The Note: 'Both Hopeful and Precarious'
— -- WASHINGTON, March 8 --
NEWS SUMMARY
On the one hand, whenever President Bush climbs on the national security stage -- as he does today at 10:15 am ET in Washington -- he reminds the nation that he is the 10,000-pound gorilla of American politics who speaks authoritatively about an issue of great importance.
On the other hand, from a purely political point of view, the President's capacity to leverage his national security dominance for partisan gain -- as he was able to do again and again during the 2004 campaign -- seems extraordinarily limited now.
On the one hand, the mega in-your-face pick of John Bolton to be United Nations ambassador is like Bill Clinton making a joint nomination of Joycelyn Elders to be both Secretary of State and Secretary of Health and Human Services.
On the other hand, the Democrats on the Hill are not afraid of the President any more (maybe they should be . . . ).
On the one hand, it's never too soon for Rick Berke to assign (yet) another front-page New York Times story on Dick Cheney's vast-but-quiet influence on the second Bush term. (Make no mistake: Bolton is a Cheney man . . . )
On the other hand, David Brooks' favorably assessment of Paul Wolfowitz on the op-ed page of the Gray Lady is potentially the start of the something big. LINK
On the one hand, in the run-up to the 2004 election, consultants from both parties decided that "security" was the buzzword/concept of choice, and Democrats began saying things like "security is more than protecting our shores -- security is about health care security, and job security and retirement security."
On the other hand -- while Democrats are being tricked by the White House into "small" fights over Social Security, bankruptcy, and energy -- for the second day in a row, the nation's major newspapers are fronting stories about (a) the booming American economy, not held back by pesky oil/gas prices (See: LINK and Thaddeus Herrick's A1 article in the Wall Street Journal); and (b) how the President's efforts to inspire democracy and change throughout the Middle East are on quite a roll -- silencing critics such as Jon Stewart and author Nancy Soderberg.
In his speech this morning at the National Defense University, the President is expected to talk about the progress being made in Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, and Lebanon .and the how the "determination and courage" of the Iraqi people is an example to the rest of the Middle East, reports ABC News' Karen Travers.
As for Social Security, there is one must-read today, and that is Dan Balz's tour de force exposition of the opposition in the Washington Post. The White House has put (some of) its cards on the table: the Republicans have a (controversial and tough to sell) plan, but the Democrats have none.
Mr. Balz lays out the advice for congressional Democrats by Stan Greenberg and James Carville (and Harold Ickes), who warn that even though the opening salvo in the Social Security fight seems to be going well, Republicans are far from shot down and Democrats still have a big image -- not to mention specifics -- problem on their hands. LINK
"What worries some Democrats about the debate over Social Security is that Bush stands for something and they do not, other than opposition to the creation of private accounts. So far, party leaders believe that posture has served them well. But some Democrats fear that Bush, by having pushed for changes and by appealing to younger voters with his proposal for the accounts, will score a political victory even if he does not get the main element of his plan."
". . . Bush may have underestimated Democratic resiliency on Social Security as he steps up his travel and salesmanship. But the more his plan appears to be in trouble, the more pressure will grow on Reid and Pelosi for a Democratic plan. Many Democrats are mindful that Bush has reversed course before -- on creation of the Homeland Security Department and the commission to investigate the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- and claimed political victory in the process."
But the danger for the Democrats, of course, is the same as it is for the President: being the first to talk in detail about tax increases and benefit cuts is scary.
The bottom line on today's mayoral elections in Los Angeles: Incumbent James Hahn is in real danger of losing his job.
And with no serious Republican candidates in the race, this is more about personality than national politics, even if we are talking about the nation's second largest city.
Hahn, city council member Antonio Villaraigosa, former police chief Bernard Parks, and former state assembly speaker Bob Hertzberg are likely to finish in the top four. (There are 12 candidates running; an absolute majority is improbable, so the top two candidates will advance to a May 17 run-off.)
Hahn's tenure has been marked by struggles with the city council over police staffing, the high profile firing of a black police chief (Parks), a declining crime rate, and his successful effort to prevent the San Fernando Valley from seceding. If Hahn doesn't place first or second today, his backers will blame the Valley succession nix and Park's ouster, both of which have caused him to try to reconfigure his political base.
The son of a popular county commissioner and white civil rights icon, Hahn was first elected by drawing support from middle class suburban voters in the Valley and from African Americans. Hispanics, who make up nearly fifty percent of city residents, supported Villaraigosa that year; white liberals were split. (Re: Hispanics: as we said, they're about half of the city, but far fewer are eligible to vote, and fewer than that actually do so.)
This year, the demographies are different. Hahn has lost most of his black support, which is now split between Villaraigosa and Parks, but gained the endorsement (and, presumably, the vote) of organized labor. Hertzberg reached out to Republicans and white moderates; Villaraigosa now gets many self-identified liberals. Los Angeles is historically friendly to incumbents, but Hahn's supporters have less ardor than his opponents, so a high turn-out election should benefit them, not him. Plus, one theory touted by political types holds than in a post-Arnold California electorate, personality means more than it did, so Mr. Hahn, who is seen as Gray Davis dull, has an added disadvantage. (The Governor endorsed Hertzberg's main policy proposal.)
Most observers expect turnout to be quite low. Angelinos seem rather characteristically unengaged when it comes to this race.
Hahn will host his election night party at the Conga Room; Hertzberg will be at the Airtel Plaza Hotel in Van Nuys, and Villaraigosa waits for results at the Fonda Theater in Hollywood.
Also worth Nothing: voters in California's 5th congressional district will winnow the field to two candidates in a race for the seat of recently deceased Rep. Bob Matusi (D). His widow, Doris Matsui, will likely be one of those who advances. (The top vote-getters from each party move to a runoff if no candidate receives 50 percent plus 1, winnowing the field from 12 to six.)
In Florida, voters in Broward and Miami-Dade counties will decide whether to allow slot machines in jai-alai frontons and race tracks. The arguments pro and con are familiar: the gaming industry has dangled a 30 percent rebate of all profits to the state government, but opponents worry about the community effects of gambling and fear that the slots will hurt existing businesses.
Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't want the slots there. LINK
But he may not have a choice.
Elsewhere in Washington today, the President meets with one current president (Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic) at 11:35 am ET, and two former ones (his father and Bill Clinton) at 1:45 pm ET.
We wonder whether anyone at the White House will ask President Clinton about Iran. LINK
First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Rice celebrate International Women's Day in the Ben Franklin Room at the State Department at 9:00 am ET.
The Senate takes up bankruptcy reform legislation at 9:45 am ET, and the parties hold their policy luncheons in the afternoon. Sen. Bill Frist will come to the cameras around noon. DNC Chairman Howard Dean attends the Democratic luncheon.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is in DC all day; he has a private meeting with Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling; a fundraiser at the St. Regis; and meetings with HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt and Interior Secretary Gail Norton in the afternoon. There may be a protest outside the fundraiser by nurses who don't like his pension proposals.
Bolton from the blue:
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler and Colum Lynch lay out the controversial career of new U.N. Ambassador-nominee John Bolton, a diplomat who uses tough language and a "willingness to eschew diplomatic niceties" that Democrats are vowing to bring a fight over. LINK
The Los Angeles Times refers to Bolton as the "un-diplomat," and Paul Richter explores his reputation and brusque approach that's won the heart and mind of Vice President Cheney and led others to describe him as something of a new Jeanne Kirkpatrick. LINK
USA Today's Bill Nichols Notes Sen. Kerry's comment that Bolton's nomination is "inexplicable," and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's promise that the confirmation hearing is going to be a bumpy ride. LINK
Writes the New York Times' Steven Weisman: "Some Republicans predicted that he might have difficulty winning confirmation." LINK
Former assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice describes the criticisms and "con" items against Bolton, writing that there's a lot of bated breath as those who know his record watch carefully -- and hope he proceeds carefully to see how he does at the U.N. LINK
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board nods so vigorously at Bolton's nomination that we worry it might snap off.
Is there a 5 percent chance or greater that any Republican Senators will vote against Bolton? We think not.
Social Security: the politics:
The New York Times' Glen Justice writes on the new $2 million Progress for America ad buy and another AFL-CIO success at convincing a company to leave the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security LINK
The Times' David E. Rosenbaum explicates the mystery of the trust fund. LINK
Bush agenda:
The Washington Post's Peter Baker takes a look at the progress made recently in the Middle East that gives President Bush's foreign policy a little more momentum as he heads today to the National Defense University to talk about his plans, and the massive amount of work that's left to do. LINK
"How much the president influenced events driven by indigenous forces on the ground remains a point of debate here and in the region. Some diplomats, analysts and intelligence officers with long experience in the region worry that the Bush team is celebrating too soon and overestimating its ability to steer the change it is helping to set loose. Reforms have been announced in the Middle East in the past only to prove hollow in reality. And the U.S. government has rarely built the sort of sustained effort that many believe will be required to ensure that genuine change takes root."
AP curtain-raises the speech itself, Noting President Bush's return to his inaugural theme that the spread of democracy is the best way to fight terrorism. LINK
The Washington Post's Jim VandeHei wraps President and First Lady Laura Bush's visit to Pittsburgh yesterday to talk up their plan to help at-risk youths. LINK
The Los Angeles Times' Ed Chen calls the President Mrs. Bush's warm-up act. LINK
USA Today's Mimi Hall looks at the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to make sure the agency is portrayed positively in a theater or TV show near you. LINK
Chairman of the (Fed) Board:
Duck and cover: One of those glossy men's mag A-bombs is about to hit official Washington.
In this case, the "A" stands for "Alan."
GQ's Wil Hylton has written a non-loving profile of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in which he accuses the Chairman, with some evidence, of being, a, well, a political hack -- but not necessarily a partisan one.
Tracing Greenspan's political career from obscure Randian disciple to Nixon economist to Ford political adviser (sort of) to mysterious, Andrea-Mitchell-loving, tennis-playing, naked-bathtub-loving Fed Chair, Hylton suggests that Greenspan's political instincts do not always lend themselves to the advancement of Republican causes.
To wit: Greenspan's famous "deal" with Bush 41. There's an amusing exchange in the article with Nicholas Brady, who seems to admit that Greenspan agreed to lower interest rates if "the president would tackle fiscal policy . . . He just plain didn't do what he said he was going to do." According to Hylton, Brady does a Class A Emergency Dial Back after those remarks.
Fans of the Chairman's will find Hylton's profile to be gosh-darned mean and will probably dispute his account of history, but the article is certain to be be widely e-mailed and widely referenced in the days ahead -- after it is released in NY/LA on March 22.
Hylton's account is characterological and eschews an in-depth discussion of policy issues -- and certainly doesn't even attempt to answer the question of whether the Chairman has done a good job.
A telling excerpt:
"In certain parts of Washington, parsing the Fed chairman's language -- known as 'Greenspeak' -- has become a sort of parlor game. But according to people close to Greenspan, that's a waste of time. There is nothing to figure out, they say, because Greenspan isn't saying anything. As his friend of fifty years, Charles Brunie, recalls, 'Before he took office, he said, 'If ever you think you understand me, you will be mistaken, because I plan to obfuscate.' I remember the word obfuscate.' Or as Greenspan's tennis partner and former Clinton aide, Gene Sperling, explains, 'When he's sending a vague or mixed signal, it is by design.' Or as Greenspan's old friend, the economist Milton Friedman, puts it, 'I don't think it's an accident, whether he's ambiguous or not.' According to sources at the Fed, Greenspan even takes pleasure in his obfuscation. Sometimes he will return from one of his speeches before Congress and order a video of his testimony, marveling out loud as he watches: 'What in the world does that mean?" Obstruction, then, is the name of the game.'"
Insiders: watch your e-mail and fax machines for the advanced text.
Civilians: Look for the April issue on newsstands.
Big casino budget politics:
If it is important to David Rogers, it should be important to you.
Writes Rogers in the Wall Street Journal: "Senate Republicans, in a return to the budget debates of the 1980s and '90s, are proposing almost $14 billion in Medicaid savings over the next five years while demanding that any new tax cuts in excess of $70 billion be paid by closing loopholes."
"Both the Medicaid and tax targets have frayed nerves, and were the subject of Senate leadership meetings yesterday, talks that included White House Budget Director Josh Bolten and Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt."
"The aggressive strategy comes from the Senate's new Budget Committee Chairman, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, whose budget plan for the 2006 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 is slated to be released tomorrow. The final numbers could change, but the goal is to set the government on a path to cut the deficit to $229 billion by 2010 -- about what President Bush is seeking -- while also making more of an allowance for the cost of the war in Iraq."
"Mr. Gregg appears most determined to exact long-term savings from major government-benefit programs such as Medicaid. But he has also argued that the party leadership could attract moderate support if it were less aggressive in using budget rules to restrict Senate debate on new tax cuts."
The Washington Post's Dan Morgan takes a great look at how the President's decision to cut subsidies to cotton growers is touching off major troop movement in Republican politics among those who would try to defend them vs. the budget hawks who argue that the money would be better spent elsewhere. LINK
2008:
Former Sen. John Edwards heads to Milwaukee on April 2 to speak at the Wisconsin Democratic Party's Founders Day Gala. LINK
