Print This Page Email This Page See Most Sent

Catch up. Plenty of Note archives.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

NEWS SUMMARY

Forty-three already is in Crawford, with no events currently scheduled until the P.M. shows up later today. This morning we'll hear from 42, who's up in Montreal addressing a business group and perhaps mentioning the Middle East.

As long as the American Jewish community is willing to wait and see what happens with the Bush Administration's current approach to the Middle East, the president's well-delivered speech seems to have relieved him of political pressure for now, both at home and abroad.

The speech, and Secretary of State Powell's expected visit to the region next week, buys Bush time with the key domestic constituencies and with Congress to see how things shake out — though obviously, post-speech, Bush now is more captive to events on the ground in the West Bank than he was before.

The consensus this morning is that the speech marked a major policy reversal, no matter what the White House says. The Boston Globe writes, "Senior administration advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the speech as a restatement of Bush's policy rather than a departure from it." Um, sure … .
( http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/095/nation/
Bush_s_call_on_Mideast_Enough_+.shtml )

Most accounts, however, on paper and through the air, written by men and women accustomed to the White House's "the president NEVER changes course" mantra, simply ignore the administration's view and call the change a change.

But through a lot of good advance work and a well-written text, the president seems to have achieved what usually is considered impossible on this topic: he struck the right balance between all those competing interests. So the White House's claims that Bush didn't change his position doesn't lead to any points being subtracted.

Say what you will about George W. Bush (and we remain amazed at the number of Democrats who still underestimate him): the guy consistently delivers on major speeches.

And the Bush White House is quite good at doing the basic but vital outreach to major domestic constituent groups (when they want to) to explain decisions such as this. They sure did it yesterday, producing widespread commendations for the POTUS remarks.

Still, Bush continues to get cross-pressured on Iraq, and the speech didn't take that problem off the table. The Los Angeles Times previews George's visit with Tony, identifying Blair's message as: "Forget about Iraq until the Middle East crisis and the war on terrorism in Afghanistan abate. Even then, Blair is known to harbor doubts about the consequences of a campaign to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein." ( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-000024386apr05.story )?coll=la%2Dnews%2Da%5Fsection ) )

David Sanger's lead New York Times story tallies it thusly: "To be coherent in the fight against terrorism, (the president) has been virtually obliged to back the Israeli attempt to stop terror attacks by suicide bombers. But in seeking support in the Arab world for an eventual attempt to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq, he has been obliged to try to shore up his position among Arab friends of Mr. Arafat."

The The Wall Street Journal nicely sums up the reasons the president had to change course yesterday: "[T]he fury of European allies and moderate Arab governments convinced the president that his antiterror coalition was at risk, U.S. officials said Thursday. In particular, Bush aides nervously watched mounting street protests in Egypt and elsewhere and worried that domestic pressures would make it harder for Muslim leaders to cooperate in the hunt for terrorists. Jittery oil markets also figured in the White House calculations, as did warnings from U.S. intelligence officials that the U.S. could again become a target for terrorist attack if the violence isn't reined in."

The Los Angeles Times ' McManus writes, "conflict avoidance didn't work. The crisis got worse, not better, and was threatening to sink Bush's effort to build a worldwide coalition against terrorism and 'rogue' nations such as Iraq."
( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/
la-000024378apr05.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage )

"So Bush changed course. The positions he outlined in his long statement in the White House Rose Garden on Thursday weren't new … What was new, however, was Bush's willingness to put his own influence on the table, and to make progress toward Arab-Israeli peace a measure of his presidency's success."

"Bush administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, … [said the] president had to act now … because the conflict was threatening to burst the bounds of the current conflict and damage U.S. interests in the entire Middle East. In private talks during the last few days, one official said, an emissary from Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah warned that the United States would 'never again get the use of any military base against Iraq' if it didn't stop the fighting in the West Bank. At the same time, administration officials feared that the unrest would spread, affecting friendly governments such as Egypt and Jordan and creating a wider crisis."

The man who now regularly grafts his unmatched prose onto this important story, T. S. Purdum of the New York Times , writes, "In the loyalist Bush White House, victory has but one father, the president himself. None of his lieutenants were willing to claim triumph today, with most insisting that the president's shift amounted to a natural evolution, arrived at by consensus, in response to rapidly changing events." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/international/middleeast/05SPEE.html )

"But in policy terms, Mr. Bush's approach amounted to at least a certain vindication for the Middle East experts in the State Department, who have long been inclined to seek more robust political approaches to end stalemates."

"Mr. Cheney, joining the discussions by telephone, argued for a strong antiterrorist emphasis in whatever remarks emerged. Mr. Rumsfeld pressed for a word about the regional dynamics, and on Iraq. Secretary Powell and his staff noted the sharp concerns reported by American ambassadors in Arab states about potential unrest."

"Several officials involved in the speech noted that Mr. Bush purposely did not specify a timetable for Israeli withdrawals. The president criticized Mr. Arafat by name, but he did not criticize Mr. Sharon by name."

"Nor did he mention the country in the region that most troubles him: Iraq, which administration officials often note gives rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. For months, the administration's fitful efforts in the Israel-Palestinian conflict had been driven as much as anything by its desire for Arab support for action against Iraq."

"While Mr. Bush also repeatedly indicated that Mr. Arafat's Palestinian Authority would remain at the center of negotiations, he did not explicitly say that Mr. Arafat himself would."

Tom DeFrank gets this in the Daily News: "'We've been taking a horrible beating in the press on this,' a Bush political adviser agreed. 'Congress is gone, there's no Enron. This is the only thing that's happening, and it looked like we weren't doing enough.'" ( http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-04-05/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-146670.asp )

The Washington Post 's Milbank and Balz play up that "Bush's statement was the most visible presidential action on the Middle East since former President Bill Clinton posed with Israeli and Palestinian leaders at Camp David in the summer of 2000." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63646-2002Apr4.html )

"While the speech calmed those on all sides of the issue who had been pressing the administration to become more directly involved, there was agreement that yesterday's action marked only a first step in what now will be a commitment that could consume the rest of Bush's presidency."

"Ultimately, people who consulted with the White House say, the administration concluded that the risk of failure and the danger of antagonizing some conservatives was less painful than the fierce criticism Bush was suffering for his inaction."

"There was widespread agreement among people on both sides of the conflict that Bush found the proper balance in yesterday's speech."

And yet, despite all the tough talk from the president yesterday, as the ABCNEWS London Bureau and the rest of the foreign press report, Israel is continuing its military offensive. "But Israeli officials acknowledged that Bush's call for an Israeli withdrawal, and the plan to dispatch Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to the region next week, have set the clock ticking toward an eventual Israeli pullback." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63578-2002Apr4.html )

The Los Angeles Times ' Wright reports, "a statement from Sharon's office said Operation Protective Wall would continue until Israel achieves its goal. A Defense Ministry spokesman predicted that the operation could last seven more weeks."
( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la
-000024381apr05.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage )

USA Today reports on the alleged Rummy-Powell split and says, "Those close to Bush say the human toll played heavily in his decision." ( http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020405/4002141s.htm )

The latest on the Middle East from the ABCNEWS London Bureau:

Israel is pressing ahead with its military thrust into Palestinian territory in the West Bank, despite the new US initiative to halt the bloodshed. Latest reports say at least seven Palestinians, including six fighters and one unarmed civilian, were killed in pre-dawn clashes in Nablus — while the army has also met stiff resistance in Jenin.

US special envoy Zinni, met with Arafat in Ramallah this morning, raising hopes that cease-fire talks might soon begin. A convoy of journalists approaching Arafat's headquarters to cover the meeting was stopped by Israeli soldiers about 100 yards away from the compound. Israeli troops fired rubber bullets, tear gas, and stun grenades at journalists, and some soldiers pointed their guns at them. No injuries were reported.

A standoff between troops and gunmen sheltering with civilians in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem continues for a fourth day.

In a statement Friday, the Israeli military said it is holding 900 Palestinian prisoners and has confiscated 50 anti-tank grenades and two launchers, 26 machine guns, nine bombs, four belts for suicide bombers, dozens of boxes of ammunition, scores of kilograms of explosives, more than 1,300 rifles and more than 670 pistols.

Vice President Cheney, meanwhile, is off having fun: after attending a fundraiser for Judge Pickering's congressman son this morning in Mississippi, he'll head to Arlington, TX to throw out the first pitch at the Texas Rangers game.

Gannett reports that Mississippi breakfast with Mr. Cheney is costing $1,000 a head. ( http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0204/05/m04.html )

The AP reports that the unemployment rate inched up to 5.7 percent last month, but economists weren't surprised and expect a few bounces before things stabilize during a recovery.

The Middle East

Peggy Noonan wields her expertise on the op-ed page of the The Wall Street Journal to explain WHY the speech was so good, as well as to mini-mock the White House staff for its unwillingness to ever admit that the president is changing course, and to explain in a pretty nifty manner Powell's standing in the world and his relationship with the president.

The Journal's ed board says the speech will only end up being worth it if it leads to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and the editorial makes clear ("U.S. officials explain to us … ") that the administration has figured out that stoking this key group of Manhattan opinion makers is worth the time. The piece's tone is much gentler, we'd bet, than it otherwise would have been. We wonder which official was smart enough to make the call.

The Washington Post editorial page called it "one of the bluntest speeches ever made by an American president on the Middle East; though he acted belatedly, Mr. Bush clearly laid out what must be done to ease a rapidly deepening crisis." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63887-2002Apr4.html )

"A senior administration official said Mr. Powell has been speaking with 'other Palestinian leaders' and hopes to continue that dialogue next week. But the source acknowledged the White House cannot yet afford to completely ignore Mr. Arafat," the Washington Times writes. ( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020405-84254796.htm )

"The Bush administration says there are no active plans to put American peacekeepers between Palestinians and Israelis, but at least one internal military study" — conducted last year by the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) — "says 20,000 well-armed troops would be needed." ( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020405-13268800.htm )

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary

The Washington Post 's Dionne writes, "This is a moment when many Democrats are speechless and the rest are incapable of commanding wide attention. Will there ever be a better time for Gore to find his voice?" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63893-2002Apr4.html )

"The problem for Gore is that something always will come along to make any particular time a bad time to speak out. He has to find some moment to use his influence before it all dissipates."

"The potential presidential candidates can hit larger themes, and some of them — Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts comes to mind — are using this period to lay out some serious ideas and expand their reach. But none can win an instant audience the way Gore can."

We guess EJ doesn't realize how few reporters actually cover Gore's open-press events these days.

Senate Majority Leader Daschle fundraises and addresses the College Democrats today in New York, while Senator John Edwards heads to Iowa to address a Buchanan County, IA Democrats fundraiser.

It's hard to believe, but Edwards has only been to Iowa three times since November 2000. Only three times, by the count of the Des Moines Register . He'd better get cracking — there are hundreds of local candidates who could benefit from his altruism.

The Register got an interview with Edwards as he fundraised among his peeps, trial lawyers, in Boston ( http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/17819306.html )

Here's a quote from the Senator about Iowa to which you hustings stalkers better get used: "'People here remind me very much of the people in North Carolina. They have common sense and good judgment,' he said. 'I think Iowa remains very important to the presidential selection process.'"

Per the The Wall Street Journal : "Courting green voters, Democratic presidential hopefuls Kerry and Lieberman plan to filibuster a move to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil-and-gas exploration. Pro-drilling forces appear short of the 60 votes needed to override the filibuster, but claim new momentum in light of Mideast turmoil and rising gasoline prices."

"Some environmentalists want the broader bill stopped even if Alaskan drilling isn't included. 'Polluting industries with a financial interest in the status quo have plundered this bill,' say Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and other green groups."

"Killing the bill could be risky for 2004 hopefuls because it includes ethanol subsidies prized in Iowa."

Florida Democratic Party convention

The Washington Times gloats, a little, over this: "Florida Democrats are shelling out more money — $125 per person — to hear from actor and Democratic activist Alec Baldwin than they are to listen to former Vice President Al Gore, who attracts only $50 a head. Mr. Baldwin is a keynote dinner speaker on Saturday for the 2002 Florida Democratic Party State Conference … while Mr. Gore is the featured luncheon speaker on the day … Florida Democratic Party Chairman Bob Poe says that owing to an incredible response from Florida Democrats, all the special events at the state conference, including Mr. Baldwin's address, are sold out … Mr. Baldwin pledged to leave the country if George W. Bush were to become president of the United States. So much for promises." ( http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm )

How much of a chance does Bill McBride actually have to win the Democratic gubernatorial nomination? And, how does Janet Reno's message strategy work in Florida's new political climate? Don't even THINK of going into your weekend without knowing the answers to those questions.

Our coverage continues.

Later today, check back with ABCNEWS.com for a story on a woman who hopes to parlay her national fame — and local reputation — from November 2000 into a House seat. And why Florida Democrats are especially excited about her candidacy.

Monday, we'll have news and notes about the convention itself. And later next week, the scoop on how the '04 presidential prospects are getting ready for Orlando. A correction: due to a technical error, we incorrectly identified a source of comments about Janet Reno's expected cash on hand totals to Nicole Harburger, her spokesman. Harburger was not the source of that information. The comments should have been attributed to two people close to her campaign. We regret the error.

Campaign Finance

The two national party committees gave up their first-quarter fundraising figures to the wires last night. As usual, the GOP outraised the Democrats and the Democrats relied a lot on soft-money contributions, which will be banned on November 6, which may be why the DNC was touting its direct-mail, hard-money fundraising tallies.

"The Republican National Committee brought in a record $31.7 million in the year's first quarter while its Democratic equivalent raised $26 million, but Democrats lagged badly in regulated 'hard-money' donations that can be spent directly on campaigns," Reuters reports. "Republicans raised $26.3 million and the Democratic National Committee about $9 million in the 'hard-money' funds that will become the currency of campaigns under a new law that takes effect after the Nov. 5 mid-term congressional elections." ( http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/2999731.htm )

As the AP notes, "More than half the DNC's first-quarter fund-raising total came in a handful of soft-money checks for a new party headquarters and technology upgrade, including $7 million and $5 million each from two Hollywood executives." ( http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/095/nation/GOP_posts
_big_lead_in_hard_money_gifts+.shtml )

But to the chagrin of some Washington Democrats, a lot of that dough already is spoken for — to pay for the new DNC building.

As Democrats maneuver to (finally) come out with some sort of macro message, there continue to be signs of the kind of sniping that any leaderless party has to deal with.

The latest flap from the The Wall Street Journal 's Washington Wire: "Rep. Markey and other Democrats complain to Democratic National Committee chief McAuliffe that he may crimp efforts to recapture the House this fall by soaking up donations for $25 million headquarters complex timed for the 2004 campaign. A DNC spokeswoman denies the project is siphoning funds from House candidates, but notes that McAuliffe 'has to look at the overall picture' of what's good for Democrats."

"The DNC finished the quarter with $23 million in cash on hand and about $9 million in debts," Reuters says. "The RNC has $38.8 million on hand and no outstanding debts."

Before the fundraising news hit the wires, the DNC sent out a release touting that it took in $8,005,283 in the first quarter from its "small dollar direct response program" — i.e., direct mail.

Which may be why Terry McAuliffe got sooo upset on Monday's Crossfire when Tucker Carlson needled him about the DNC's technology and modernization projects.

Politics

The Washington Times writes up the latest survey by crack GOP polling concern Public Opinion Strategies, which claims that "Bush's job approval is likely to remain high through November because much of the spike was based on his 'personal strength and sense of leadership,' rather than the success of his policies. 'These ratings are solid as a rock,' the report said. 'Bush enjoys stunningly high 'strong approval' ratings across political-party lines.' The firm added that its projections 'may portend a stronger showing for Republicans than is traditionally had for the party in power.' Democrats say congressional races will be decided individually and that Mr. Bush's popularity did not help Republican candidates win governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey in the fall." ( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020405-78298894.htm )

DNC chairman McAuliffe addresses North Dakota Democrats' Jefferson-Jackson dinner tonight in Fargo.

Senator Kennedy will deliver the Democratic response to the president's radio address this weekend.

New York

Mayor Bloomberg's integration into his chosen Republican Party is smartly written up, with some great quotes, by the clever Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times . ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/nyregion/05BLOO.html )

California

Dan Walters writes that as he attacks his opponent on abortion, Gov. Gray Davis is "sliding around" an issue of his own: gay marriage.
( http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/2056717p-2348550c.html )

Florida

Gov. Jeb Bush moved to trademark his "Jeb!" campaign slogan yesterday and loudly rebuked a private organization that's trying to build grassroots support in his name.

"The group has sent fundraising appeals to at least 100,000 GOP donors, and included in their mailing an article from the conservative Insight Magazine that targets Reno's record as Dade state attorney and U.S. attorney general. Among other accusations, the piece in Insight, which is published by the Washington Times , repeats unsubstantiated personal smears about Reno. Reno is the front-runner to win the Democratic nomination to challenge Bush in November. Bush campaign officials worry that voters could mistakenly think that "Americans for Jeb Bush" represents the governor. The group's negative message, strategists worry, could blur Bush's campaign among moderate swing voters, who could be offended by attack ads targeting Reno."
( http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/3000837.htm )

We'd bet that Reno's campaign prefers the Orlando Sentinel's headline: "Jeb Blasts GOP Extremists," which allows them to neatly say that the grassroots supporters of Jeb's campaign are, well, extreme. ( http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-
locgov05040502apr05.story?coll=orl%2Dhome%2Dheadlines )

Florida Secretary of State and GOP House candidate Katherine Harris wanted to attend a Tiger Bay Club meeting in Sarasota. (The club, influential in Florida, holds monthly lunches across the state.) Newt Gingrich was the scheduled speaker. But the president of the club, "President Marj Baldwin, a 77-year-old fellow Republican famed around town for her blunt, stick-to-the-rules style," said the meeting was sold out, and refused to let Harris attend.

"Baldwin also was upset that, instead of calling her directly earlier this week, Harris' office contacted the Washington Speakers Bureau, the Virginia agency that booked Gingrich's speech, to see about getting a ticket."

" 'To assume that her fame and wealth would get her a ticket from Washington, D.C., she certainly made a big mistake there,' Baldwin said." ( http://www.newscoast.com/frontpage/story.cfm?ID=65960 )

Texas

The two Democratic candidates for the Senate nomination debated yesterday, and things got pretty hot. ( http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/politics/1343792 )

Attention, opponents (and supporters) of provisional ballots: the Houston Chronicle discovered that election judges are often too lax in challenging them, finding that nearly 2,000 folks voted illegally in last month's primary. ( http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/politics/1343028 )

South Carolina

State elections commission chief James Hendrix passed away last night at the age of 58. ( http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/3003856.htm )

Missouri

Attorney General Ashcroft will spend the weekend in Missouri.

Massachusetts

The state GOP's convention is tomorrow, and despite Mitt Romney's calls for unity, some Republicans — and the state press — still are riled up over Romney's dissing of lieutenant governor candidate Jim Rappaport for a woman candidate. "One local chairman who supports Rappaport, Sarkis Chinian of Woburn, said as many as 150 delegates may walk out of the convention hall tomorrow afternoon to protest Romney's maneuvers, or leave Romney's name on the ballot." ( http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/095/metro/Romney_seeks_to_
calm_GOP+.shtml )

The Herald's Howie Carr gets brutal on Romney's choice for LG, who may be of a different gender but apparently not of a different income bracket. "What kind of wheels does she drive, you ask? She has a 2002 Lexus LX470 SUV, and of course, it's silver. List price: around $66,000 … Mitt's decided to run with Mrs. Thurston Howell III." ( http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/carr04052002.htm )

Bush Administration Strategy/Personality

On the Today program, on tape, Jamie Gangel gets another of her exclusive interviews with former President George H. W. Bush, with his usual "if I answer that question, Jamie, some young kid will be on the phone to the Washington bureau, saying 'Ask Ari Fleischer if 43 agrees with 41" banter. Man, that guy loves his oldest son a lot.

You wonder why we often let headlines speak for themselves?

"Vice President Dick Cheney barely mentions administration's new push for Mideast peace in KC stop," writes the Kansas City Star.

Instead, he talked about the tax cut as he raised money for Rep. Sam Graves (R). ( http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/3000248.htm )

The Tenneseean writes up Bush's Monday visit to Knoxville. The story says "[t]he White House reportedly supports former Gov. Lamar Alexander for the GOP nomination over Rep. Ed Bryant of Henderson," but we say: don't look for any Lamar-tilting during this visit. ( http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/02/04/15739726.shtml?Element_ID=15739726 )

Doesn't seem as though pilots are among the unions the White House is wooing. "The nation's five largest pilots unions have asked President Bush to intercede personally to let pilots arm themselves aboard commercial jets," USA Today reports. "The appeal to the president … comes after two top Bush officials said they oppose guns in cockpits … An administration spokesman said Thursday that Bush agrees with Ridge [that] arming pilots is unnecessary because of improvements in security, such as fortified cockpit doors and better screening." ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2002/04/05/usat-bottomstrip.htm

The Los Angeles Times ' Shogren reports, "The Pentagon had hoped that in George W. Bush, it had found a president who would lift [some] environmental restrictions in the name of national security. But now it could find itself locked in a bureaucratic battle with the Environmental Protection Agency, whose career staff has prepared for trench warfare against what it views as the Defense Department's assault on long-standing environmental rules and laws." ( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la
-000024412apr05.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Da%5Fsection )

"An official of the U.S. judiciary accused the Bush administration yesterday of slighting federal courts' 'urgent' needs for better protection against terrorist attack in the aftermath of Sept. 11. The Office of Management and Budget has refused to send Congress the courts' recent request for more than $250 million … asking instead for $14 million." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63466-2002Apr4.html )

Budget Politics

The Washington Post 's Kamen reports, "Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, sent a two-page letter to his Republican colleagues Wednesday applauding how 'GOP Tax Policy Creates Economic Growth.' One of several topics, highlighted in bold type on the letter, said: 'The recession was the mildest in postwar history and is largely due to the major tax cut signed into law in June 2001.' Lot of Democrats would probably agree." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63912-2002Apr4.html )

Legislative Agenda

The The Wall Street Journal suggests that "Senate Democrats made clear they won't move forward with a major trade bill unless it includes a hefty trade-adjustment assistance package, a provision the White House opposes. Both sides accused the other of playing politics with an important trade issue, accusations that are expected to grow louder as the November election draws closer and the parties battle for control of the narrowly divided Senate."

"The differences of opinion over fast track are finding strong voices within the Senate, where the main fight is over a Democratic proposal to increase federal assistance — and provide temporary healthcare coverage — to workers who lose their jobs because of international trade. The spat over health care mirrors a similar brawl last year over the administration's unsuccessful stimulus package."

Remember that bill passed by the House at the urging of the White House, 245(i), to grant amnesty to illegal aliens currently living in the United States? Well, "[t]he Senate will shelve limited amnesty for illegal aliens and instead proceed next week with hearings on a border-security bill without an amnesty provision attached," the Washington Times reports. ( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020405-32505924.htm )

The The Wall Street Journal previews what they say will be a noonish announcement by the Labor Department on the administration's long-awaited plan on how to protect workers from on-the-job repetitive-stress injuries. Anticipating a plan that will rely heavily on voluntary compliance measures, the SSFM (that's Ted Kennedy) offers up some pre-emptively negative views.

Enron

Army Secretary Thomas White, in an interview with the Washington Post , insists that the professional help he received from Enron, "including a letter of recommendation from then-Chairman Kenneth L. Lay and rides to and from Washington on the company's jet," was "entirely appropriate." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63490-2002Apr4.html )

The The Wall Street Journal says: "The AFL-CIO turns up the heat (for legislation) with town-hall meetings to discuss overhaul of pensions and corporate governance in midterm-election battlegrounds of Minnesota, Georgia and New Hampshire."

Remember, once upon a time, when one of the biggest battlefields in US politics was which major party could better capture the hearts and minds (and wallets) of the leaders of the new high-tech economy, especially in Silicon Valley? Well those days aren't really gone, just a bit out of focus because of the war.

Don't think the Republicans haven't figured out that all this Enron-generated bashing and threats to change the way companies operate by the Democrats just might give the GOP an opening to push hard again to capture the financial support of the techies, who have been leaders in trying to stave off many of the tax and benefit changes that Congress is now considering.

So when John Doerr says "Leave Options Alone" on the op-ed page of the New York Times , don't think that finance directors from the major party committees don't notice. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/opinion/05DOER.html )

The New York Times big-thinks the changing nature of workers' contributions to their own pensions on the front page. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/business/05PENS.html )

*One fewer hour for John Kerry to run for president.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.