Note Archives, updated weekly.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

Even though he had taken some steps to line up staff and plot out a pre-announcement tour to key early states, Daschle has now dropped seamlessly — and indeed, seemingly even more enthusiastically than before — back into his role as Democrats' leading opposition voice in Washington, just in time to face off against President Bush as the POTUS rolls out his tax cuts and his renomination of Judge Pickering.

On the economic plan, Democrats are mystified that the president would propose such a — as they see it — political loser. But it may take significantly more message/communications and political deftness than the Democrats recently have shown, circa 1999-2003, to make the president pay a political price for proposing measures that, no matter how you slice it, disproportionately benefit the rich.

Most of the coverage remains skeptical about supply side, and hand-wringing over the deficit, but most implicitly assumes that something along the lines of the POTUS' plan will get by Congress before too long.

We've seen this movie before: Ari Fleischer will seek to set the tone and the bar each day until the bill-signing ceremony, during which the president will declare that whatever has passed is exactly what he wanted, and what the country needs.

The president's macro message (and that of his party) is "we want lots more tax cuts," while Democrats are left trying to talk tax cuts, but also, inevitably, saying things that make them at least SEEM opposed to tax cuts generally, and that is a match-up in which George "Dubya" Bush is 2 for 2 in national elections.

And Democrats are, not coincidently, 0 for 2.

And on Pickering and other judicial renominations, Democrats collectively seem to be a little slower in mustering up the opposition, but that could've had something to do with the White House sneaking (we think it's fair to say) the news out there at dinnertime yesterday.

President Bush and Laura Bush today mark the first anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act (with Senator Ted Kennedy shadowing them on what he still sees as insufficient funding), after which President Bush will meet with the bipartisan House and Senate leadership.

(We bet the president will SEEM gracious with Daschle over his quasi drop-out, and ask Leader Pelosi how that nice daughter of hers is doing.)

Many Democrats viewed a Daschle presidential run as potentially disastrous for the party, because while he would have attempted to both run and serve as Leader for a few months, he would be practically distracted in the Senate, and perhaps forced to take positions that wouldn't necessarily be in the party's best interest.

Also, he would not be able to lead party fundraising efforts and would have hamstrung the Senate campaign committee in both fundraising and recruiting.

And he probably would have been replaced by Senator Harry Reid, who gets seemingly universal praise for his whipping skills but whom some Democrats find to be an ineffective message deliverer.

Even among those Daschle advisers who were open to his running for president, we can't find anyone who seems crushed that he's not going for it.

We would love a little tick-tock on what happened between about 6:00 p.m.-ish (during which there was plenty of job interviewing and event-lining-up work going on for "Daschle for President") and about 10:45 p.m.-ish Monday night (when the Senator's chief of staff, Pete Rouse, is said to have been called by the Man Himself and was told that it was a no-go). Most other key Daschle advisers weren't told of the news until yesterday morning.

Such a last-minute switcheroo by a "normal" Democrat would be looked upon as extremely flaky by a lot of people, but Daschle has such tremendous goodwill within the party (and the party, again, is so generally happy that he isn't running) that one barely hears a peep about that — no Cuomo comparisons, no sense of diminishment of Daschle. Although certain segments of The Note can barely contain themselves.

As for the Daschle assets, not too many money people were fully lined up; about half the operatives will likely sit out the race; about half will go to various other campaigns; the Policy Marks will go back to trying to get every American child health insurance; and stuff like that.

Given how crowded the party's presidential field is getting, and the media's obsession with cause and effect, the press was quick to try to figure out winners and losers.

"Everyone in the Democratic field will benefit in some way from Daschle's decision, particularly in campaign contributions that otherwise might not have been available," notes Mr. Balz in the Washington Post . "But the most relieved may have been former House minority leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). He will not have to run against a close friend and will have an even greater advantage in Iowa … " LINK

"Daschle had received conflicting advice as he considered a campaign, with some advisers arguing that he was more valuable to the party as Democratic leader in the Senate than as one of at least a half-dozen presidential candidates."

"Without Daschle as leader, they maintained, Democrats would have less cohesion as the opposition party in Congress and would have more difficulty recruiting candidates and raising the money for Senate races in 2004."

Per the Boston Globe 's Johnson: "His departure should also benefit Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, according to one political analyst, because it removes direct competition for a bloc of Democratic voters." LINK

"'Kerry is becoming the favored candidate among the upscale, issue-oriented, high-minded, well-educated Democrats, the kind of people who liked Michael Dukakis and Bill Bradley, the NPR crowd,' said analyst William Schneider of the American Enterprise Institute. He said polling showed Daschle receiving support from the same voters, so his absence from the field should benefit Kerry."

A McClatchy correspondent muses in the Raleigh News & Observer, Senator John "Edwards also may benefit from the disappearance of Daschle. He now is more likely to claim a top slot in the Iowa caucuses, which were won by Gore in 2000." LINK

Thanks to Ms. Keen for making our segue from 2004 to the Bush economic plan: "Bush is betting that $674 billion in tax relief would prompt economic growth and spur the creation of jobs by year's end. That would reinforce his rationale for a second term and neutralize a line of attack from Democrats who want his job." LINK

"Bush, in a speech with flourishes of populist rhetoric, used the language of supply-side economists, who argued in the 1980s that tax cuts would actually increase government receipts," writes Mr. Milbank. LINK

And he says Senator John Breaux really doesn't like the package.

Neither do the nation's governors. LINK

Ron Brownstein big-thinks, in his Los Angeles Times must-read: "The huge new round of tax cuts President Bush proposed Tuesday, building on policies he has already advanced, could reshape the federal government's role in society as profoundly as the tax and spending plans President Reagan drove into law more than 20 years ago." LINK

"Combined with the prospect of war in Iraq and the administration's promise of major structural reform in Medicare, the plan underscores Bush's determination to leverage large changes in policy from a small majority in Congress."

"It also demonstrates his willingness — even eagerness — to advance ideas that sharpen the differences between the parties, even at the cost of polarizing opinion in Washington and around the country."

"The new plan would dramatically accelerate the shift in fiscal policy Bush began in 2001."

John Harwood (now having to compete only with Norah O'Donnell, and not Tom Daschle, on his Saturday dance party) suspiciously makes much the same point in his The Wall Street Journal column, ending thusly: "Mr. Bush so far has proved remarkably effective in operating with narrow political margins. That's a strategy of necessity because, despite his post-Sept. 11 popularity, the president still hasn't drastically expanded his party's base. And there's scant reason to believe his economic package will help him do so."

More from John Breaux: "Breaux said some moderate Republicans have privately indicated they believe the plan will increase the deficit too much and may seek to retrench it. Bush is 'going to have to compromise on a lot of things, or it is not going to get passed,' he said."

Sage Jonathan Weisman writes, "The president's determination to push more tax cuts as the nation prepares for war has struck some economists as folly, since the economic shock of war would likely dwarf the impact of Bush's stimulus plan. Moreover, no tax policy at the moment could actually address what many economists believe to be the greatest drag on the nation's economy: the uncertainty of war." LINK

On the renominations of Judges Pickering and Owen, we've seen statements from Senator Chuck Schumer and from NARAL, which issued overnight, "These two nominees were rejected specifically because of their hostility to the civil and constitutional rights of women and African-Americans. That President Bush could do this in the aftermath of the Trent Lott debacle is an insult to all fair-minded Americans."

"Democratic officials said they were stunned Bush would reopen the fight so soon after Lott resigned as Senate Republican leader because of outrage over his praise for the segregationist presidential ticket of 1948," say the Washington Post 's Allen and Lane. LINK

"The White House announcement, made at dinnertime on the day Bush unveiled his economic plan, seemed designed to minimize attention. A senior administration official said the timing was worked out with Senate Republican leaders, who wanted to immediately begin reconsidering the nominations — one of the major advantages to a GOP Senate that Bush cited while campaigning this fall."

"The new majority leader, Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), supports Pickering, an aide said."

"The Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) plans to schedule hearings swiftly, an aide said."

"A Democratic Senate strategist said opposition to Pickering and Owen remains 'deep and wide,' and aides said several senators would filibuster if necessary."

Watch the 2004 contenders jockey on this one.

The Daschle News

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, fresh off perhaps its "oopsiest" headline in history (not that it was their fault), reports that Daschle made up his mind near midnight.

(Yes — well after the paper had gone to bed. See: LINK

… then see: LINK

The Argus also has the freshest reporting on Linda Daschle, who, it suggests, was never fully on board. (Get it? On board? She's an airline lobbyist. Oh, never mind.) LINK

"Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota said that until about 10 a.m. Tuesday, "my assumption was that Tom was going to run." Johnson said he had begun making plans, based on advice from Daschle aides, to join his colleague in Aberdeen — Daschle's hometown — for the announcement Saturday."

"'So I was a little surprised when Tom called early on this morning, (and) said he had been talking to Linda and his kids, given it a lot of thought, and felt that a presidential run wasn't what he felt like doing,' Johnson said."

"There was no single factor that influenced his decision, Daschle said."

"Linda Daschle had expressed reservations about her husband running for president in an interview with Gannett News Service nearly two years ago. But in an interview last month, Daschle said his wife had changed her position and would be supportive if he chose to run. 'Now she's reading What It Takes: The Road to the White House' by Richard Ben Cramer,' he said Tuesday."

Surprisingly, Daschle didn't speak to his hometown newspaper yesterday. "Requests by the American News to speak to him were declined." LINK

The newspaper offers these suggestions, the first of which strikes us as mildly bizarre, and all of which suggest he was influenced by some mysterious outside pressure.

"This wouldn't be the first time the 55-year-old Aberdeen native has been mentioned as a vice presidential candidate. Perhaps something is in the works with another candidate, although Daschle saying he wants to run for Senate again seems to contradict this scenario."

"Family members may have changed his mind. In the past, his wife Linda has expressed concerns about his running for president. These may have resurfaced as a decision drew near, although most recently she's said she'd support any decision her husband made."

"There have been numerous threats against Daschle in recent years. Standing or perhaps new threats could have changed his mind."

In a companion article by the same writer, the reporting suggests that Daschle simply chose otherwise. Though one Democrat who met with him Saturday night, Deb Knecht, said he was enthusiastic, former Senator George McGovern, who knows a thing or two about long presidential bids, said his own conversation with Daschle on Saturday was more equivocal. LINK

We wondered where that left former Gov. and now House Rep. Bill Janklow and narrowly defeated Rep. John Thune, both of whom were said to be preparing for a bid for Daschle's seat should it be open. LINK

The Des Moines Register make scant mention of Daschle's chances in the caucuses were he to run. LINK

The New Congress

The Washington Post 's VandeHei reports on potential problems within the Senate GOP conference, "Many Republicans expect Lott to seek retribution against Frist, Bush and other Republicans who he believes conspired against him. Lott, who spent 30 years climbing to the top, is considered a master of the Senate's arcane rules, which are full of traps to spring on unsuspecting political foes." LINK

"'Senators are likely to exact revenge on his behalf, while he's more likely to focus on rehabilitating his image,' said one Senate GOP leadership aide sympathetic to Lott. 'There's a lot of senior senators who are frustrated a junior senator is now their leader.'"

Is Jon Karl the only one who saw Lott allegedly snub Frist yesterday?

VandeHei adds, looking at how all those Senate Democrats running for president may bump into each other, too: "While the five senators will offer different visions for the Democratic Party, one cause will unite them: their desire to sharpen criticism of the president and his policies. By Washington standards, Democrats feel Bush was treated too benignly over the past two years. They plan a two-year campaign to blame him for the sputtering economy and holes in domestic security. The threat of war in Iraq and another possible terrorist attack here are sure to color the scene."

The Washington Times crows over this marquee bout from yesterday: "Senator Bill Frist's honeymoon as majority leader lasted about as long as it took to swear in this year's new slate of senators, thanks to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton," who offered an amendment to double the length of the extension of unemployment benefits. LINK

"Mr. Frist's Republican colleagues in the Senate said it would take more to rattle their new leader than what he experienced on his first day. 'There are some Democrats who will challenge and teach him a lot more than he wanted to know about floor procedure,' said Senator Christopher S. Bond, Missouri Republican. 'But I think he can handle it.'"

Sister Reps. Loretta and Linda Sanchez get Los Angeles Times coverage. LINK

The Washington Post 's Style section dishes on yesterday's ceremonies. LINK

Budget Politics

Senator Chuck Grassley said the president's proposal to drop the top marginal tax rate from 38.6% to 35% would be the most difficult element to pass. LINK

The Hill's Eisele gets this to-be-expected quote from Grassley: "'The president should not take the attitude that he has a free hand with Congress, even though that may be accurate … If he does, he'll be in trouble. He's got to show the proper respect for Congress.'" LINK

Slate's William Saletan argues that while the dividend tax cut plan appears to be targeted at seniors, it's targeted at rich seniors, and therefore, at the rich. LINK

Here's a great paragraph from one of the Wall Street Journal stories on the president's plan: "The latest economic initiative would be the fourth fiscal-stimulus package enacted since Mr. Bush took office. It follows the big 2001 tax cuts, $2.1 trillion over 10 years; the smaller emergency-spending program after the Sept. 11 terror attacks; and the temporary tax incentive for business investment passed in the spring of 2002. Those plans helped cushion the effect of the 2001 recession but have yet to get economic growth close to the pace of the 1990s. Since Mr. Bush took over, the U.S. has lost 1.5 million jobs."

This Journal graph does a nice job of laying out the efficacy (as opposed to the fairness) debate: "Mr. Hubbard, the White House economist, argues that rate cuts for the top earners are the most important economically. He estimates that half the taxpayers in the top 1% of earners are small-business owners, whose decisions to spend and invest are greatly motivated by their tax rate. Alan Blinder, a Clinton administration economist, says the 1990s show just the opposite. In 1993, the top tax rate was raised to 39.6%, and business investment went on a decade-long splurge."

Future Bush hosts Pataki and Bloomberg seem to be trying that age-old trick that works on a lot of reporters: try not to answer hard questions that are in the news on a given day ("Do you like the Bush plan?"), on the assumption that the media pack will be forced to accept your "I need more time to study it" answer and then have moved on before you ever actually have to respond. LINK and LINK

The New York Post unfurls its own Totally Yuppie Tax Family, who seem to think the Bush plan is better than a Friday night, 8:00 p.m. table at Babbo. LINK

Lou Dobbs seems to like the plan, too. LINK

The Wall Street Journal ed board is deeply, fully in love: "The notion put forward by the deficit hawks that this will send interest rates to the sky and the economy six feet under is deeply silly. Deficits are the result of weak or negative economic growth, not the other way around. The best way to close a deficit is through strong economic growth."

"Mr. Bush is offering, on balance, an excellent program to prevent the economy from weakening amid the short-term uncertainties of war and expensive oil. And by wringing out some of the tax barriers to economic efficiency, he is also creating the conditions for better long-term growth. A bull's-eye, for sure."

R. Glenn Hubbard's Wall Street Journal op-ed praises the plan that he helped design, and doesn't seem to mention deficits.

We have grown weary of trying to convince those of you who don't have a clue what the alternate minimum tax is that Attention Must Be Paid, so if you don't already care, skip the next paragraph.

Looksie for the re-elect politics in this, from the Wall Street Journal : "As a down payment on addressing a tax trap that will ensnare tens of millions of households over the next few years, the administration proposed about $29 billion of tax breaks to protect people from the alternative minimum tax. But the relief would expire after 2005, forcing lawmakers to address the problem again — after the 2004 election — when it will affect vastly more people."

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary

A close friend of Senator Bob Graham's told us yesterday that whereas the Florida Democrat had a toe in the water in January, he now has dipped a full foot (that is, five toes).

Another adviser confirmed that Graham continued to sound out his core group of fundraisers from campaigns past. Wethinks he is still over a week away from deciding, however.

The Orlando Sentinel has an article that places Graham on the precipice of running for president. LINK

"The Democratic senator's planned breakfast with investment giant Warren Buffett is another indication that Graham is serious about challenging President Bush in 2004."

"The meeting with one of the world's richest men — a close friend of the Graham family — is just another in a series of sessions Florida's senior senator has scheduled, including talks with Washington campaign experts. He is also phoning potential supporters who could help launch a campaign in the early battlefields of Iowa and New Hampshire."

Speaking of — according to a few knowledgeable Iowa Democrats, if Graham has contacted prominent caucus activists, he's keeping it very quiet. A spokesman for the chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party told ABCNEWS that Graham has had no formal or informal contact with him.

Would Graham's famous workdays become a part of his campaign? LINK

The New Haven Register reports that Sen, Joseph Lieberman told allies Monday that he will announce his candidacy next Monday in Stamford. LINK

"Lieberman, who has made no secret of his desire to run, has, so far, held off on a formal announcement and generally kept the details quiet. But in an interview Tuesday, he … acknowledged that his announcement 'may very well come very early next week.'"

"Lieberman, who lives in New Haven, is treading a delicate line because his Senate colleague and close friend Senator Christopher J. Dodd is also considering a run for president."

"Dodd said Tuesday that he is still 'giving it some thought' and he is expected to announce his plans later this month. But he also noted that any thoughts about running for Senate Democratic leader were now out of the question."

Just about everyone already in the race issued a statement attacking the president's plan yesterday.

Edwards' hometown paper uses Joe Lieberman as the lead opposition to the president's economic plan; Edwards gets a quote in a sidebar. LINK

The Boston Globe 's Kornblut and Blanton report: "Some Democrats, such as Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who is running for president, support the notion [of eliminating the tax on dividends], though an aide said yesterday that Kerry would not back the overall Bush plan, because it is too expensive and too skewed toward the rich." LINK

In an op-ed double whammy, Senator Joe Lieberman whales on the administration's North Korea policy in the Washington Post , and together with Senator John McCain, tries to sell their global warming bill in the Los Angeles Times . LINK and LINK

We are being warned away from the theory that the Republican National Committee is sending out press releases attacking Senator John Edwards and none of the other Democratic presidential candidates, because Republicans fear Edwards as a challenger to Bush more than the others.

One RNC source advises that the reason why we're seeing Edwards research lately is because the initial round of oppo on him is finished — "not real difficult to research when you have 4 yrs experience and zero accomplishments." The source promises that research on the other Democrats is coming soon.

Well: let's see it.

Edwards seems to be doing well in the all-important David Broder Primary, based on what Broder lists as geography, personal talent, and "smarts:" "Edwards brings enough solid assets to the wide-open race that his credentials are worth examining — even if his shortcomings are also apparent." LINK

And yet, "[a]t 49, he is a decade younger than most of the other Democrats, but he looks even younger — not exactly the profile for a prospective wartime commander in chief."

"And the same ambition that has jet-propelled his career can stir suspicions. Edwards has not foreclosed the possibility of running for reelection to a second term in the Senate next year, but many of the Democrats I know in North Carolina — and virtually all the Republicans — believe he has burned his bridges behind him. Votes he has cast on labor union matters and some social issues have won favor from important national Democratic constituencies but do not sit well with many voters at home."

"In Iowa, site of the leadoff caucuses, Edwards showered local candidates last year with computers and other equipment they could use in their races. It gained him attention, but some of those I met there last summer thought it came close to suggesting that their support was for sale."

"And television is still a risk for this highly telegenic candidate."

Remember our question about Al Sharpton's exploratory committee on Monday?

Two possible answers: Sharpton told PoliticsNh.com, which asked about our little essay, that he hadn't accepted any checks or money yet, so he had no need to set up an exploratory account. LINK

Which caused a few of our neurons to fire because he's held fundraisers for his pre-exploratory effort or whatever it turns out to be. And what the heck does this mean, then? LINK

Maybe he hasn't cashed the checks yet?

A Republican lawyer says that so long as Sharpton didn't do anything that would be considered candidate-like, he might be able to get away with not filing. FEC rules are fuzzy.

But doesn't he still have to register his exploratory bank account with the IRS and the FEC? (In order to set up a bank account, he'd have needed to fill out form SS4 — LINK — which would have allowed him to obtain a taxpayer identification number.)

We haven't been able to reach Sharpton's aides (our fault, not theirs), but we'll try to get to the bottom of this.

But, we do have to ask: would any other "serious" candidate for president be allowed to get away with something like this with this little press and opposition and interest group scrutiny?

The Manchester Union Leader waxes gleeful at the Democratic field. LINK

There is so much to be annoyed about in the New York Times editorial about Democrats raising money for 2004 that, to paraphrase Ray Donovan, where do we go to get our one dollar back? LINK

Cindy Adams has back-to-back items about Lieberman (and smut) and the difficulty of returning store items. LINK

Will anything concrete ever happen with this: "Those close to Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware have said that he's considering a run." LINK

The Washington Times ' Z. Hallow covered former Gov. Mario Cuomo's class-warfare critique at the National Press Club yesterday and reports that Cuomo "singled out former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as a good candidate for the 2004 nomination. In an interview before his speech, Mr. Cuomo expressed doubt that New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the best Democrat to challenge Mr. Bush in 2004." LINK

"Some Democrats see a liberal affinity between him and Mrs. Clinton, but Mr. Cuomo denied any such relationship and took the opportunity to criticize Mrs. Clinton's husband, the former president. 'I was very much irritated by the statement [President Clinton] made after the collapse of the [Clinton] health care plan [in 1994], where he said, "The era of big government is over."'"

"Mr. Cuomo said he is comfortable with all the Democrats who have declared so far — North Carolina Senator John Edwards, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt and Mr. Dean."

Heads up, campaigns: New Hampshire Democrats have rescheduled their previously postponed (due to snow) state chair election and the election of other officers to January 25. We're told that Ms. Sullivan is running unopposed. Send your fruit baskets now.

And another heads up: in an SEIU e-mail praising their outgoing political director Luis Navarro, who we told you yesterday is joining up with the Kerry campaign as political director, we learned that Gina Glantz is being put in charge of the union's presidential endorsement process. Send your fruit baskets now.

Politics

Retired Rep. Dick Armey has a really lovely op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about his vision of private-sector-led change.

The Hill reports, "The Federal Election Commission is moving to adopt regulations that top Republicans and Democrats fear will destroy leadership political action committees (PACs) as effective tools of power and influence on Capitol Hill." Among other effects, "[t]he FEC's proposals could also deal a blow to Democratic lawmakers now edging toward a run for the presidency because they had hoped to rely on PACs to meet campaign travel expenses." http://www.thehill.com/news/010803/pacs.asp )x

"Senior figures in both parties are concerned, so much so that a bipartisan effort is already underway to ensure leadership PACs are not neutered, a House GOP leadership aide said. The source said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were involved."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will deliver the Democratic response to the president's radio address on Saturday.

If you're craving wall-to-wall coverage of the Jeb Bush inaugural yesterday, check LINK .

Could it BE any more obvious that President Bush is trying to neutralize Mayor Daley for '04 by courting him every chance he gets? Karl Rove would like to leave office having made Illinois, once again, part of the GOP electoral college lock.

Attention to our RNC sources: Governor Racicot said on Imus that he talked to Senator Lott a couple of times during the controversy, which we guess he didn't tell you about.

Although we were too shy to approach Joe McQuaid at the Willard Hotel party for the New Hampshire delegation last night (he is SO intimidating!), we did come up with a new program idea for WMUR: kind of a "Granite State Star Search" in which the comedy teams of "Rath and Griffin" and "Sununu and Gregg" face off doing dozensy one-liners.

We would suggest Joel Maiola as host, but he seems wholly indifferent to being mentioned in The Note, so we are pitching Lisa Harrison for the host slot. For now.

Retired Senator Strom Thurmond will move to a nursing home suit in his hometown of Edgefield, SC. LINK

Bush Administration Strategy/Personality

Maureen Dowd becomes the first person in North American history to attack Ruth Messinger and Karl Rove in the same column. LINK

Governor Racicot had to confess on Imus that he hadn't read MoDo's opus.

Jonathan Karl reviews David Frum's book for the Wall Street Journal (D10). His verdict: Frum still "seems to need more time" to figure out how the Bush presidency moved "so swiftly from fecklessness to firm command."