Note Archives, updated weekly.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

While the TV news hole last night and this morning barely had room to permit coverage of the major spending and tax changes proposed by the president of the United States, the newspapers did clear a lot space for this momentous budget.

There is much in this budget that will affect American daily life, and American politics, even if one can't feel the ground shifting today amidst the swirl of events that surely FEEL bigger right now.

Much of the coverage is analytical and good, and there are some must-reads out there, excerpted for you below. The overall tone of the coverage suggests that the opposition party has a lot with which to work, and that those reporters who choose to poke around for blind quotes from uneasy GOP lawmakers may not have to look too far (just don't bother with Don Nickles).

And that's BEFORE the Medicare details have been released — or even, maybe, figured out.

In fact, Janet Hook leads today, "many of the plan's major components are already in trouble on Capitol Hill." LINK

"Republican leaders are 'trying to walk a tightrope,' said Richard May, a former GOP staff director of the House Budget Committee. 'They are trying to be supportive of the president, but they don't want to look like they are a rubber stamp.'"

And none of them wants to become 2004's Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky …

"Also potentially problematic among Bush's fellow Republicans is his decision to accept huge deficits for the foreseeable future — $1.1 trillion over the next five years. Bush is, in effect, proposing a watershed change in GOP fiscal policy, abandoning the party's 1990s preoccupation with balancing the budget and reducing the size of government."

"Republicans from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum are queasy about the flood of red ink: Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick (R-S.C.), a conservative, wants to further squeeze domestic spending to reduce the deficit, while moderate Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) wants to roll back the size of Bush's proposed tax cut."

But the upshot is that there almost certainly will be a Republican-passed budget this year — probably passing, like Bill Clinton's 1994 budget, largely but not wholly along party lines — which will at least somewhat resemble what the president has outlined.

And there almost certainly will be a signing ceremony in which the president will be surrounded by smiling GOPers talking about how they are turning America around after those horrid Clinton-Gore years.

But focus on the bigger picture: Politically, all that will really matter is whether the economy is better by November 2004, in which case this budget will look ingenious.

Or, if the nation's public and private finances are still shaky by then, this budget will look disastrous.

At some point, real people in real states will feel the effects, good and ill, of whatever passes.

The major paper in at least one state (and one not chosen randomly by The Note's 1,000 monkeys doing 1,000 Google searches) sees some effects on the horizon: The president's budget cuts programs for rural Iowa, according to the Des Moines Register . LINK

There are huge potential political implications lurking within all of the major aspects of this budget (and some of the minor ones), but The Note today will focus mainly on the big picture, starting first and foremost with how this is all related to Bush's re-election campaign.

Keen and McQuillan write in USA Today : "In many ways, Bush's budget is a re-election manifesto. He will defend his choices as difficult but necessary, especially in the context of the war on terrorism. He is betting that spending more on security will prevent another attack. He is betting that tax cuts will revive the economy and he'll be able to claim in his next campaign that his policies worked." LINK

"It's almost inevitable that Democrats who accused Bush of irresponsibility Monday will try to restore programs and add billions of dollars to Bush's spending proposal. When that happens, it's inevitable that Bush will accuse them of busting the budget and ignoring his fiscal restraint."

"The outcome of that debate will shape the 2004 campaign."

And the Washington Times ' Lambro asserts, "President Bush's proposed budget bears the stamp of the campaign agenda he will run on next year and the chief concerns that voters have about the economy, terrorism, education and health costs." LINK

"The budget's proposals to cut income-tax rates this year that are not due to take effect until 2004 and 2006 drew the strongest support from Mr. Bush's political base yesterday and the most criticism from his opponents."

But, "[i]n a line of criticism from the other side of the political spectrum, several of Mr. Bush's allies backed the tax cuts and the spending cuts, but said he could do more to reduce spending."

The Washington Post 's Weisman observes that with his budget, "President Bush appears to have stepped back from his 'compassionate conservatism' agenda and picked up the fallen standard of the Reagan Revolution," calling Bush's proposed new tax cuts "tax changes Ronald Reagan could only dream of." LINK

"The words 'ambitious' and 'bold' — even 'radical' — rolled off the tongues of supporters yesterday as they digested the five-inch stack of books that make up the 2004 budget request. Detractors chose another word: 'hubris.'"

"Even some Republicans were amazed at the president's ambitions for a single budget plan — and the eye-popping deficits it is expected to create."

David Rosenbaum's New York Times story dispenses with any pretense: "Beyond its scope, the budget differs from those of other recent presidents in two important ways. Nowhere does Mr. Bush make balancing the budget an important goal. And he makes no claim that the era of big government is over, or even nearing an end." LINK

Again, if what passes gets the economy moving, Republicans, including the president, will be in good shape for 2004, no matter how much blood is put on the floor during the process (and how much social change is enacted through what passes).

And Rosenbaum (in Jimmy the Greek mode) clearly took our advice and got the secret transcripts of some of those Rove-Blunt-Frist strategy calls, since he seems to believe that the administration can walk (fight the war) and chew gum (push its domestic agenda) at the same time:

"The early line is that Congress will initially balk at the president's spending priorities — large spending increases for the military, domestic security and veterans and not much new money for anything else — but eventually adopt the priorities more or less intact."

"Taxes are another matter. Some form of tax reduction will probably be adopted. And it will probably be sufficiently like what the president proposed that he can call it the Bush tax cut when he runs for re-election next year."

Rosenbaum is clearly no supply-sider (since he apparently sees nothing in the plan that would reduce the deficit), and he seems skeptical of the president's claim that he wants to preserve and protect Medicare ("Medicare is, along with Social Security, the most popular government program ever devised. Any president who tries to dismantle it is taking a huge risk.")

Alan Murray, writing in his Wall Street Journal column, positively hates this budget, but he only now notices something he should have spotted back when it was the job of Alexandria Pelosi and Frank Bruni to police George W. Bush's fiscal vision: "Meanwhile, can anyone name a single program that Mr. Bush has said he wants to eliminate? I can't. The trick of the president's 2004 budget is to propose big increases in every program you can think of and then squeeze the numbers of all the ones you can't."

Then Murray does his best Kent Conrad imitiation in his last three paragraphs, which, again, he could have written in 1999, if he had only listened to Ms. Sarah Bianchi LINK : "That will leave three choices: 1) sharply reduce spending on Medicare and Social Security; 2) sharply reduce spending on everything else the government does; or 3) let federal spending grow in the next three decades to a size equal to 25% to 30% of the economy, up from just under 20% today."

"Mr. Bush's aggressive tax cuts are part of a strategy to take option No. 3 off the table. But his actions during the past two years suggest he doesn't have much of an appetite for option No. 2 either. That leaves Medicare and Social Security. The president says he's solidly in favor of revamping those programs for the elderly, but he's still sorely short on the details of how his changes will save money."

"The politics of this are easy to grasp; people like free lunches. But in his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush made this promise: 'We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations.' On the fiscal front, he still has a long way to go to fulfill that promise."

And, read our lips: the Wall Street Journal 's main story leads with all the restraints in growth that seem to thematically offset some of the highlighted increases (in AIDS, for example, and housing), and then says this: "The president, who has made his mark as a tax-cutter, tucked a surprise into the 2,866-page budget: $2.1 billion in new or higher fees for various recipients of federal services, from visa applicants to meat producers to higher-income veterans seeking health care. The budget also includes several tax-loophole closers, which conservatives and businesses see as disguised tax increases."

Elisabeth Bumiller says, "Mr. Bush's budget sets aside $400 billion over the next 10 years to overhaul Medicare, and offers a photograph of the president framed by a large backdrop of a 'Strengthening Medicare' sign from a recent event. But the budget offers no significant new details on how Mr. Bush will change the program." LINK "It also does not answer the fundamental question, which administration officials have so far declined to answer, of whether the elderly will have to leave their fee-for-service Medicare plans for health maintenance organizations to get insurance coverage for prescription drugs."

A poetically brief Wall Street Journal story details how, um, details of the health changes are still in short supply: "Officials wouldn't say how much of the $400 billion is meant to pay for medications. 'I could, but I won't,' Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said with a smile when asked. He added that the administration is 'very close' to providing more details on its proposal."

The Democrats lobbed a lot of press conferences and press releases in this past news cycle, but we can't say we see any evidence that much of it stuck to the wall.

Deficit hawk Jake Tapper gets the Concord Coalition to actually express some outrage, and Senator Conrad to open a window into where his party is on all this: "How will politics affect any of this? When asked if Democrats had strategized on how best to use the president's deficits as a political tool, Conrad said, 'Uh, no.'" LINK

As has been pointed out elsewhere, but remains true, Democrats still haven't figured out how to overcome the cognitive dissonance of being against Bush deficits, AND against cutbacks in spending.

As Noted above, President Bush will fly to Houston today to speak at the memorial service at the Johnson Space Center, his sole public event for today, as anticipation builds for Secretary Powell's budget-obscuring appearance at the United Nations tomorrow.

Mr. Brownstein writes up the results of the latest Los Angeles Times poll, which shows that "most Americans remain reluctant to invade Iraq without explicit U.N. authorization, though a narrow majority would support acting with a smaller coalition of willing nations." LINK

In the poll, Bush's overall job approval has dropped "to 56%. That is … as low as he has ever received in a Times Poll during his presidency."

Ron notes that "confidence in Bush's personal qualities — along with unwavering support from his GOP base — appears to be the foundation of his continuing political strength. For instance, when those who approve of Bush's performance as president were asked why, they overwhelmingly pointed to not policies but personal attributes: 30% said he was a strong leader and 15% called him trustworthy."

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer lunched with the Washington Times ed board and said that for "Democrats to win a majority in Congress, they must present a plan for fiscal discipline and building the economy while not getting trounced on national and homeland security." Hoyer "said that means proving to voters that Democrats have credibility on security issues." LINK

And the Washington Post reports, "The administration is expected to ask the high court this month for permission to participate in the April 1 oral arguments over race-conscious admissions policies at the University of Michigan and its law school, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity." LINK

The Politics of Space

For several generations, space has been a crucial fact of Florida politics. A few mavericks aside, Sunshine State Democrats and Republicans have supported massive spending increases for the US space program.

Although flight centers are scattered across Alabama, Maryland, California, Texas and elsewhere, Florida politicians of both parties have done as much to drive space budgets as any others.

And since there hasn't been a big tragedy in awhile, the international space station was allowed to go over budget, space shuttles blasted off and landed, and robots traipsed through dust on Mars.

In Florida, there were few disagreements. Dissent — like a belief that (hu)manned space exploration was dangerous and less efficient than robotic voyages — is rarely heard. When President Clinton and Congress flatlined spending for certain programs, some state Democrats reluctantly took the blame; their guy was in power and they couldn't convince him to push for more money.

With Republicans controlling the White House, Florida Republicans who supported the space program might have hoped to use their White House connection to lobby for higher budgets.

Bill Nelson is arguably the US Senator most closely allied with the space program's lobby and its interests. He grew up with the space program. He became an astronaut. He has complained for a few years now that the government wasn't properly funding NASA.

But competitive politics is fueled by gut feelings and perceived slights.

Add the specter of "exploiting a tragedy" and you get this: "In an early sign that partisanship will play a role in the Post -Columbia debate over national space policy, Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday criticized U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida for his highly publicized assertions that the White House has "starved" NASA and jeopardized safety." LINK

"Bush, a Republican and the younger brother of President Bush, accused the Democrat of manipulating numbers to give the impression the space agency's budget has been stagnant."

"'There have been increases in funding,' said the governor, comparing Nelson's remarks about NASA's budget to those by Democrats in the state capital who use per-capita numbers and the inflation rate to accuse him of failing to boost education funding while, in fact, real dollars have increased. 'But he wants to frame it in a way that makes it seem like there hasn't been.'"

"Bush also took a swipe — without specifically referring to Nelson — at politicians who have been dominating the airwaves since Saturday."

"Nelson, who flew aboard Columbia as a congressman in 1986 and now sits on key space-related committees, has appeared on virtually every major TV talk show to press the case that NASA is vastly under funded."

"Nelson, the state's junior senator who was elected in 2000, is emerging as a key player on Capitol Hill on space policy and is likely to be a central figure in upcoming hearings on Columbia. He is also viewed as a potential Democratic vice presidential contender in 2004."

"There's a proper role for first, in a dignified way, showing respect,' Bush said. 'I'm not the kind of person that wants to get out front if it's not appropriate. Right now is the time to show our respect for incredible heroes, courageous men and women who take these risks knowingly, provide support and love for their loved ones and show solidarity with the employees.'"

Amidst the tragedy, Orlando residents choose a new mayor today. LINK

The sharp-eyed (or is it "eared" when you're talking about "bristling?") Mr. Milbank noted that White House officials "bristled at questions of whether the administration gave enough attention to earlier warnings about shuttle safety." LINK

Both David Broder and EJ Dionne tie the tragedy to government attention to, and spending on safety. LINK and LINK

The Chicago Tribune's resident historian genius (think Beschloss, without the tan) is Mike Tackett, and he has a brilliant piece today on space and politics, that he got by listening to the Kennedy White House tapes: President Kennedy wanted to beat the Russians more than he wanted to establish a permanent presence for humans in space.

"'This is important for political reasons, international political reasons,' Kennedy told then-NASA Administrator James Webb in a heated conversation at the White House. 'Everything that we do should be tied into getting onto the moon ahead of the Russians. Otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money,' Kennedy added, according to White House tapes. 'Because I am not that interested in space." LINK

Did it really take Don Imus this long to realize that Nancy Gibbs' writing rocks?

Big Casino Budget Politics

Among the thousands (or so it seems) Wall Street Journal stories on the budget are: one about how there isn't much in the budget for fiscally ailing states; one about how defense spending doesn't seem all that stimulative these days; one about a provision that seems to make it impossible to filibuster ANWR; a David Rogers story revisiting his favorite notion that the lack of a current budget makes it impossible to come up with a baseline, thus making spending "increases" questionable; and one about the administration's economic assumptions being somewhat rosy, although the New York Times version of that takes the opposite view.

One Big Casino Washington Post story in the paper's business section (also not staffed by supply-siders) focuses on how the tax cuts "would drastically reduce government revenue for years to come." LINK

"In the 10 years projected by the Treasury Department, the Bush plan would reduce federal revenue by $1.46 trillion — almost two-thirds in the second five years."

The dog that didn't bark: Paul Krugman decided to wait to write a column attacking the Bush budget, simply calling for an end to (hu)manned space travel today. LINK

The New York Times ed board, however, doesn't hold back its venom for the budget. LINK

Nor does the Washington Post ed board, which takes on Bush's lifetime savings accounts … LINK

… and the ranking members of the Senate and House budget committees have a Post op-ed. LINK

The Wall Street Journal ed board doesn't much mind the deficit, in part because they like anything (like the Bush tax cuts) that keep Congress from spending more money. And, in a separate piece, they love the Bush military budget.

USA Today 's Hall looks at criticism that the amount provided for the new homeland security department won't be enough. LINK

The Los Angeles Times has a good look at Bush's proposals on social services. LINK

Here's the link to the Washington Post 's agency-by-agency breakdown of the Bush budget: LINK

Anti-tax conservatives around the country are keeping careful watch on which GOP governors deal with their budget crunches with tax increases, and which ones are going to try to do it without. Those on the fence should look at what The Wall Street Journal ed board does to the president's friend Johnny Rowland today.

Legislative Agenda

Keep your eyes open: two of the big second-term agenda items for this President (is he runs for, and wins a second term) are going to be Social Security reform and tax simplification.

Many budget stories note today the failure of this year's budget to deal with the former, and the New York Times picks today of all days to review the latter, with this intriguing graph: "These problems, and many others, might be dealt with in a single stroke if the nation moved to a radically different tax system, like a flat tax that imposes a uniform rate on wage income above a certain threshold, or a national sales tax. The latter idea has been advocated by R. Glenn Hubbard, the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers; the Treasury Department has been researching several similar options." LINK

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary

Oh, so this is what you were referring to, Jano.

Lloyd Grove today writes, "We wonder if presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, who made much of his Jewish heritage when he was the Democratic vice presidential nominee last time out, feels threatened by rivals who are poaching on his territory. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), who yesterday told the Boston Globe about his Czech Jewish grandfather (who changed his name to Kerry from Kohn) and a Jewish grandmother, is only the latest candidate to stake his claim. In recent weeks, Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who is considering a run, revealed to the Forward newspaper that he descends 'from generations of rabbis' in Minsk, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has touted his Jewish wife and children. But Lieberman campaign press secretary Jano Cabrera told us the Connecticut senator isn't worried: 'Oy vey. All this talk about who is Jewish and who isn't is absolutely meshuga. That said, there's only one candidate in this race with a real lox box.'" LINK

Biden

It's tough to gauge just how serious Senator Joe Biden is in seeking the presidency in 2004. The guy muses about it one minute, then talks up Senator John Kerry the next. Biden and colleagues Bob Graham and Chris Dodd continue to keep the Democratic field somewhat in flux because their entries could affect the course of the race.

Anyway: it appears that Senator Biden recently made a pilgramage to Westchester, NY to meet with the gatekeeper of the party's presidential process, the FPOTUS.

Given the Senator's willingness to talk about his national security chats with 43 and Dr. Rice, we bet just one little question from a home-state reporter (or a someone sitting next to him on the Amtrak) will get the Senator to spill all about what happened.

Kerry

The Boston Globe 's Vennochi makes Mike Kranish's report on Kerry's roots a second-day (Sunday-Tuesday) story, running the John McLaughlin interview from 1993 that the Kerry folks helpfully forwarded around yesterday, and getting introspective: "The revelations about Kerry's roots underscore a fundamental problem at the heart of his quest to be president. Ethnicity is not the issue; being a mensch could help. But Kerry's confusion about his heritage mirrors a larger confusion about his essence: Who is he? What does he believe in? Whether the issue is war with Iraq or support for affirmative action, his political core is hard to pin down, perhaps as difficult as his personal roots." LINK

Rush and Molloy (like the AP) picks up the Boston Globe 's item on Kerry's roots. LINK

Lieberman

A University of Connecticut poll gives Senator Joe Lieberman a narrow lead in his state in a hypothetical Bush vs. Lieberman matchup. LINK

Gephardt

Good news for the Congressman from Missouri: he reportedly drew more than 300 young New York Democrats into a bar to hear him speak, and got labor all excited.

Bad news: a healthy percentage of the group watches C-SPAN regularly, and they have heard his "people see me in airports all the time but never quite know who I am" line, and his "I know what's happening to kids in your generation: my daughter was making $17 thousand a year as a teacher and lived with us … " line somewhere between 17 and 300 times each already.

Edwards

We know some things about some of the key fundraisers who Senator Edwards won the hearts and minds of during his "weekend" trip to New York (just how many days WAS the guy in town, we wonder?).

But we just aren't quite ready to tell you them yet.

Like his Democratic rivals, Senator John Edwards is unhappy about the president's budget. LINK

Remember that Christopher Hitchens puff piece on Edwards for Vanity Fair? The one where he wrote about dining out with the Edwardses and about seeing the Edwards toddlers taking a bath (which made us kind of shudder)?

Well, Lloyd Grove has this today: "In the new issue of Doublethink, a Washington-based right-wing quarterly, Hitchens reveals that he plans to support President Bush's reelection campaign … 'I don't believe in [Edwards],' Hitchens tells Doublethink interviewer Tom Ivancie. 'I mean, I told him I wouldn't vote for him. . . . Because I'd vote for Bush. The important thing is this: Is a candidate completely serious about prosecuting the war on theocratic terrorism to the fullest extent? Only Bush is.' Hitchens also scoffs at the Everyman pitch of the millionaire trial lawyer turned North Carolina senator: 'Oh, that's all [bleep]. . . . Spare us the false populism.'" LINK

PoliticsNh.Com's Pindell chronicles Elizabeth Edwards' first solo visit to New Hampshire, favorably comparing her to … Hillary Clinton. "Elizabeth Edwards became first the wife of a presidential candidate to make a solo trip to New Hampshire on Saturday going to a retirement home, a luncheon honoring the legislative career of a key supporter of her husband, and making a few house parties." LINK

"It is true that Elizabeth is from North Carolina, she met John in law school, is one of the most active political wives in the current presidential field, and is widely considered smarter that her trial lawyer husband that won millions dazzling juries. But according to New Hampshire Democrats Elizabeth is not Hillary."

"'Hillary was more cerebral,' said State Senator Lou D'Allesandro, who hosted a house party for Elizabeth Saturday. 'Elizabeth is more into tune how issues effect people like me. She is more down to earth. She speaks to you, not at or above you, and looks you in the face.'"

"Not only was it the first time for New Hampshire this cycle to see a presidential candidate's wife without their husband, it was the first time Elizabeth has campaigned in any of the early presidential states."

"From the subdivision's street one could look inside to the brightly light living room of D'Allesandro's home. With cold rain drizzling outside, there was Elizabeth in a simple black pant suit in the corner of the living room fidgeting with a 3 x 5 card containing talking points. Throughout most of her 10 minute talk she had the note card wrapped around her left pointer."

Sharpton

"Rev. Al Sharpton took to the pulpit with a fiery sermon that had the congregation shouting praise and filling a special collection basket for his fledgling presidential bid." http://examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.black.0203w

If this San Francisco Examiner story is accurate, we'd ask this question: Can you solicit and collect contributions in church?

Political candidates can speak from pulpits, provided that others are given the same opportunity. See FECA Section 431 and Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. And legislation authored by Rep. Walter Jones to allow churches to use the collection plate for political purposes is making its way through the House.

Did Sharpton's campaign record who gave them money?

Reached this morning, and FEC spokeswoman said that "churches enjoy a tax exempt status" with the IRS. "That precludes them from participating directly in the partisan political process."

Sharpton spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger called the Examiner article "erroneous." She said the money collected would go directly to Sharpton's National Action Network organization and not to his exploratory committee.

An IRS spokesperson couldn't be reached for comment.

Politics

David Magleby's Center For the Study of Elections showcased the results of their latest election cycle-long project to quantify and qualify political communication in key Senate and House races. Dozens of academics and volunteers were involved.

Their invaluable 350 page book lays out the broad theme of interest group spending and provides answers to questions like these:
-- How much money did the SEIU spend in Iowa?
-- Why the League of Conservation Voters ran funny ads in Colorado and stern ads in South Dakota
-- Who Democrats used to turn out the black vote in Arkansas
-- Where the NFIB, Chamber of Commerce and BIPAC really exerted their influence
-- What was it like behind the scenes of the great South Dakota ground war?
-- Where Republicans used "pullers" to push non-voters into voting on election day
-- What types of contrast ads work in New Hampshire

The Note attended their briefing and learned a few other things:

The Chamber of Commerce's Bill Miller admitted that brand protection was a key component of their thinking because had the group spent heavily on television, their opponents might have easily linked business scandals (bad) to the group's reputation (good).

The Club for Growth's Steve Moore said that, on reflection, he probably couldn't raise $1 million to try and defeat Senator John McCain. He also said that the Club was weighing involvement in a potential primary challenge to Senator Arlen Specter, though he said that Specter had asked (pleaded with) the Club not to intervene.

The NEA conceded that Democrats lost their issue advantage on education and the group had a difficult time, given the lack of a congressional vote on education spending, in coming up with contrast ads.

Many of those in attendance conceded that targeting marginal or swing voters at the expense of revving up the base didn't work too well in 2002.

Smart Democrats in one state used bright orange cards to counter an NRA's direct mailing, itself a collection of bright orange cards.

The National Press Club serves a killer tomato soup.

Note intern Ed Hornick stopped by the WWE's "Smackdown Your Vote" event at the National Press Club yesterday. Needless to say, he thought Rep. Bob Ney, who was in attendance, could have easily smacked down WWE Superstar Kurt "What?" Angle, probably because professional wrestling is fake and enjoys dabbling in the improbable. (Maybe if Ney could use voting styluses? And who would look better in tights. Enough. ENOUGH.)

Anyway, the WWE's voter registration program began before the wrestlers caved to the World Wildlife Fund's lawyers (get it — WWF?) and changed their last initial. They claim success in years past and hope to sign up a million 18 to 30 year olds before 2004.

"Bill Clinton, who has criticized President Bush's tax cuts and foreign policy, apparently will broaden his attack to include so-called 'global warming.' The former president plans to appear at a free Rolling Stones concert Thursday at Los Angeles' Staples Center, where he will make a speech from the stage about the importance of fighting global warming, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nonprofit group staging the gig … About 12,000 fans won tickets to the show in an Internet drawing last month, while others received passes through nationwide radio station giveaways, the Associated Press reports." LINK

Ralph Z. Hallow wraps up the Republican National Committee's winter meeting last week, leading with high-level mourning for the lost Diet Cokes. LINK

For a guy who loves Paris, Dick Morris sure hates France. LINK

Perhaps tacitly welcoming his old friend Tom King to the fray, Charlie Cook does the early math in his CongressDaily AM column and concludes, at least for the time being, that Democrats will need a wave to net enough seats to take back the House.

Mr. Dan Allen, formerly press secretary for the GOP Senate campaign committee, will be staying on at the committee as communications director. Congrats, Dan.

Global Strategy Group is opening a Connecticut office. LINK

Can Carolina Hurricane box seats be too far away?