Note Archives, updated weekly.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

Do you live closer to a Starbucks or to a Walmart?

Do you attend church regularly, or not so much?

We aren't casting blame today or saying what ought to be, but on matters domestic and foreign, what IS, is this: Washington is a seven-ring circus of bitter partisanship today, and that has become the norm.

A president who lost the popular vote and who took the helm of a 50-50 nation promising to change the tone and work with Democrats just like he did in Texas has found that Tom Daschle is no Bob Bullock.

Any trace of September 11-induced bipartisan ethos has worn off. And public opinion polling and the reaction to the State of the Union is largely split along party lines.

Democrats now see George W. Bush the way Republicans saw Bill Clinton, questioning his motives and judgment on foreign policy, saying he runs the most political White House of all time, and that he is engaged in short-term fixes and avoiding long-term problems.

Republicans, for their part, seem to have adopted the Sidney Blumenthal/Cheryl Mills mentality of saying that the opposition is waking up every day with a craven, demonic plan to undermine the president and the presidency.

There are "our" people, and there are "their" people, and unless you work at one of those mercenary bipartisan lobbying shops, you probably don't have any reason to ever do a darn thing but question the motives of the other side.

All of this has been fostered by the Democrats new Absolut CW, shared by every strategist in the party: the mantra is that the only way to succeed now and in 2004 is to get in Mr. Bush's face and aggressively take him on, all the time, on everything.

The ringing endorsement of the SOTU by the Wall Street Journal ed board's lead piece today will only raise Democratic suspicions: "In two short years the liberal establishment has changed its view of President Bush from a not-so-bright scion without an agenda to an evil, even radical, genius. The new view is just as false as the old, but after listening to his State of the Union speech, we can understand their anxiety: They're afraid the Bush project might succeed."

And the closing graph is hardly a paean to bipartisanship: "In his two years in office, Mr. Bush has confounded Washington and his media-Democratic critics, not just because he's not as dumb as they thought but because he views the White House as more than a nice place to live. He means to accomplish big things, he is risking his capital to persuade the country to support him, and his fellow Republicans in particular should understand that if he and his agenda fail, so will they."

Consider what's on tap for today — all topics dancing in the head of Gigot & Co. like so many sugarplums of freedom: the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Miguel Estrada, Senator Tom Harkin's expected hold on Treasury Secretary-designate John Snow's nomination, more warring over the budget, more warring over Medicare, and more warring over the war.

Plus, Vice President Cheney will deliver the first of two high-noontime speeches in a row to audiences of Republican faithful, and let's just say that the White House doesn't typically roll out Cheney to do the warm-and-fuzzy stuff.

Cheney today will address the Conservative Political Action Conference in Arlington, VA. Tomorrow, he'll address the Republican National Committee's winter meeting at the Mayflower Hotel.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will be one of the main repositories of the "New Partisanship" today. Judge Estrada got a supportive Republican National Committee press release yesterday. LINK

As noted, Senator Harkin is expected to place a hold on John Snow's nomination, which comes up for a committee vote this morning. LINK

And Senator Daschle's office declared yesterday that Senator Kent Conrad will deliver the weekly Democratic radio address on Saturday — that'd be the Senator Conrad who just said, "The president's agenda is reckless and threatens the long-term fiscal health of the nation." LINK

The war continues to be Topic A today, with Medicare close on its heels. Senators Kennedy and Byrd get plenty of coverage for their "obstructionist" moves on the war yesterday.

The Democrats' relatively new aggressiveness on the war is most certainly causing some churning underneath.

Democratic "Party strategists continue to worry about the fervent anti-war feelings among their base voters, who are far more stringently anti-Bush on foreign policy than the electorate as a whole," report Roll Call 's Preston and Kane. "In particular, strategists are concerned how these dovish feelings among base voters will play out in the presidential nominating contest over the next year, whether the eventual nominee will have been moved too far to the left to appeal to centrist voters in the fall of 2004."

"Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), a presidential aspirant whose most prominent backer is Kennedy, also paused when asked about his senior Senator's demand for another vote on Iraq. He said he wanted to talk about the issue more with Kennedy, while indicating a generic support for another resolution that would end up with the same result."

"'It's always helpful to have people affirming things before we go to war, but it's not always necessary,' he said."

Deborah Orin is revolted by her own sources!

On the war, Ms. Orin's column is sure to be tacked up on the Republican National Committee bulletin board at the Mayflower (which sells about 10 copies of the New York Post each day): "'If you support Bush on Iraq and he wins, you gain zip,' explained a Democratic strategist. 'If you support him and he loses, you lose along with him. But if you oppose him and things go bad, you stand to be a big winner.'" LINK

"That is both breathtaking and revolting."

"At a time when U.S. troops seem headed in harm's way, this strategist — and several other Democrats who are disgusted with their own party — suggest some Dems are calculating they could gain politically if there are body bags."

"'They're playing politics with war. It's as if they are setting themselves up for failure. They must have taken too many trade missions to France,' says a Democratic activist."

And while there aren't too many Democrats supporting the president on his domestic agenda right now, Republicans are being quieter than usual, in part because even key members don't have many details about the Medicare gambit, and let's just say that the president's stirring SOTU defense of the dividend tax cut didn't seem to rally the troops — yet — all that much.

The Washington Post 's VandeHei writes, "Even though the president enjoys GOP control of both houses of Congress, a confluence of Democrats' rising anger and moderate Republicans' wariness is producing some of the biggest obstacles of his presidency. Senate Democratic centrists, who worked with Bush to enact tax cuts and education reforms in the past, are furious with the president's tactics in last year's elections and are refusing to work with him on key policies." LINK

VandeHei smartly cribs from the must-read Sunday Outlook piece by Brookings scholar EJ Dionne, and re-interviews Senator Landrieu about just how mad Democrats are about the president's conduct during the election.

And no less authorities on (bi)partisanship than Senators Breaux and Hagel say things are rubbed raw between this President and congressional Dems.

"And with deficits soaring, many Republicans are sour on his plan to eliminate the double taxation of dividends and are worried that his Medicare plan could send federal spending to dangerous heights."

"Even in the House, where Republicans have a sufficiently disciplined majority to work their will, Bush's tax plan faces trouble. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) has refused to endorse the dividend plan, while Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has been pressured by chief executives representing technology companies to consider a different approach."

"Privately, several GOP leaders expressed concern with Bush's plan but made it clear that they have no intention of breaking with the president in public. It's this sort of allegiance that gives top White House officials reason to believe the president will get his way on the economic front."

"A Bush victory, however, might make it harder to enact the crown jewel of his domestic agenda: providing prescription drug coverage to Medicare recipients."

The Washington Post 's Weisman emphasizes, 'The newly expanding deficits — which some nongovernment analysts expect to be even larger than the CBO predicts — also could mean higher interest rates and will make it even more difficult for Congress and the White House to enact promised new programs, such as a prescription drug benefit for seniors." LINK

Just asking: If the White House is still consulting, and doesn't have more than the outlines of its Medicare plan, how do they know it will cost $400 billion?

Moderate Republican Senator Snowe tells Susan Page that she couldn't support a Medicare reform plan "that conditions access to a prescription-drug benefit on enrolling in a managed-care program." LINK

The White House gets rapped in the print press for its refusal to answer certain questions on Medicare yesterday, though only a few go so far as to point out that Bush's speech, which was billed as a Medicare/prescription drug speech, consisted of about three minutes of Medicare and 40-plus on the war.

The Detroit News leads with this: "President Bush was supposed to lay out specifics Wednesday for the first overhaul of Medicare, but his lack of detail left analysts and legislators puzzled." LINK

Ms. Goldstein notes in the Washington Post that "the White House remained conspicuously silent about exactly how it wants to redesign the insurance program for the elderly even as the president traveled to the Midwest to begin selling the idea." LINK

"Administration officials who accompanied Bush here today repeatedly skirted a central question that is drawing fire from Democratic critics: Does the White House intend to make popular new drug benefits available to older Americans who remain in the original form of Medicare — or only to those willing to sign up for a new version of the program that relies on managed care?"

The Washington Times ' Curl notes, "In a sudden openness not seen since the early days of the Bush administration, White House aides offered extensive briefings — on and off the record, in person and via conference call — covering many of the president's new initiatives. No official, however, answered questions about the new Medicare plan." LINK

The New York Times leads: "With President Bush on the road promoting his $400 billion plan to revamp Medicare, members of Congress from both parties expressed doubts about its feasibility today, forcing administration officials to reconsider important elements of the package … " LINK

Look how similar the Wall Street Journal 's lead is! "But the plan is running into early resistance from Republicans — even before basic details are released — because it envisions offering the drug benefit only to seniors who agree to leave the traditional Medicare program for a newfangled private alternative."

More from the Times : "Republican members of Congress said today that they did not know enough about the proposal to support it."

"But some Republicans said they were very concerned that Mr. Bush's plan might not provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries in the traditional fee-for-service program. Most of them had not been able to get details of Mr. Bush's proposal … "

"Daniel T. Boston, a health care lobbyist with close ties to the Republicans, said tonight: 'Three powerful chairmen of Congressional committees — Representatives Bill Thomas and Billy Tauzin and Senator Chuck Grassley — have expressed concern about some features of the Bush plan, and one can only imagine that this would lead the administration to reconsider elements of its Medicare package.'"

"Republican lawmakers said, with some frustration, that no one from the administration had stepped forth in public to explain the president's proposal or to answer its critics."

"The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, said the critics were wrong to suggest that Medicare beneficiaries would have to join H.M.O.'s to get drug coverage."

"'That's absolutely false,' Mr. DeLay said. But his rebuttal was revealing. 'We're not even close to understanding what the president's going to propose,' said Mr. DeLay, a Texas Republican … "

"Administration officials said today that Mr. Bush would soon send Congress a detailed proposal for overhauling Medicare, and some of the ideas might stir heated debate."

"For example, many beneficiaries — especially those who use doctors' services but not hospitals — would be required to pay higher deductibles."

"The government would charge a new co-payment for home health services, tentatively set at $10 for each of the first five visits in a spell of illness, up to $300 a year."

The Times has yet another story hand-wringing over the missing details, but raising lots of questions. LINK

"Initiatives in President Bush's 2003 agenda are aimed at voters who have opposed him and at independent swing voters as he prepares for re-election next year, political and policy analysts" told Don Lambro. LINK

"Despite items geared toward strengthening his conservative base, such as tax cuts, private Social Security investment accounts and banning late-term abortions, some of Mr. Bush's supply-side supporters are not happy about several of the spending initiatives."

It's Thursday, which means "Friends" is on ("Monica sings"), and Al Hunt has published a column saying the Bush White House is poll-driven, and the president's tax plans aren't populist.

The Boston Globe 's Johnson goes back to Liberty, MO and finds "a widespread faith in the president's personal constitution and respect for his political judgment, despite opinion polls that show a sag in Bush's popularity rating nationally." LINK

SOTU, continued

The New York Times ' Nagourney finds Republicans in rapture over The Speech, about which the chair of the California Republican party says "It was a motivating speech for the hard core, and a motivating speech for the soft core." LINK

Some of the papers tick-tock the AIDS announcement, including the New York Times . LINK

The Washington Post 's Allen and Blustein look at the administration's change of heart: "The announcement represented a marked change from the position shortly after Bush took office, when a top official publicly questioned the wisdom of trying to save the lives of Africans who had contracted HIV … Now the president is proposing that Washington spend lavishly on the AIDS pandemic in Africa and the Caribbean." LINK

And we love this kicker: "Several administration officials have become friends of Bono … "

The Boston Globe 's Donnelly finds this 43 hallmark in the surprise rollout: "activists said the proposal also suggests that the United States wants to act unilaterally and does not trust global coalitions." LINK

David Broder takes his whack at deciphering the speech, also finding a war-focused Bush, who "wandered the byways of domestic policy … , but made no effort to convince anyone that anything 'decisive' would occur on Capitol Hill or even that he felt any personal urgency about such things as his 'Healthy Forests Initiative.'" LINK

"Politically, Bush is required to act as if he cares about the gamut of issues from abortion to wildfires. The economy is a real concern to his political advisers; it defeated his father. But the remarkable thing is that the son has almost conceded to the Democrats the common-sense and popular positions on the economy. Washington Gov. Gary Locke, delivering the Democratic response, had all the easy points to make: Focus tax cuts on the middle-class, not the rich; help the state and local governments finance urgent needs; provide prescription drugs for all the elderly; and avoid long-term tax cuts that feed escalating deficits and threaten Social Security."

Are you constitutionally required to read any Peggy Noonan piece about President Bush that contains the words, "This, truly, is a good man … There is a profound authenticity to him, and a fearlessness too … More and more this presidency is feeling like a gift"? LINK

Pretty much.

Todd Purdum does Bush's "moral clarity" in the New York Times . LINK

The Wall Street Journal ed board seems to think the hydrogen car proposal is bad policy and craven politics.

Big Casino budget politics

Mr. Gosselin of the Los Angeles Times , following Alan Murray's lead from earlier this week, turns out a must-read on the war is the economy is the war: "In Tuesday's State of the Union address and in the budget he is expected to release next week, Bush is pursuing a strategy evident since the 2001 terrorist attacks — one of trying to strictly separate the nation's economic issues from its national security concerns." LINK

"But the economy and war have not stayed in the distinct, hermetically sealed boxes as the president had hoped … As a result, analysts say, Bush's success at influencing the economy in the coming months will have less to do with cutting the tax on stock dividends than with prosecuting a speedy and successful war."

"That hasn't stopped Bush from declaring that he is out to cure what ails the economy and to do it almost exclusively with tax breaks. Indeed, the administration quietly signaled Wednesday that it has more breaks in mind … Administration officials appear ready to insert a proposal in the 2004 budget they will release next week that would create new 'lifetime savings accounts' … "

"The combination could prove popular with affluent Americans and might even be a moneymaker for the government in the short term. But critics say that it would eventually free most savings and investment income from taxation and, in the process, demolish a keystone of the nation's progressive tax system."

"In some respects, it is clear why Bush continues to push economic proposals that are trumped for now by his war plans. He wants to show he is ready to step in, as he did after Sept. 11, to offset some of the growth-dampening fears that war and the danger of further terrorist attacks could produce."

"Politically, he wants to once again inoculate himself against the fate of his father … ."

"And of course, if the U.S. strikes a decisive blow against Iraq, this president wants to have planted policy proposals that he can reap in the victory lap the country would almost certainly grant him in the aftermath of a battlefield win."

"But analysts say there are other, less obvious motives behind the administration's two-track approach. In essence, Bush has continued to push tax cut-heavy economic proposals as a means of protecting his tax cut agenda from the charge it has been rendered unaffordable in the new, more dangerous world since Sept 11."

"The awkwardness of the administration's two-track approach has been apparent from the outset."

The New York Times takes a light romp through all the day's Big Casino developments. LINK

Meanwhile, the states hack and cut away. For example, witness "McGreevey Will Propose Cuts in Prescription Drug Benefits" — LINK — and "Pataki Calls for Big Cuts in Education and Health Care." LINK

The Economy

Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times surveys those who think Washington might be too optimistic about the economy. LINK

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary

USA Today 's Drinkard rings the alarm bell about the public financing of presidential elections, and implicitly lays out why the president is financially in such a catbird seat for re-election, assuming he chooses to run again.

"Advocates of public financing fear that could lead to the system's unraveling and bring back the influence of wealthy contributors that it was designed to eliminate when it was created after the Watergate scandal in the 1970s." LINK

There's a lot of interesting (albeit boilerplate-y) stuff here, but Drinkard's speculation about Democrats opting out of public financing (unless Kerry chooses to self-finance) still seems silly to us.

Per a New Democrat Coalition source who was in the room yesterday as four of the party's presidential candidates trooped through for closed-press speeches and Q&A, the only one who got truly tough questions from the members was Senator John Edwards, who got grilled on civil liberties and trade.

Senator Bob Graham was quizzed about the war; Senator Joe Lieberman, a familiar face to the group already, got what the source described as "softballs;" and Senator John Kerry was asked about how he will try to appeal to voters across the party's ideological and regional spectrum.

All four candidates — Edwards, Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman — said that Democrats need to take on Bush much more aggressively. The source said that none of the candidates can claim any kind of monopoly on this group of superdelegates.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

We could keep this to ourselves, Michael Barone, but we are the caring and sharing kind:

Thanks to the nation-trotting David Broder, the world knew that Karl Rove had committed to give a talk at St. Anselm.

Now the world knows the scheduled date for Rove's speech: March 12. More details forthcoming.

John DiStaso's column notes Rep. Dick Gephardt's New Hampshire sign-ups, and then cites "local" Gephardt sources blaming a conflict for missing the February 27 NHDP cattle call. LINK

DiStaso says that Senator Kerry also plans not to be at the event, because of a scheduling conflict, which, one must say, seriously downgrades this thing.

DiStaso gets into some Roger Simon-Erik Smith back-and-forth which we are virtually certain would be considered unintelligible to your average waitress at Banana's in Portsmouth LINK , but we ate it up.

Also this: "Accepting invitations so far are North Carolina Senator John Edwards, Dean and Sharpton. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman has said he will probably attend, while also turning down invites are former Colorado Senator Gary Hart, retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Florida Senator Bob Graham, for medical reasons."

And this: "With Bill Shaheen already in his corner, [Sen]. Kerry, not surprisingly, is aggressively pursuing the endorsement of former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. The two are expected to chat shortly about many matters political."

And finally, he notes that Carol Moseley-Braun plans to speak in the state on February 16.

EDWARDS

Senator John Edwards yesterday named Rob Tully and Roxanne Conlin as his Iowa co-chairs; Rob Berntsen, chief of staff to the Secretary of State, as his Iowa caucus director; and Aaron Pickrell, chief of staff to Rep. Leonard Boswell, as his Iowa political director.

Not to be overlooked: Pete Giangreco of The Strategy Group will be a senior adviser to the Iowa team.

The Des Moines Register localizes the staff announcements, but this paragraph, both explanatory and laudatory, caught our eye: "Edwards had planned to talk to Iowa reporters about the news but was unable to because an explosion at a North Carolina pharmaceutical plant required his attention Wednesday afternoon." LINK

The Quad City Times says Edwards will visit Iowa on February 17. LINK

The Wall Street Journal editorial page runs the text of "an e-mailed invitation to a fundraiser for Senator John Edwards (D., N.C.) at the New Jersey home of Rachel and Christopher Placitella. Mr. Placitella, a partner at Wilentz Goldman and Spitzer, heads the firm's Toxic and Mass Torts Litigation department and served as New Jersey's counsel against the tobacco industry. He has litigated asbestos and diet drug class action suits."

No smoking gun, but reflective of two different worldviews, indeed, about the role of the trial bar in our free society.

KERRY

The Hotline's Chuck Todd says that January has been berry, berry good for Senator John Kerry.

GEPHARDT

Roll Call 's Billings and Cillizza report on Gephardt's courting of members of Congress, a/k/a superdelegates, and that he "is preparing to form a whip group of key House supporters to recruit more lawmakers to his cause." He has five public endorsements from members so far.

"Gephardt's focus on lining up the House Democratic Caucus behind his candidacy is part of a larger dual-pronged strategy designed to develop key fundraising outposts throughout the country while also piling up superdelegates who would support him at the 2004 Democratic convention."

"Members who were intimately involved in Gephardt's 1988 presidential bid — like Gordon — are once again playing an active role … Others considered likely be part of Gephardt's inner circle include: Reps. Bob Brady (Pa.), John Murtha (Pa.), Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), John Tanner (Tenn.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Robert Andrews (N.J.)."

"And, while Gephardt appears to be doing a solid job calling on his Caucus, there are potentially rough seas ahead."

"Some Democrats are privately concerned whether, after Gephardt's unsuccessful 1988 presidential bid and eight years of frustration in trying retake control of the House, he is the right person for the party to choose."

The Boston Phoenix's Seth Gitell gets the gross from Gephardt's New England fundraising swing: about $100,000. LINK

And Gitell quotes Gephardt campaign manager Steve Murphy thusly: "Nobody is going to win this election based on money or regional ties. It's going to come with the candidate who best connects with voters and is the best messenger."

HART

Reasons to look forward to Matt Bai's profile of Gary Hart in the forthcoming New York Times Magazine: the oddly scene-setting depiction of the black turtleneck, white wine, and mixed nuts; the pondering of the possibility that "Hart probably made it possible for Clinton to rise above the issue a few years later" (presumably you don't need to ask what "the issue" is); and the mention of Baltimore Mayor Marty O'Malley as a Hart protégé, which puts Al From just two degrees away.

GRAHAM

According to the St. Pete Times, Senator Bob Graham will:
1) have his surgery Friday
2) run for President (almost certainly)
3) decide by March 1.

"After a closed-door speech to a Democratic group, Graham described himself as 'the best-prepared (candidate), with a combination of executive and senatorial experience, particularly in national security areas. I think I am the most able to win.'" LINK

Maybe it's too simple a point to make, but the more candidates in the race who have defined fundraising bases (Edwards: trial lawyers; Lieberman: Jews; Graham: Florida, etc.), the more difficult it will be for any of them to double-dip and hit the semi-magic $10 million number by June.

Of course, by March 30, when books close on the first quarter, we could be proven profoundly wrong. But we are betting not.

BIDEN

Senator Joe Biden today will address the annual meeting of the World Affairs Council, which is focusing on "U.S. & Asia: What Does the Future Hold." Biden's hourlong participation will start at 3:00 p.m. and will include brief remarks of about 10 minutes, followed by Q&A. In the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

POLITICS

Fred Dicker is cheering on Mayor Bloomberg to form a team to take on the Pataki budget posture. LINK

Memo to the Mayor: this is not an easy guy to stare down.

We mean Pataki, by the way, and not Dicker, who is, in fact, quite easy to stare down.

Garry South seeks to draw more blood from beneath Arnold's thin skin with an almost palpably gleeful Los Angeles Times op-ed. LINK

Bush Administration strategy/personality

"William H. Donaldson, nominated by President Bush to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, has promised to sell all of his multimillion-dollar portfolio of stocks and other investments, keeping only pension payments of about $31,000 a year, according to financial disclosure papers released by the White House yesterday." LINK

Bob Novak's reference to his pre-SOTU briefing with a Senior Administration Official (almost at the top level, ya think? you're underestimating) kicks off his column this morning.

"Emotionally and eloquently, George W. Bush in his second State of the Union sounded like a war president. Yet, hours before the address, the White House at the highest level stressed that the president had made no final decision on using U.S. arms to remove Saddam Hussein from power." LINK

"On the day before the speech, a source officially described as a 'Senior Administration Official' insisted that President Bush is undecided 'on whether or not to use troops, because this issue can be resolved peacefully.' A few minutes later, he repeated himself to me: 'Novak thinks (the president) made up his mind on troops. The president wants to make it clear. He hasn't made up his mind on troops.'"