votes and plans to run for a second term.

[...]

Hill, 51, served three terms in Congress. Sodrel had also attempted to defeat him in a close race in 2002, losing by only 5 percent of the vote.

If Sodrel could only defeat Hill by 1,500 votes when George W. Bush carried the district with 59 percent of the vote, how will he do next year when a) he doesn't have the up-ticket help, and b) the President is increasingly unpopular, even in "red" states like Indiana?

Moderate have been causing the Republican Party quite a bit of trouble in the past few weeks, particularly since the November 8 elections in which the Democrats won in both "blue" states and "red" states.

In the Senate, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) forced Finance Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to drastically scale back tax cuts, and in the House, a group of moderate Republicans forced the party leadership to strip a provision that would have allowed oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

Now, as the Manchester Union Leader reports, a leading moderate Republican Congressman is calling for new leadership elections in the House.

Five-term Republican Rep. Charles Bass said this week his party’s leaders in the House of Representatives are more concerned about their own pet projects than the GOP’s "fundamental principles."

Bass, co-chair of a group of about 35 moderate House Republicans called the "Tuesday Group," is calling for new elections in leadership next year "so we have a fresh slate of officers outside of the speaker for the next session of the Congress."

[...]

"I’m not starting a movement. I’m not leading a revolution," Bass said. "I’m just stating an opinion."

Although Bass might say that he's neither "starting a movement" nor "leading a revolution," his actions speak otherwise. The Republican Party has been able to govern with a relatively small majority in both Houses because partisan unity has trumped the priorities of individual members. But when GOP Congressmen begin to undercut the party leadership, both through legislative acts (like ANWR) or caucus activities (like calling for new leadership elections), party unity is greatly threatened. And then, all of the sudden, it becomes much more difficult to govern.

"The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

-- Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, strongly criticizing President Bush's recent broadside on those who have questioned the American policy in Iraq

Link.

A number of Senators are unhappy with Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and this time it's not conservative Republicans disappointed in his actions as Judiciary Chairman. Alexander Bolton has the story for The Hill.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), has angered colleagues facing reelection in 2006 by cutting $1 billion in pet projects from his subcommittee’s spending bill to pay for programs popular with Democrats and centrist Republicans.

Historically, the labor, health and human services, and education bill is one of the most project-loaded of the annual spending bills, say congressional observers who track what they denounce as pork-barrel spending.

A senior GOP aide said yesterday that members of the appropriations committee who are facing election next year are balking at Specter’s plan to cut their projects. Specter is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Labor, Health, and Human Services (HHS) and Education Subcommittee.

[...]

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, who, like Specter, is a centrist Republican, agreed to the $1 billion in project cuts after it became clear that Senate negotiators would not support the bill otherwise, said a House GOP aide familiar with the negotiations. Regula is a member of the Main Street Republican Partnership, a coalition of Senate and House Republican centrists.

[...]

The savings will be used to pay for the fight against the global spread of AIDS; to increase funding for LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and to fund new construction of health-preparedness facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said a House GOP aide familiar with the legislation.

In April 2004, Specter lamented moderate Republicans' loss of power in recent years for a profile by The New Yorker's Philip Gourevitch.

“When I came to the Senate, we had a lot of members of the Wednesday Club”—a weekly gathering of Republican moderates. “You had Lowell Weicker, you had Bob Stafford, you had Bob Packwood, you had Mark Hatfield, you had [John] Chafee, you had John Danforth, you had Jim Jeffords, you had John Heinz. Now there are only a few of us. And it’s important. When Joe Biden needs a co-sponsor, he comes to Arlen Specter. That kind of balance is really important for the country. It’s more than the soul of the Republican Party; it’s to have some balance within the Party and within the two-party system.”

George McGovern expressed similar feelings about a slightly earlier period in the Senate during his interview for this site earlier this week.

I’d love to see the return of the kind of moderate, constructive Republicans who were in office when I was part of the Congress. I’m thinking of people like Jack Javits of New York; I’m thinking about George Aiken, the old moderate Republican from Vermont; I’m thinking about Senator Cooper of Kentucky. There was a whole range of them that I thought provided a constructive and helpful contribution in politics.

Even if many would have preferred a Democratic Senator to represent Pennsylvania during last year's campaign, when Specter was seeking a fourth term, it's beneficial to the country to have moderates like Specter in both parties. And like both Specter and McGovern implied, it's too bad there aren't many near the center of the aisle any more who can bring the two parties together on key issues.

The New York Times' Stephen Labaton has the story:

Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded today that its former chairman repeatedly broke federal law and its own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias.

The scathing report by the corporation's inspector general described a dysfunctional organization that violated the Public Broadcasting Act, which created the corporation and was written to insulate programming decisions from politics.

The corporation received $400 million this year from Congress to finance an array of programs on public television and radio, although its future financing has come under heavy criticism, particularly from conservative lawmakers. Its board is selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The corporation's former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who was ousted from the board two weeks ago when it was presented in a closed session with the details of the report, has said he sought to enforce a provision of the Public Broadcasting Act meant to ensure objectivity and balance in programming. But the report said that in the process, Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly crossed statutory boundaries that set up the corporation as a "heat shield" to protect public radio and television from political interference.

As with many of the difficult stories the White House has had to handle in recent weeks, news of Tomlinson's allegedly illicit activities is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. But given the fact that two Bush administration officials have been indicted recently, as have former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, this story further corroborates claims by administration critics that there is a dearth of ethics in the White House.

It's a rare day in Washington when the Republican Party is having a difficult time passing tax cuts, but as Mary Dalrymple reports for the AP, Congressional Republicans are still unsuccessful in overcoming the dissent from within their own party.

Republicans labored to advance their tax cut agenda on Tuesday, with Senate tax writers unable to muster enough GOP support to extend tax cuts for capital gains and dividends beyond their 2008 expiration.

The House's top tax writer pushed to keep the 15 percent maximum rate on investment income alive for two more years, but dropped virtually every other extension of expiring tax breaks from a drafted bill.

[...]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, abandoned plans to keep the tax breaks on capital gains and dividends in place for one extra year. Grassley was stymied by resistance from Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, a moderate Republican who wouldn't support the extension.

Without her vote, Grassley could not muster enough GOP support to pass his bill.

The new version of Grassley's bill cuts taxes, goes after tax shelters and tightens tax breaks for charitable deductions. Overall, it would cost the U.S. Treasury $59.6 billion over five years.

The budget reconciliation bill, which still does not have the votes to pass in the House, would make cuts less than the proposed tax cuts, meaning that the Republicans will once again add to the deficit. Given that the recent comments by the comptroller general of the United States on the crippling effect the federal debt will have on the government in the future, compounded by today's news that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is more than $22 billion in the hole this year, I'm not entirely certain how prudent intentionally adding to the deficit is.

Today, Oregon is the only state to conduct all of its elections wholly through vote-by-mail. The results of this system, in terms of higher voters participation, are striking. During the 2004 election, more than 86 percent of those registered to vote in Oregon sent in ballots to the state (compared to 64 percent nationally.

Now, as Jahna Berry reports for The Arizona Republic, the Grand Canyon State is considering a move to join Oregon with a vote-by-mail system.

A wealthy Bullhead City radio station executive is bankrolling an initiative that could pave the way for Arizonans to vote almost entirely by mail, a change that could transform state political campaigns and elections.

Businessman Rick Murphy said he's pursuing the initiative because he was disturbed by paltry voter turnout when he unsuccessfully ran for Rep. Trent Franks' congressional seat in the 2004 Republican primary.

On Monday, some state political leaders were intrigued by the proposal, which could make the voter identification rules in Proposition 200 moot. The state's top election official said she vehemently opposes the measure.

"I feel very strongly that we have elections on Election Day and that people cast ballots at precincts," Secretary of State Jan Brewer said, noting that people can already vote by mail if they ask for an absentee ballot.

While many state residents vote with absentee ballots, the proposed initiative goes much further. If it passes, elections officials would automatically send all voters a ballot and a return envelope with prepaid postage. Only a few polling places would remain open on Election Day for traditional voting and to allow voters to drop off last-minute mail-in ballots.

It's natural that those who would like to see a continuation of the status quo would be opposed to a radical change like this, but any move that helps energize the electorate and allows more Americans to participate in politics is a good thing. Vote-by-mail has been a real success in Oregon, and I hope Arizonans give the proposition real consideration if and when it comes to a vote.

Senator Bill Nelson is the last remaining Democrat to be elected statewide in Florida, leaving many Republicans to believe that he would be an easy target as he faces reelection next year. But the latest polling from the race conducted by Quinnipiac University indicates the Republicans will have a much more difficult time knocking off Nelson than they previously imagined.

Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson begins his reelection year with a 55 - 31 percent lead over U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, the only announced Republican challenger in the 2006 Florida U.S. Senate race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 57 - 33 percent Nelson lead in an August 31 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University.

Democrats back Sen. Nelson 83 - 7 percent, while Republicans back Rep. Harris 63 -22 percent and independent voters go with Nelson 59 - 25 percent.

[...]

"Even though Florida voters are not enthusiastic about sending Bill Nelson back to the Senate, he will do fine as long as Katherine Harris is his opponent. Congressman Mark Foley would be almost as strong a Republican candidate for the Senate seat even though he is relatively unknown statewide compared to Harris," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.


Florida Republicans say 46 - 29 percent that they would prefer Rep. Harris over U.S. Rep. Mark Foley as their Senate candidate. Nelson leads Foley 55 - 27 percent.

With numbers like these for Harris and Foley, it's no wonder that the Speaker of the state House, Alan Bense, is reconsidering his decision to sit out the race.

The poll also finds -- surprisingly -- that Democratic Rep. Jim Davis is leading both of his major Republican competitors (albeit slightly) in the race to succeed Jeb Bush as Governor.

Beginning in the end of September, chatter began in Oregon about the possibility that former Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber would challenge his designated successor, current Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski, in a party primary in May. As The Oregonian's Harry Esteve reports, polling on the possible contest has finally been released.

Oregon Democrats would just as soon have former Gov. John Kitzhaber back in office as re-elect incumbent Gov. Ted Kulongoski, according to a new statewide poll released Monday.

The poll, by Riley Research Associates of Portland, shows Kitzhaber and Kulongoski in a virtual tie for the Democratic nomination, with 29 percent and 27 percent, respectively. Of the rest, the two closest were state Sen. Vicki Walker of Eugene and Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson, with 3 percent apiece.

On the Republican side, former party chairman Kevin Mannix of Salem holds a large lead over his two main challengers, Portland lawyer Ron Saxton and state Sen. Jason Atkinson of Central Point. Mannix had the support of 29 percent of respondents; Saxton and Atkinson had 6 percent each.

Although some say that Kitzhaber would make a better Democratic Governor than Kulongoski, it's clear that an intraparty primary the likes of this could provide the Republicans with their first shot at winning back the Governor's mansion since 1986.

The New York Times' Carl Hulse does some fine reporting and digs up the following story for tomorrow's paper.

In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

[...]

The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate.

The plan stops short of a competing Democratic proposal that moves toward establishing dates for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.

[...]

Democrats said the plan represented a shift in Republican sentiment on Iraq and was an acknowledgment of growing public unrest with the course of the war and the administration's frequent call for patience. "I think it signals the fact that the American people are demanding change, and the Republicans see that that's something that they have to follow," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.

The article does not make clear whether this is a serious attempt to rein in the Bush administration or merely an attempt to undercut Democratic calls for metrics of success in Iraq, but given the somewhat warm reception Senate Dems gave to the Frist-Warner legislation, this might be something that both parties will be able to coalesce around.

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, who will turn 88 next week, faces a reelection campaign next fall in West Virginia, which has grown increasingly more Republican in recent years. Despite Byrd's advanced years and his long dormant campaign skills (he has not been forced onto the hustings for decades), the Republican Party has thus far been largely unsuccessful in its attempt to find a suitable challenger for the race.

One month ago, Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) -- the daughter of a former three-term Governor -- opted not to run, much to the chagrin of the White House, National Republican Senatorial Committee and WV GOP. And now, as Joselyn King reports for The Wheeling Intelligencer (via Political Wire), yet another possible Republican challenger has dropped out of contention.

Former West Virginia University basketball coach Gale Catlett announced Friday he won't be a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006 as some speculated.

"Coach Catlett is a valued member of the Republican Party, and we are grateful for his loyal and active participation, state Republican Party Chairman Robin Capehart said in a prepared statement. "A Catlett campaign for U.S. Senate - or in the 1st Congressional district next year - would be exciting, but the GOP will put forth a winning team when the filing deadline closes in January.

Capehart termed both U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., "vulnerable for re-election" in 2006.

The next question for the West Virginia Republican Party is just who will step up next year to run for U.S. Senate and the 1st District Congressional seat. Capehart couldn't be reached for additional comment Friday.

In other news pertaining to the campaign to control the Senate in the 110th Congress, the latest polling out of Missouri from Rasmussen Reports shows first term Republican Senator Jim Talent trailing his Democratic opponent, former state Treasurer Claire McCaskill, by two points.

The latest polling is now available from the Gallup Organization, and it doesn't bode particularly for the President. In fact, George W. Bush has once again dipped to a new record low approval for the poll -- 37 percent -- and as CNN.com notes, the rest of the data from the poll isn't much better for the White House or the Republican Party.

In the poll, 56 percent of registered voters said they would be likely to vote against a local candidate supported by Bush, while 34 percent said the opposite.

Only 9 percent said their first choice in next year's elections would be a Republican who supports Bush on almost every major issue.

Forty-six percent said the country would be better off if Congress were controlled by Democrats, while 34 percent backed a GOP majority.

USA Today's Susan Page has more on the effects of these numbers.

G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist and director of the non-partisan Keystone Poll in Pennsylvania, says he already sees Republican officeholders in the state react to Bush's drop in popularity. "More and more Republicans will begin to separate themselves from the president and establish independent positions," he predicts.

Last week, Republican moderates in the House rebelled against a White House-backed spending bill, and GOP leaders had to withdraw a Bush tax package in Senate.

If Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress couldn't whip up support for tax cuts and budget cuts last week, I'm not sure how they will be able to get the votes now or any time soon. With numbers like these -- only 34 percent of the public saying they would support a candidate backed by Bush -- moderates will be running from, rather than to, the party line. So whatever nominal control the Republicans had over the Congress, increasingly in the House of Representatives, could be gone long before the 2006 elections.*

Washington

In 2000, Democrat Maria Cantwell narrowly edged out incumbent Republican Senator Slade Gorton by a little over 2,000 votes, so many Republicans believe Cantwell can be easily defeated. But new polling from Rasmussen Reports seems to raise questions as to just how easy it will be for Republicans to knock her off.

A Rasmussen Reports Election Poll found Cantwell attracting 52% of the vote at this early stage of the campaign. Republican challenger, Mike McGavick, has 37% of the vote. McGavick is the CEO of the Safeco corporation.

Cantwell is viewed favorably by 57% of Washington voters and unfavorably by 37%. Name recognition for McGavick is lower--35% favorable and 34% unfavorable.

In a state where George W. Bush's approval rating stands at 32 percent, it's going to be awfully difficult to defeat an incumbent Democrat with numbers like Cantwell.

New York

During her first Senate run in 2000, Hillary Clinton won comfortably with about 55 percent of the vote. And now, as Marc Humbert reports for the AP, Clinton is looking even more comfortable this time around.

A week after the 2005 elections, a new statewide poll showed Democrats in strong shape headed into the 2006 elections.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer hold huge leads over potential rivals in their respective races for Senate and governor, according to the poll released Monday by Siena College's Research Institute.

[...]

The poll found that Clinton led Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro by 59 percent to 31 percent in a hypothetical matchup. Several other Republicans are eyeing the GOP Senate nomination.

In the governor's race, Spitzer led billionaire businessman B. Thomas Golisano by 58 percent to 26 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld by 64 percent to 16 percent. Republican Gov. George Pataki is not seeking a fourth term.

Given these numbers and the Clinton family's recent trip to Israel -- which should play well with the state's large Jewish minority -- it's hard to envision any Republican (Rudy Giuliani included) slowing Hillary Clinton any time soon. And with momentum from 2006 and tons of cash still on hand, Clinton could prove quite difficult to defeat for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination as well.

Check out this free compilation of the top clips of the week provided by The Hotline.

On Saturday morning, I had the real honor of speaking with the 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee, Sen. George McGovern (D-SD). McGovern, who is now putting the finishing touches on his new library at Dakota Wesleyan University, was a hero during World War II before becoming a professor at the University in 1950. McGovern was elected to the House in 1956, serving two terms before narrowly losing a Senate race in 1960. After serving as President Kennedy's director of the Food for Peace Program, McGovern was subsequently elected to the United States Senate in 1962, where he served three terms.

Jonathan Singer: You’re speaking from South Dakota. There’s been a lot of talk following the 2000 and especially 2004 election of “red” states and “blue” states, and people usually think of South Dakota as a “red” state. But two of its three Congressional members are Democrats, and previously all three were. North Dakota is represented by all three Democrats. What do you make of this talk of “red” states and “blue” states? Does it even exist, really?

George McGovern: I have trouble remembering from one day to the next what “blue” and “red” mean. They used to call us Democrats “reds” because they thought we were too liberal, too pink. I’m glad the Republicans have assumed that label now.

But in any event, I think it’s a kind of superficial way to look at politics. People, more and more, tend to vote on something in addition to partisan considerations. During my years in politics here in South Dakota, I was constantly stopped by people in the street who would say, “I’m a Republican, but I’m for you George.” And this state kept me in office for almost a quarter of a century. So I don’t think of it as either “red” or “blue.” And I think that’s true with most states.

Singer: In the last campaign, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist came to South Dakota to campaign against the Democratic Leader, Tom Daschle. What do you make of that?

McGovern: I think it greatly diminished Bill Frist in the eyes of many people, not only Democrats. But I think people have understood over the years that the two leaders in the United States Senate have to get along. They have to have to get along. They have to have an amicable relationship, even though they may disagree sharply on the issues. And by tradition, it’s always been the case that one leader did not go into the other’s home state and campaign against him, as Bill Frist did here in South Dakota. I thought it was in very bad taste and against the building of a workable, congenial relationship in the Senate.

Singer: You, of course, ran in 1972 at a time of a lot of scandal for the administration. Currently, even in the last few weeks, we’ve seen two White House officials – the chief of staff to the Vice President, Scooter Libby, and the top procurement official, David Safavian – both indicted, in addition to a number of looming investigations. How does the situation compare to when you ran?

McGovern: It’s a really shabby operation that we’re witnessing now. It might not be as critical to the nation’s well-being and security as some of these earlier scandals, such as the Watergate period, where you actively had the President himself involved in one violation of federal law after another. Unfortunately, it was hard to get people to focus on that until after the election of ’72. I think that was an unusually serious situation in the life of the country.

But this is pretty bad, what’s going on today. The man who is frequently referred to as “the President’s brain,” Karl Rove, appears to have been involved in that revelation of the CIA agent that led to the indictment of Scooter Libby, the Vice President’s top person. I don’t think he’s out of the woods yet. I think that investigator is still looking at his operations. So it’s a pretty bad situation. And then to have the leader of the House, Tom DeLay, faced with indictments for what appears to be felonious conduct and Bill Frist, the Republican leader in the Senate, [alleged to be] guilty of insider trading – the same kind of thing that sent Martha Stewart to jail* – I think all those things are beginning to accumulate to the point where it helps explain why the President’s approval rating has gone down sharply over the last year or so.

Singer: Looking forward to 2006, the Democratic Party seems to have in the ballpark of a half dozen Iraq War veterans who are at least considering runs in congressional districts around the country, and many more veterans of other wars. You were a great hero during World War II, although you were a little loath to wear it on your sleeve in 1972. But what do you think this current trend means for the party and for the nation?

McGovern: I’d like to see some of these Iraq veterans – Americans who have been directly exposed to Iraq – I’d like to see them running for office. I happen to know from talking to many of them and their families over the last few years that there’s a growing disillusionment with the war. We never should have gone into Iraq, and some of the people who understand that most clearly are the veterans who are now fighting over there. I would welcome some of them coming home and telling people on the home front what they think of this war and what they think about other issues. I hope that they will run for office.

It looks like this great football star, Pat Tillman from the Arizona Cardinals, who gave up his football career and volunteered to go to the Middle East as a soldier… it’s now quite clear that he was killed by friendly fire. It’s also clear now – and we have his mother as a witness to this – that he became greatly disillusioned with the war when he saw what was going on over there and saw what the situation was, and was, as a matter of fact, reading quite widely, about the problems of the war.

Singer: Very interesting. Speaking of the Democratic Party, going back to that, leading into the 1972 campaign following the kind of debacle at the 1968 at the convention, you led a commission that fundamentally changed the nominating process and kind of gave us the system we have today. Now there’s quite a bit of talk of mixing up the system again. Iowa and New Hampshire are both small states and they’re both overwhelmingly white states – not necessarily representative of the entire polity. So there’s talk of adding caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, to break up the power of the Granite State. What do you make of these proposals?

McGovern: I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with the Iowa-New Hampshire situation. They’re two states widely separated geographically. They represent a rather broad spread of ethnic and political and economic interests in the country. And by tradition, candidates have known that if they’re going to well, they’re going to have to go out and meet people on a one-on-one basis in those smaller states. So I’d be reluctant to recommend a change there.

The reforms that we put through in 1969 and 1970 that I had something to do with… I had agreed with the late Senator Humphrey, who was then the titular head of our party, to head up this commission and to carry out the reforms that we were instructed to do by the 1968 convention. One of the major things that we did was to make sure that women and young people and black people and brown people and others had a fair shot at becoming delegates to name the presidential nominee. I think that’s a good rule, and apparently the party does, because it’s kept it in place for 35 years, and the Republicans have now adopted most of those reforms that we Democrats led the way on in the late 60s and early 70s.

Singer: I would remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to ask you a little bit about the youth participation in politics. One of my professors – his name is John Seery – is writing a book called “Jesus for President” calling for an abolishment of the age restrictions for service, because although the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 before the 1972 election, people between the ages of 18 and 25 cannot hold any federal office. What do you think of an idea like that?

McGovern: It’s worth thinking about. I’m certainly glad that they’re now able to vote. I’m glad that less than 100 years ago we gave women the right to vote in this country. That was a big step forward.

Whether or not people below the age of 25 are ready to go to Congress, though, I think is another question. I’m not sure that I would favor that right now. We do learn, we do mature, we do become wiser with a few years, and I think that the system as it is now is pretty good.

Singer: Getting back to your career, your freshman class in the Senate, which included Abe Ribicoff, Dan Inouye, Birch Bayh, Gaylord Nelson and others –

McGovern: Ted Kennedy.

Singer: Ted Kennedy – helped pass some of the really great pieces of progressive legislation, from Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act to Medicare and Medicaid, Clean Water and Clean Air, and I’m sure I’m leaving out dozens, if not hundreds, of pieces of legislation. You really had the momentum back then. Is there any way to reclaim that momentum for the country?

McGovern: I wish I knew. I would lay it out. I’ve written a book called The Essential America that came out a year or so ago in which I point out that practically every forward step in the life of the country that is now generally accepted by both of our major parties began as a liberal initiative, at first over conservative opposition. Then with the passage of time, the conservatives swung around in support of it. I’m thinking about important programs like Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, Civil Rights, guaranteed bank deposits, the whole range of things. Let me put it to you this way: I can’t think of a single major forward step in the life of this country that didn’t begin as a liberal initiative originally opposed by conservatives. So obviously I think what I think we need is a return to a stronger liberal government in the United States.

I don’t know what’s happened, frankly, to conservatives, on the other hand. They used to be for things a balanced budget and they used to oppose deficit spending. They used to be cautious about sending young Americans to war. All of those things seem to have fallen by the wayside. Under the current administration, we’re running the biggest deficits and the biggest national debt that I can recall. So I think the liberals need to be a little more courageous, a little more assertive, and I think these neoconservatives that now seem to control the Republican Party should be willing to take a look at some of the old-fashioned conservatives that were more careful about how our money was spent and more careful about where we send American forces abroad.

Singer: Just watching the Congress since Tuesday’s elections in Virginia, California, New Jersey and other places, it looks like some of the few remaining moderates within the party are beginning to assert at least some power, blocking the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (the drilling there), blocking the GOP budget in the House, blocking tax cuts in the Senate. Do you think this is maybe the beginning of a trend?

McGovern: I hope so. I’d love to see the return of the kind of moderate, constructive Republicans who were in office when I was part of the Congress. I’m thinking of people like Jack Javits of New York; I’m thinking about George Aiken, the old moderate Republican from Vermont; I’m thinking about Senator Cooper of Kentucky. There was a whole range of them that I thought provided a constructive and helpful contribution in politics. I’m going to have to leave you in a minute here. Are we getting near the end?

Singer: I think that’s probably a great place to stop with a positive vision of the future.

McGovern: Well good luck to you.

Singer: Well thank you so much, and have a great day.

McGovern: You too.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

In this week's New York Times Sunday magazine, A.O. Scott takes a look at Hollywood's political activism, looking at the new slate of movies from George Clooney, including "Good Night, And Good Luck." Towards the end of the piece, Scott discusses one of Clooney's better, though overlooked, movies -- Three Kings.

That movie, released in the fall of 1999, looks back at the first gulf war and forward as well. A bit of a disappointment at the box office, it has had a vibrant afterlife, especially as the geopolitical situation has given it the air of prophecy. The movie is a fast-moving, funny and appallingly violent meditation on, among other things, the contradictory nature of American power. It betrays some of the liberal ambivalence of the Clinton era - an eagerness to believe that America could be the exemplar and enforcer of democratic and humane ideals checked by a habitual suspicion of ulterior motives. Gates, who sets out with a ragged band of misfit soldiers to steal Kuwaiti bullion he hears is stashed in a bunker, embodies both arrogance and decency. The arc of his character takes him from self-serving nihilism to heroic fellow-feeling, a progression that enables the movie's uplifting, somewhat implausible ending. Archie Gates is an updating of the Humphrey Bogart wartime hero: a cynic called to a higher purpose who turns his low cunning into virtue. Gates also recalls the insider-outsider, alienated heroes of the 70's, a man at odds with the institution in which he finds himself embedded but who turns out, half-unwittingly, to be the truest defender of its principles.

After reading this article, I went back to watch the film for the first time since it hit the theaters. Scott is entirely correct about the movie's "vibrant afterlife;" Three Kings effectively captures Iraqi feelings towards the United States in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, and moreover offers nuance of the situation that is often lacking from contemporary coverage of the current war. If you have the time, check out the film. It's well worth the two hours and few dollars.

Last month we noted a possible motive behind Scooter Libby's alleged obstruction of justice and perjury: he thought he could mislead prosecutors without retribution because reporters would never go back on their pledges of confidentiality. Now, The Washington Post's Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei note another possible motive behind Libby's alleged activities.

In the opening days of the CIA leak investigation in early October 2003, FBI agents working the case already had in their possession a wealth of valuable evidence. There were White House phone and visitor logs, which clearly documented the administration's contacts with reporters.

Libby, according to Fitzgerald's indictment, gave a false story to agents and, later, to a grand jury, even though he knew investigators had his notes, and presumably knew that several of his White House colleagues had already provided testimony and documentary evidence that would undercut his own story. And his interviews with the FBI in October and two appearances before the grand jury in March 2004 came at a time when there were increasingly clear signs that some of the reporters with whom Libby discussed Plame could soon be freed to testify -- and provide starkly different and damning accounts to the prosecutor.

To critics, the timing suggests an attempt to obscure Cheney's role, and possibly his legal culpability. The vice president is shown by the indictment to be aware of and interested in Plame and her CIA status long before her cover was blown. Even some White House aides privately wonder whether Libby was seeking to protect Cheney from political embarrassment. One of them noted with resignation, "Obviously, the indictment speaks for itself."

In addition, Cheney also advised Libby on a media strategy to counter Plame's husband, former ambassador Wilson, according to a person familiar with the case.

In related news, National Journal's Murray Waas, who has provided some of the best coverage of the Plame investigation, today writes that Libby might be the key the investigation of Karl Rove. So if Libby is still interested in a plea and is willing to turn on his fellow compatriots, it looks like he could have quite a bit of leverage with special prosecutor Fitzgerald.

Given the fact that I'm up now, I'm a bit skeptical that I will be up in time for the Sunday morning public affairs programming. But for those who will be up...

CBS' "Face the Nation" -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D).

NBC's "Meet the Press" -- Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean; and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

ABC's "This Week" -- Queen Rania of Jordan, Sens. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY); Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Tom Reynolds (R-NY); Jack Klugman, actor.

"Fox News Sunday" -- Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Pat Roberts (R-KS); New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R).

CNN's "Late Edition" -- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf; Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Roberts; Huckabee; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D); Stephen J. Hadley, national security adviser; Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi; Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former State Department chief of staff.

"This Week" appears to be the place to be for discussion of campaign 2006, but for those interested in international and foreign policy issues, both "Meet the Press" and "Late Edition" appear to the the right choice.

Earlier this morning, I had the distinct pleasure and honor to speak with the 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee, former South Dakota Senator George McGovern. Our conversation reached a number of areas, from Iraq to ethics, bipartisanship to 2006. Look out for the interview early Monday morning.

Over the past two days, Newsweek surveyed Americans on their opinions on a wide range of people and topics. Marcus Mabry reports on the results under the headline "Autumn of Discontent."

In the wake of the bombings in Jordan by suspected followers of Iraq’s Al Qaeda chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the indictment of top White House aide I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby and the withdrawal of Harriet Miers’s nomination to the Supreme Court, President George W. Bush is sinking deeper and deeper into political trouble, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Only 36 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president, and an astounding 68 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country—the highest in Bush’s presidency. But that’s not the worst of it for the 43rd president of the United States, a leader who rode comfortably to reelection just a year ago. Half of all Americans now believe he’s not “honest and ethical.”

Now is the autumn of Bush’s discontent, according to the NEWSWEEK poll, taken by phone of 1,002 Americans over Thursday and Friday nights. The president can take some solace in the fact that 42 percent of Americans believe he is honest and ethical. Only 29 percent believe that Vice President Dick Cheney is. And more than a quarter of Republicans, 26 percent, believe the vice president is not honest and ethical. The growing credibility gap could have ramifications across the president’s agenda: 56 percent of Americans say Bush “won’t be able to get much done;” only 36 percent say he “can be effective.”

As problematic as these numbers are for the President, his party fares just as poorly.

Coming on the heels of Democratic wins in closely watched gubernatorial races in (Blue) New Jersey and (Red) Virgina this week, all of this has got to worry Republican leaders contemplating next year’s elections. When NEWSWEEK asked registered voters whether they planned to vote for a Democrat or a Republican in those elections, 53 percent said a Democrat and 36 percent said a Republican. It’s a long way from now to next year’s Congressional contests. But no one knows better than the president how much things can change in a year.

Given the fact that the Republican agenda in Congress is stalled -- at least for now -- and the GOP is losing by a whopping 17 points on the generic congressional ballot (I'm not sure I've seen the deficit that large before), the next few seeks could bring more, rather than less, infighting among Republicans inside the Beltway. And as the Democrats learned in 1994, after they failed to coalesce around President Clinton's healthcare proposal, intraparty bickering looks bad to the public and makes the other party's job a lot easier come election day.

The Student Life, Pomona College's newspaper, penned a profile of this blog for yesterday's paper. Check it out if you're interested.

"I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending last week to help deficit reduction we can now then turn around two weeks later to provide tax cuts that exceed the reductions we just made in spending."

-- Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), explaining his opposition to his party's tax cut proposals

Link.

Illinois

The bevy of Iraq War veterans running on the Democratic ticket in 2006 seems to be growing almost every day. Hotline on Call's Josh Kraushaar has the details of the latest moment in this trend.

Count Army major Tammy Duckworth as one of the most interesting potential DCCC recruits, in IL 06 -- Henry Hyde's old district. (See today's House Race Hotline) Duckworth, a triple amputee, sustained critical injuries as a Black Hawk pilot in the war in Iraq. She has been coy about her intentions, and her policy views are not publicly known. Dems shouldn't make the mistake of assuming the messenger trumps the message, but if she runs on a centrist/pro-business economic platform without being reflexively anti-war -- this has the potential to be an interesting candidacy.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) continues to have serious problems in his bid for a third term, as evidenced by the latest polling from Rasmussen Reports.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is continuing to lose ground in his battle for re-election. Santorum trails Democrat Bob Casey, Jr by twenty percentage points, 54% to 34%.

In July, Santorum trails Democrat Bob Casey, Jr by eleven percentage points, 52% to 41%.

Although the Congressional Black Caucus counts 39 members in the House, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is currently the only African American serving in the Senate, a body to which only two African Americans were popularly elected in the 20th century. But as Tom Hester Jr. reports for The Trenton Times (via MyDD), New Jersey's Governor-elect Jon Corzine (D) is now considering the appiointment of an African American woman to fill out the remaining year of his term.

While various men jockey to replace him in the U.S. Senate, Governor-electo Jon Corzine said yesterday that he very well could appoint a woman to fill his seat, a move that would prove historic.

Corzine yesterday mentioned state Sen. Nia Gill, D-Montclair, an appointment that would allow him to play a role in naming the first woman and minority from New Jersey to the U.S. Senate.

[...]

He called Gill an "extraordinarily capable woman."

[...]

U.S. Reps. Rob Andrews, Rush Holt, Robert Menendez, Frank Pallone and acting Gov. Richard J. Codey have been the most cited possibilities to be appointed by Corzine.

Andrews, Menendez and Pallone have been the most active in seeking the job.

It's certainly time for the Senate to become a more representative body, and the appointment of Gill, or even Mendendez, would at least be a good step towards this goal.

Gregory L. Giroux takes a look at Tuesday's elections for CQ Politics Weekly (a free email service) and finds the following five important lessons to be learned.

1. The thrill is gone for President Bush -- While George W. Bush previously could push Republican candidates over the top in close races, now he "has lost a lot of his magic."
   
2. The media must interpret something -- This is a slow news period, so the media are perhaps too quick to extrapolate meaning from Tuesday's results.
   
3. Democrats may profit when they emphasize faith, especially in the South -- Tim Kaine was able to overcome his unpopular position on the death penalty by talking about his faith.
   
4. The Republicans’ vital advantage in the suburbs may be slipping -- Both Kaine and Jon Corzine were able to perform well in the suburbs, which could become a real battleground in the future.
   
5. There are limits to populism -- Reforms, if viewed as partisan, will go down to defeat, as occurred this week in Ohio and California.

The sincerest appreciation goes out to all of the men and women who serve and have served our country. We are safe as a result of your selflessness and sacrifices. Thank you.

Ipsos has conducted a second round of November polling for the Associated Press (the first survey), and yet again, the President's numbers have failed to bounce back from historic lows. Will Lester has the story.

Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and white evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.

[...]

That loss of trust complicates Bush's efforts to rebuild his standing with the public. His job approval rating remains at his all-time low in the AP-Ipsos poll of 37 percent.

"Honesty is a huge issue because even people who disagreed with his policies respected his integrity," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist from the University of Texas.

Some of the other key data from the poll:

• When leaners are removed, President Bush's approval rating stands at 28 percent, his disapproval rating at 49 percent.
  
• Eighty two percent of voters call President Bush "stubborn."

In perhaps the most wideranging article on the indictments of Tom DeLay to date, The Washington Post's R. Jeffrey Smith lays out exactly how we got to the current situation.

Lawyers for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) tried unsuccessfully in late September to head off felony criminal indictments against the then-majority leader on charges of violating Texas campaign law by signaling that DeLay might plead guilty to a misdemeanor, according to four sources familiar with the events.

The lawyers' principal aim was to try to preserve DeLay's leadership position under House Republican rules that bar lawmakers accused of felonies from holding such posts. DeLay was forced to step down as leader on Sept. 28 after the first of two grand jury indictments.

The last-minute negotiations between the lawyers and Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle were arranged after DeLay made what Earle considered a seriously damaging admission about his fundraising activities during an Aug. 17 meeting with the prosecutor in Austin.

At that session, DeLay acknowledged that in 2002 he was informed about and expressed his support for transfers of $190,000 in mostly corporate funds from his Texas political action committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington and then back to Texas, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition that they not be named.

Those transfers are at the heart of the prosecutor's investigation of the alleged use of corporate funds in the 2002 Texas elections, in violation of state law. In the prosecutor's view, DeLay's admission put him in the middle of a conspiracy not only to violate that law but also to launder money.

As disclosed by sources involved with the case, the new details present a more complete picture of the sequence of events leading to the indictment of DeLay at the end of September. They reveal the unusual lengths to which DeLay and his lawyers were willing to go to avoid charges that would force him to leave his powerful post -- and how it was DeLay's own words that ultimately got him in trouble with the prosecutor.

Smith reports that although DeLay was ready to plea in the case, Earle's offer of a minimum of three to four months in jail was simply too much to swallow. By the time it became apparent that Earle was ready to indict on felony charges, a moved that forced DeLay's resignation as House Majority Leader, the Texas Congressman decided he had little to gain by further cooperation, and instead turned to the media to hammer away at the DA. Interestingly, Smith writes,

Over the weekend of Oct. 1 and 2, Earle asked his staff to collect transcripts of everything DeLay had said publicly. Armed on Monday morning, Oct. 3, with what he considered these fresh admissions by DeLay of his knowledge of the deal, Earle persuaded a new grand jury at its first meeting to return two new indictments for money laundering and conspiracy.

Perhaps DeLay's decision to take Earle head on was not the best legal strategy possible, after all.

After the nomination of Harriet Miers was withdrawn, there was much talk among the puditry that President Bush's approval would begin inching back up as social conservatives came back into the fold. As Fox News' Dana Blanton reports, this hasn't happened.

Today, 36 percent of Americans approve and 53 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president. For comparison, two weeks ago 41 percent said they approved and 51 percent disapproved, and at the beginning of his second term 50 percent approved and 40 percent disapproved (January 25-26).

Until this week, Bush's approval rating had been at 40 percent or above — buoyed in large part by consistent strong support among Republicans; however, in mid-October approval among Republicans fell below 80 percent for the first time of his presidency and now sits at 72 percent.

In addition, Bush's approval rating is down by double digits among other demographic groups. Since the beginning of his second term, his approval is down 26 percentage points among independents, 16 points among women, 15 points among whites and 11 points among men.

Looking at more data from the poll we find that a 39 percent plurality think the Bush administration is less ethical that other recent presidential administrations. This seems to jive with other recent polling that has shown only about one third of Americans find President Bush honest and straighforward, for instance.

With the amended budget bill -- particularly the stalling version in the House -- the Republican Party has shown a willingness to cut programs for the poor in able to partially finance more tax cuts for the wealthy (the balance of the tax cuts being offset by further borrowing). As unpopular as this policy is among some camps, it seems that the Republicans are poised to make an even less popular move on tax cuts. The AP's tax writer Mary Dalrymple has the story.

The House's top tax writer introduced a bill Thursday that would allow the alternative minimum tax to hit millions more taxpayers next year.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas opted to use tax cuts allotted in the GOP's budget to extend tax cuts for capital gains and dividends for two years instead of holding back the alternative minimum tax.

Thomas, R-Calif., said last week that preventing the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, from spreading deeper into the middle class next year could drain the energy from efforts to overhaul the nation's tax laws.

[...]

The alternative minimum tax aims to prevent wealthy individuals from avoiding all taxation. The annual effects of inflation have brought it closer to less wealthy taxpayers each year. Those with several children and those who live in states with high income and property taxes are more likely to feel its pinch.

Lawmakers routinely enact temporary patches to restrain it. More than 20 million taxpayers can expect to pay the alternative minimum tax next year without that temporary fix.

If Republicans really believe that it's good policy to make tax cuts for the extremely wealthy while allowing the tax rates on the middle class to artificially grown -- and cutting services for the working and middle classes -- they should go ahead and try it. On Tuesday, voters across the country showed what they thought of Republican priorities. And if Thomas and his fellow GOP leaders continue with these policies, November 2, 2006 will be a very good night for Democrats.

Montana

For quite some time, the Democrats have been looking at the possibility of knocking off Montana's Republican Senator Conrad Burns. Six years ago, the Dems came extremely close as current Governor Brian Schweitzer held Burns to only 51 percent of the vote. New polling from the state indicates that Burns might be just as vulnerable this time around, as Matt Gouras reports for the AP.

Only 48 percent approve of Burns' job performance, down from his 2002 approval rating of 63 percent. Burns fared better among those people making more money, those who considered themselves more religious, and older Montanans, the pollsters reported.

[...]

Burns' disapproval rating is at 31 percent, while 21 percent remain undecided on his job performance.

[...]

Two Democrats who are vying to challenge Burns in the 2006 election are largely unknown, the pollsters found.

State Auditor John Morrison was not known by 25 percent of the poll respondents, and 44 percent remain undecided about him. While 27 percent had a positive opinion about him, only 4 percent had a negative opinion.

State Senate President Jon Tester, D-Big Sandy, was not known by 39 percent of the respondents, and 38 percent remain undecided about him. Just 17 percent said they had a positive opinion of Tester, while 6 percent had a negative opinion.

Montana's lone Congressman, Denny Rehberg, faces a similarly difficult challenge in 2006, and his approval rating is not much better at 49 percent.

Pennsylvania

As Dave Davies reports for the Philadelphia Daily News, Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Rick Santorum is also embroiled in quite the reelection campaign.

The [Daily News/CN8 Keystone] poll shows Republican Santorum's fortunes also sinking. His job-approval ratings are at a six-year low, and the poll shows him trailing Democratic opponent Bob Casey by 16 points, 51 to 35 percent.

"You may see Santorum try to make Casey the issue, and convince voters he's the least objectionable candidate," Madonna said. "So it's likely Santorum will go negative, and harshly negative."

The poll found Casey leading his announced opponent, Chuck Pennacchio, in the Democratic senatorial primary, 67 to 5 percent, with 28 percent undecided.

As difficult of a position as Santorum is in currently, even he won't allow President Bush to campaign for him. In fact, as Thomas Fitzgerald reports for The Philadelphia Enquirer, Santorum won't even attend the President's event in Pennsylvania this week.

National

Bob Novak:

The victory of Democrat Tim Kaine over Republican Jerry Kilgore was the only contest in scattered off-year elections that was carefully monitored on Capitol Hill. For a liberal Virginian to win a Southern red state signaled that cherished Republican majorities in both House and Senate, plus all the perquisites they entail, could be lost in 2006. Eyeing the Democratic landslide in suburban northern Virginia just over the Potomac from Washington that gave Lt. Gov. Kaine the governorship, Republicans in Congress envision their own doom.

The antidote to avoid that fate is to keep as far away from President Bush as possible, a lesson underlined by the president's failed election rescue mission for former Virginia state Attorney General Kilgore. The consequences may be profound. As his approval rating dipped, Bush increasingly has been treated in Congress as a lame duck. Tuesday's Virginia outcome increases the propensity of Republican senators and House members not only to avoid their president on the campaign trail but also to ignore his legislative proposals.

[...]

The political message read on Capitol Hill came strictly from the Virginia governor's race. How to explain that Democratic victory in a red state where both U.S. senators, eight out of 11 House members and comfortable margins in both houses of the legislature are Republican, and a Republican won for lieutenant governor Tuesday?

They blame Kilgore's defeat on Bush's popularity dipping below 50 percent in Virginia. After avoiding the president on Bush's recent visit to Norfolk, a desperate Kilgore asked for eleventh-hour help. The Monday night appearance in Richmond by a dispirited and exhausted Bush, returning from his difficult Latin America trip, was a dud.

To tell the truth, Novak isn't so off base with his reading of yesterday's election. (It's a bit surprising and weird for me to say that I agree with Bob Novak. So it goes sometimes...)

The Republican leadership in the House had planned on passing a budget bill today, but the likelihood of their success appears to be diminishing, as CQ Today's Midday Update (a free email service) reports.

In a sign of trouble for the Republican leadership, the House recessed this morning shortly after convening, delaying consideration of a $50 billion budget savings bill.

Although GOP leaders last night expressed confidence that they had made enough changes to bring their moderates on board and pass the bill, the delay suggested they still don’t have the votes.

The leadership dropped provisions to allow oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore, and softened planned cuts to food stamps for legal immigrants. They hoped that would suffice to win the last of the Republican votes they will need to pass the budget-cutting package. No Democrats are expected to support the measure.

But leadership may have conceded too much to the moderates, and in doing so lost the votes of some ardent ANWR supporters. Furthermore, as of this morning, changes were under discussion involving the $12 billion package of cuts to Medicaid contained in the bill.

No oil drilling in ANWR. No more tax cuts. Has the unravelling of the GOP coalition in Congress commenced?

In the wake of Tuesday's elections, it looks like House moderates aren't the only ones in ascendency in Washington. As Mary Dalrymple reports for the AP, a moderate GOP Senator has effectively blocked the party's attempt to further cut taxes for the extremely wealthy.

The GOP's tax cut agenda hit a snag Thursday when the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, lacking enough Republican votes, postponed debate on $78 billion in tax reductions.

"No progress," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said. Republicans talked among themselves most of the morning but couldn't agree on a combination of tax cuts that could win support from all of them.

They lacked the pivotal support of Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine, who said she'd like to see senators concentrate their attention on matters that must be done this year, like tax cuts that expire in 2006.

[...]

Snowe isn't the only moderate Republican to voice concerns about passing tax cuts this year. Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, another Republican moderate, said he will vote against tax cuts because the government is accumulating too much debt and the economy does not need stimulation through tax reductions right now.

"It is time to recognize a simple fact of life," Voinovich said. "Contrary to what some of my colleagues seem to believe, tax cuts do not pay for themselves."

Is this the beginning of an unravelling or just a hiccup in conseravatives' stranglehold on Capitol Hill? Today's budget vote in the House should provide a little more indication of the answer, but I'd imagine the recent developments, from Tuesday's election to the removal of ANWR from the House Budget bill, have a lot of folks in the Republican establishment worried.

Poltiical Wire's Taegan Goddard notices an overlooked finding of the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

In the 2006 election for U.S. Congress, do you feel that your representative deserves to be reelected, or do you think it is time to give a new person a chance?

Deserves to be reelected -- 37 (49 in Oct. 2004)
Give new person a chance -- 51 (34 in Oct. 2004)

So much for GOP claims that there isn't a broad mandate for change. These numbers haven't been this high since late 2000, right before the Democrats picked up four seats in the Senate to force a 50-50 tie and and narrowed Republican control of the House to it's lowest point since 1995.

House and Senate Democrats have been doing a fairly good job at recruiting potentially top-tier challengers -- particularly military veterans -- for GOP incumbents for next year's elections. And as Hotline on Call's Josh Kraushaar, it looks the the Dems might be lining up yet another veteran to challenge a defeatable Republican.

Keep an eye out for attorney Peter Duffy as the Dems likely nominee against Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-NH 01) now that Manchester Bob Baines is likely out as a candidate. An anti-war lawyer with military credentials -- he was called up to the Army National Guard in '04 -- Duffy said his campaign is "full speed ahead" after Baines suffered a shocking defeat in the Manchester mayor's race. Bradley has won by significant margins in his two previous election bids but has been aided by weak opposition. His district only went for Bush by three points in '04, and he recently was one of very few GOPers who returned money from DeLay's PAC.

We'll keep you up to date as this one develops...

While many have rightly noted the major Democratic wins in Virginia, New Jersey and California on Tuesday, it's important not to forget that there were key elections in other areas of the country, too. With this in mind, we turn to the Wednesday edition of New York Newsday, in which Rick Brand notes the major shift in one notable region of the state.

The Democrats' dramatic gains in Tuesday's election signal the end of decades of Republican domination of Long Island politics, experts in both parties say.

"The days of monolithic Republican control are over," said John V.N. Klein, a former GOP Suffolk County Executive. "In the past when this kind of thing happened, I'd say give it a couple of elections and we'll be back in charge again. We can't count on that anymore."

[...]

While Democrats Bill Clinton and John Kerry have won Long Island in their presidential bids, local Democrats for the first time Tuesday consolidated their gains -- winning control of the legislatures in both counties as well as the offices of county executive and district attorney.

Those gains come on top of Democrats' control of four of the Island's five congressional seats and the September special election of Marc Alessi to the State Assembly. "Only a few years ago, this kind of thing would have been unheard of and undreamed of," said Hope, an East Hampton resident.

New York state sent 29 people to the US House of Representatives following the 2004 elections, eight of whom are Republican. Of the eight, one represents a district John Kerry won in 2004, and the other seven were elected from districts carried by Bush -- but only with 51 to 56 percent of the vote.

If the trends noted in this article continue, New York Republicans will find it increasingly difficult to be reelected in these marginal districts. And if even the closest of these seats switched hands -- just the six seats in which Bush received 53 percent of the vote or less in 2004 -- Republican control over the House would become extremely tenuous.

Earlier, we noted the likelihood that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve would be dropped from the new budget bill offered by House Republicans. According to The New York Times' Carl Hulse, it's now official.

From the AP's Lara Jakes Jordan.

Former FEMA chief Michael Brown is no longer on the agency's payroll, the Homeland Security Department said Wednesday, ending nearly two months of compensation after he resigned under fire.

[...]

Initially, Brown was permitted to continue collecting his $148,000 annual salary for 30 days after he resigned. Last month, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he extended Brown's contract for an additional 30 days, until mid-November, to help the agency complete its review of the response to Katrina.

A more detailed timeline of events:

• On the morning of August 29, Hurricane Katrina made landfall near New Orleans, and within two days there was already discussion of the federal government's lack of preparedness.
  
• Within a week, there were serious questions about the federal response.
  
• On September 9, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown, was relieved of control over Washington's response to Katrina. However, Brown remained at the helm of FEMA.
  
• Three days later, Brown resigned as administrator of FEMA.
  
• On September 26, word leaked out that despite his resignation, Brown was still receiving a salary from the federal government.
  
• On or before October 22, Brown's contract was again renewed and the former bureaucrat continued to receive a salary.
  
• Brown's federal salary is terminated on November 2.

As the inimitable John Harwood reports for The Wall Street Journal, President Bush's approval rating has continued to slide even through this week.

The CIA leak investigation has deepened President George W. Bush's political problems, driving his approval rating to its lowest-ever point in the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Just 38% of Americans now approve Bush's job performance, while 57% disapprove, the poll shows. The telephone survey of 1,003 adults, conducted Nov. 4-7, carries a margin for error of 3.1 percentage points.

The CIA leak case, in which former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby was recently indicted on felony charges, has made a strong impression on the public. Fully 79% of respondents call the case "a serious matter." Americans now view Vice President Dick Cheney negatively 49%-27%, his worst-ever showing and a significant deterioration since January.

The case, by compounding doubts about the administration's pre-war claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, appears to have also taken a toll on public regard for Bush's credibility. Some 33% now give the president high marks for "being honest and straightforward," while 47% rate him poorly on that score. In January, he was rated positively on this score by 50%-36%

NBC News' Mark Murray offers more information and conclusions from the survey.

With the midterms a year away, these numbers could spell trouble for the GOP. “These are not good times for Republicans,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart. “This is a very unhappy electorate that’s going to be unstable, and they are terrifically unstable numbers for a Republican majority.”

Perhaps the best news for Republicans in the poll is that Democrats aren’t necessarily faring much better. “Both parties are having difficulties,” McInturff observes.

[...]

So are Democrats poised to take advantage of this situation and pick up seats in the 2006 congressional elections? Not necessarily. While the poll shows that a plurality of 43 percent views the Republican Party negatively, the Democratic Party doesn’t fare much better — just 33 percent view them positively, vs. 36 percent who see them in a negative light.

“We have a year [left],” McInturff says. “We don’t see evidence where there’s much lift for Democrats.” Of course, that’s also especially true for Republicans.

As important as polling is, elections are the true gauge in American politics. And given the remarkbly widespread rejection of the Republican Party in yesterday's elections (the only Republican to emerge as a big winner was New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg -- a lifelong Democrat before 2001 who remains closer in rhetoric and governing to the Democratic Party than the GOP), it looks like the electorate is ready for change.

Of course, this is certainly not to say that the Democrats have the 2006 Congressional elections in the bag. As the aforementioned polling indicates, although Democrats are less unpopular than Republicans, that doesn't necessarily make them popular. Nevertheless, the Democrats have a golden opportunity to bring real change to Washington next fall, and if they blow it, it might be a very long time before they get another chance at recapturing either House.