Note Archives, updated weekly.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

And you are probably sick of reading it.

So we'll jump right in and tell you that political pros are watching the president's poll numbers, even though they know the data is ultimate meaningless, as they are sure to rise in the short term with rally-round-the-flag predictability.

And the "political" event of the day, amidst a lot of war concerns that are life-and-death important, is the president's planned afternoon meeting with congressional leaders about his looming request for a war supplemental.

We think we know roughly what the president will ask for, and we also think we know roughly how the Republicans will react ("Yes, sir.").

The political question is, how will the minority party react to the request, substantively and politically?

With votes on the president's budget outlines in the pipeline, are Democrats in the mind to pick a Pentagon spending fight with the Commander in Chief while troops are in harm's way?

The White House appears to be betting "no," and it seems a Big Casino budget bet with pretty good odds behind it.

Roll Call figures it all out, ahead of the curve: "The president's ability to garner support for his agenda is enhanced now, especially when the topic relates directly or indirectly to the war on terror,' said one House GOP leadership aide."

Firestone and Hulse in Sunday's New York Times wrote a big long story about how the Republicans on the Hill are moving the president's domestic agenda as best they can during the war. LINK

Our calipers and abacus say that, while the story was serviceable, it only broke about 38% of the code.

Per ABCNEWS' Terry Moran, President Bush will be ubiquitous this week, and is conscious of his role as both a healer to the public and a military leader. And he surely knows he just might be able to leverage those two images in the budget wars.

And look for some public events this week to hammer on that hard.

Seeming to break some news, Paragraph 1 of the Mike and Dana Sunday Washington Post lead: "President Bush plans to tell congressional leaders on Monday that the war in Iraq will cost about $80 billion, administration officials said, three days after both chambers of Congress passed budget plans and authorized tax cuts without an estimate of the war's cost from the administration." LINK

Buried in Paragraph 12: "Bush has not formally signed off on the size of the package but is expected to give his approval during a meeting before he talks to the congressional leaders, the sources said."

Sometimes The Note doesn't even need to comment.

So we close this war-time Note summary with a fair-use-lawsuit-baiting looooooooooong excerpt from the Wall Street Journal 's team of Murray and Rogers, who has the freshest of details teeing things up. Read every word — there is key stuff here:

"President Bush is set to meet with congressional leaders Monday to discuss initial funding for the war in Iraq and is considering options expanding his authority to spend the money as he wants in the aftermath of the conflict or as part of the separate war against terrorism."

"The total White House requests are expected to reach to $70 billion to $75 billion and include additional funds for the departments of Homeland Security and State but relatively little for reconstruction of post-war Iraq."

"Draft legislation prepared by the Defense Department calls for a new $150 million fund to aid unspecified 'indigenous forces' assisting U.S. military operations overseas. At the same time, the Pentagon wants the discretion to distribute as much as $1.4 billion directly to allied governments such as Pakistan in return for logistical and operational support in Afghanistan and the search for al Qaeda terrorists."

"To resolve internal wrangling in the administration, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could use the spending authorities only in agreement with Secretary of State Colin Powell. Congress last summer flatly rejected a similar 'indigenous forces' provision when proposed at a much smaller scale by Mr. Rumsfeld. And the $1.4 billion to compensate foreign governments for logistical and operations support far outstrips any such prior military aid request by the Pentagon."

"The total defense request, about $62.6 billion, is based on Pentagon estimates for the continuing war against terrorism, the mobilization for Iraq and projected costs over the first 30 days of that conflict."

"In fact, the U.S. now hopes for a shorter war, and to maximize its discretion, the Pentagon would prefer to have most of this money — about $60 billion — allocated to a general emergency fund. In the past, leaders of the House and Senate the Appropriations committees have resisted this approach, demanding more specifics after consultation with the military services. But as now drafted, none of the Defense Department's estimates include the cost of a postwar occupation or the bringing home of military equipment and personnel. In the same way, the State Department portion, estimated near $5 billion, effectively postpones major decisions regarding the U.S. share in rebuilding post-war Iraq."

"Details on how much the administration will request for homeland security are sketchier. But congressional Republicans added $3.5 billion for such expenditures to their fiscal-2003 budget plan after consulting with the White House on Friday."

Today, the House meets in pro forma session. The Supreme Court takes up arguments at 10 a.m.

This week, the National Association of Manufacturers holds its public affairs conference in Tempe, Arizona.

Today, the National Education Association begins its Northeast Leadership Conference.

On Wednesday, the Michigan State Democratic Central Committee selects its caucus date, and former President Clinton is expected to speak in Iowa City, Iowa.

On Thursday, the government releases the rate of economic growth for the fourth quarter of last year.

And on Friday, the American Pharmaceutical Association meets in New Orleans.

The politics of war

: "The long-term political outlook for President Bush and his party is far from rosy, even if the war against Iraq goes extremely well," Stu Rothenberg writes in Roll Call .

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution takes its turn at the plate doing the "wither the Democrats during the war?" story, with the most distinctive feature being its quote from Frank Mankiewicz, whom most 20-something presidential campaign operatives doing their first race have, sadly, never heard of. LINK

Bob Novak's Sunday column is all over last week's Daschle matter: "Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle received poor reviews from all but the toughest anti-war Democrats for saying that President Bush had 'failed so miserably at diplomacy' to provoke combat with Iraq." LINK

"Two leading Democratic presidential hopefuls--Senator Joseph Lieberman and Rep. Richard Gephardt--were quick to disassociate themselves from Daschle. Many party operatives privately are saying that Daschle's words, taken out of context, can be used against Democrats in the 2004 elections."

"Daschle's harsh comments are attributed by Democratic critics to theories, widely shared inside the party, about Republican gains in the 2002 elections. Feeling that Democrats were too soft last year, Daschle may have overreacted."

By Monday's column, defending himself from attack by David Frum, Bob "Fear the Turtle" Novak is charitable enough to see Daschle "regrouping" in support of the troops and the war. LINK

Ron Brownstein sounds positively like David Broder (high praise, that) in his column today, sticking his obsession with the Bush tax cut and "mounting deficits at home" into there, along with Blair, McCain, tenacity, and obstinacy. LINK

So Brownstein is covering the war. LINK

And fresh off his Hong Kong dim sum story, so is R.W."J." Apple!!! LINK

With his breath of experience covering democracy, war, and public mood, every syllable Johnny writes from here on out is a must-read.

Sagacious nice guy Doyle McManus warns about the potential crashing of the public's high expectations. LINK

Judy Keen and Larry McQuillan look at the Bush message discipline in USA Today today. (Gannett people: we can't find the story on the web.)

Proving it is still possible to have original journalistic ideas in the fog of war, the New York Times Elisabeth Bumiller looks at how the administration of 43 keeps on learning from the administration of 41, with this most interesting of nuggets: "In an interview last week, Mr. Fleischer acknowledged that he had followed … (Marlin) Fitzwater's lead, and had also read every White House briefing by Mr. Fitzwater from Jan. 15 to March 1, 1991 — the most intense period of the news coverage of the first Persian Gulf war." LINK

In Sunday's Washington Post , Dan Balz looked at the partisan popularity of President Bush, and reveals for the uninitiated that Tom Cole is the quotiest freshman this side of Rahm Emanuel. LINK

Dashing Rich Galen had this quiz in Mullings that hit in-boxes around the world during the Oscars: LINK

· Pop Quiz #1: Name the two words which have not been heard, read, or seen since the first strike into Baghdad?

· Jacques Chirac.

But the alternative answer we suggested to Galen was "Karl Rove."

The economy:

How grim is the economic news in the Wall Street Journal today?

Almost too grim to imagine.

And we aren't just talking about the trio of A2 headlines: "Companies Still Teeter on the Brink," "Path of U.S. Economy Isn't Easy After End of War, History Shows," and "Cities Confront High Cost of Security." (Slightly tempered by A3's "Despite War, Consumers Keep Buying.")

No, make no mistake: the White House is working hard on the nation's airline problem, even in the midst of war, as the front page of the Journal makes really clear.

But the administration is having trouble figuring out what to do about it.

"The Iraqi war has pushed America's beleaguered airlines further into crisis, which has caused deep divisions among Bush administration policy makers over whether and how much to help some of the world's biggest carriers as they try to stave off financial collapse."

"A decision on federal assistance could come as early as Monday … "

"Treasury Secretary John Snow and Budget Director Mitchell Daniels have opposed more aid for airlines, according to industry lobbyists and administration officials. Mr. Snow, a former railroad executive, argued the government should ensure that airline service is available throughout the U.S., but not prop up weak carriers. This camp argues government aid would delay the inevitable shrinking and restructuring of the industry and its labor contracts."

"But White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta have argued that the administration cannot sit on the sidelines during these times of industry crisis. Mr. Card, who served as transportation secretary in the first Bush administration, directed the Transportation and Treasury departments and White House budget office to come up with a draft plan for stabilizing the industry … "

"In a March 13 White House meeting with Mr. Mineta, Mr. Evans and Mr. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, Treasury Secretary Snow 'basically convinced people that we really didn't need to do much,' according to an administration official familiar with the matter. Still Mr. Card is pushing for some relief."

That adorable Bill Booth of the Washington Post writes from Seattle that — and this shocks us — many Americans are more focused on the weak economy than on the war. LINK

Big Casino/budget politics:

The Big Casino budget issue gets precisely one paragraph that we could find in the New York Times , buried in Dick Stevenson's very tempered Bush-day story:

"Mr. Bush declined to say how much he expects the war to cost. Administration officials said it was not yet clear how much money Mr. Bush would request from Congress in a supplemental spending bill, but that the initial request was likely to encompass about $60 billion in direct military costs and tens of billions of more dollars that would be spread among domestic security programs, occupation and reconstruction costs in Iraq and foreign aid to countries in the Middle East. Mr. Bush is expected to discuss the matter with Congressional leaders on Monday." LINK

Sunday's David Broder column was Krugmanian in its "the deficit will cause us to pass costs on to our children and grandchildren," and yet he is very UN-Krugmanian in only softly putting the blame on the shoulders and backs of "Would President Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress." LINK

What do you call a New York Times story about the war supplemental's curious timing that uses the phrase "a few Republicans;" uses the phrase "even some Republicans;" and intros a hostilish quote from Senator Hagel by saying "frustration with the lack of information from the administration has bubbled up … even among some of the administration's strongest allies"? LINK

We call it: reason #97 why Fox News Channel does so well, even without actually spending real money to cover news.

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary:

Democratic presidential campaigns, even ones that have criticized other presidential campaigns for war-time fundraising, are engaging in quiet war-time fundraising.

And political travel is continuing, mostly quietly.

And candidates can talk about whatever they want to, but the press (certainly) and the public (mostly) are asking about the war.

And in the weekend cycle, there were three stories that under other circumstances would have had certain, sudden impact on the Invisible Primary.

Dan Balz and Tom Edsall got their John Kerry interview onto the web over the weekend (but, oddly, into the Washington Post 's Monday editions) in which the Senator seems to be awfully Shermanesque about not using any of his wife's money in his presidential campaign. LINK

That's the cash that Gephardt guy Steve Elmendorf famously called "ketsup money."

Or WAS he Shermanesque?

The Post duo leads with Kerry "effectively ruled out using any significant part of a family fortune estimated at $550 million in his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination."

But this paragraph stands out like a sore thumb: "Kerry said, however, that he could 'put a certain amount into it, but when you talk about self-funding, could I do an entire campaign? The answer is profoundly no.' Kerry said he has 'reserved the right' to use the money to respond to a personal attack, but not to run a major portion of his own bid."

It's a strange story in many respects, begging all sorts of insider questions: Why did Kerry do this? Did the campaign seek this story out? And did Dan and/or Tom seek out an interview specifically to ask about this?

If we weren't afraid of Dan and Tom, we would ask them directly ourselves.

Kerry says in the interview that using the money would "contradict" his past record on campaign finance issues.

"Kerry's stand is a setback to Democratic strategists who have been privately arguing that Kerry should reject public financing of his campaign and the roughly $45 million spending limit that goes with it in order to be free to raise and spend unlimited amounts through the Democratic National Convention, assuming he is the party's nominee."

Glen Johnson spent some time in the Senate gallery and drooped his ear low enough to hear Senator Edwards complain about Gov. Dean to Senator Kerry. LINK

The two Senators John (whose campaigns aren't ultra-fond of each other normally) seem to have bonded regarding their shared outrage at Dean's California Democratic party confab.

And then Mr. Johnson called up Gov. Dean and secured the closest thing to an apology from Dr. Dean we have ever heard.

It's about, what else, the war.

If it weren't for this war thing, Glen's story would set off Invisible Primary fireworks. Instead: piffle.

Same thing on this one: We assume Lee Bandy wrote this un-bylined Sunday Columbia State piece, and so we guess it's the Kerry campaign's turn to have a strategy meeting to figure out (think Julie Andrews here!) "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Lee Bandy?" LINK

(Note note: Lee, we love and admire you, make no mistake about it.)

The piece picks up some alleged comments by Kerry from the Sacramento cattle call, and Bandy makes a strange initial point in the opening clause: "Slipping into the mode of a political commentator, as he's prone to do, the Massachusetts senator painted a scenario in which he could lose every Southern state and still beat President Bush next year … "

"Some commentators think Kerry would have been better off had he not raised a question about the South."

"Southern voters are a bit suspicious of him anyway, calling him 'that northeastern liberal from Massachusetts.' They say they wouldn't be surprised to see him write off the South once he won the Democratic nomination."

Dean and Palmieri get to tee off on Kerry therein.

Even in a room full of network producers last night during the Oscars/war stand-by, no one could grab a stop watch fast enough to determine if Adrien Brody's kiss with Halle Berry was longer, shorter, or the same as Al and Tipper Gore in the same city, three years ago. LINK (check out Joe Andrew in the photo!) versus LINK

And, of course, compare them BOTH to the Gold Standard. LINK

KERRY

The Boston Globe 's Michael Kranish reports that, over a weekend dominated by battle, Senator Kerry was reliving his own wartime memories while watching a film about the death of one of his close friends, Donald Droz, who died in combat in Vietnam shortly after Kerry won the Silver Star. LINK

Kerry spent five hours with his war comrades, but, "refrained from making any speeches, or even alluding to his hopes of occupying the White House."

The event, Kranish writes, "was all about 'the guys' who regularly risked their lives and a day to remember friends who were killed," and quotes Kerry: "'I just have an enormous sense of belonging in this place … I'm glad I'm here with these guys, sharing a part of this unbelievable connection that transcends everything."'

And in the Paper That Can't Write Enough About John Kerry, Glen Johnson had a wonderful weekend article on Kerry's 60's style idealism, which some critics see as coalition building. LINK

Kerry got a Sunday Newsday profile, and we wonder if they are going to do the other candidates too. LINK

The Boston Herald's David Guarino writes that Senator Kerry, stumping in New Hampshire yesterday, harshly reminded Bush that a president must deal with domestic issues, even when at war. LINK

John Kerry gets a big Irish ride in the Union Leader today, complete with Jean Shaheen cameo. LINK

SHARPTON

Saturday's Columbia State said Al Sharpton just might lace up some independent shoes. LINK

GEPHARDT

Rep. Gephardt will campaign in South Carolina today. He has no public events scheduled as yet for the rest of the week.

Expectations watch: in his round-up of the Iowa time of Gephardt, Kucinich, and Dean, bar-setter Tom Beaumont says this in the Des Moines Register : "Gephardt is widely viewed as the likely frontrunner in the race for the Iowa caucuses in January 2004." LINK

Mr. Beaumont leads with this: "While U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt isn't stepping back from his support of President Bush in the war on Iraq, he said Sunday in Des Moines that he will curtail his public campaigning during the war's early going."

The Washington Times would like nothing more than to drive a wedge between close friends Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt. LINK

EDWARDS

The Washington Times would like nothing more than to drive a wedge between close friends Bob Shrum and John Edwards. LINK

And in a somewhat belated attempt to try to figure out who actually "won" the Shrum primary, the Dickensianly-named Charles Hurt, fresh from his stint covering Senator Edwards at the Charlotte Observer, has this:

"Jennifer Palmieri, Mr. Edwards' spokeswoman, said in a brief telephone interview that Mr. Shrum was an old liberal Democrat 'who just couldn't get John Edwards.'"

"'It was not a good fit.'"

The Raleigh N&O looks at Senator Edwards' Sunday spent raising campaign cash and dealing with anti-war protesters. LINK

CLARK

Wes Clark continued his CNN-analyst-based, op-ed-based candidacy in Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section. LINK

And Clark also showed impeccable judgment by going mano-a-mano with Jake Tapper. LINK

NEW HAMPSHIRE

A few weeks ago, we incorrectly reported that John DiStaso consumed food at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's 100 Club dinner in Manchester Feb. 28. Mr. DiStaso did not eat at the dinner. The Note regrets the error.

We are trying to get Pam Walsh's mom to become a regular reader of The Note (we are VERY into retail work here … .), and our market research suggests that Pam's mom likes to read about … … … … … ..Pam.

So, the world needs to know that the fact of Ms. Walsh's new job as the spokesperson for the New Hampshire Democratic party made the prestigious "State House Dome" column in the Sunday News (which Pam's mom thinks of as the Union Leader). LINK

LIEBERMAN

Senator Lieberman's campaign will announce today that it received the endorsement of more than half of the Democrats in Arizona's state house.

Lieberman will be in Chicago tomorrow and Philadelphia Wednesday. He returns to New Hampshire Thursday and Friday.

We bet Senator Lieberman will have something 50% humorous and 50% serious to say about David Lightman (who followed the Senator out to Tucson, as he follows him most everywhere) and the use of a certain word in Mr. Lightman's story's headline — "Iraq War Stalks Lieberman Despite Domestic Agenda." LINK

GRAHAM

Senator Bob Graham's recently hired media strategist, Mr. Karl Struble, says the war gives his client plenty of time to get into the race. LINK

Graham's public schedule this week will depend on the floor schedule.

But look for him to say something about his health.

IOWA

We'll keep saying it until you people in Iowa wake up: by almost any standard, all y'all just don't have the same highly developed politico-media culture as New Hampshire.

So to give you some encouragement, we are going BIG on Iowa coverage today.

Here's what came up on the computer screen of one of our Googling monkeys when he checked the politics page of the Des Moines Register on Sunday:

"Politics

Seven-day index
Sunday, March 23, 2003
There are no stories in this category today. Please check back later."
On the other hand, check out all this great, life-goes-on stuff in today's Iowa Daybook from the AP:
NORTH ENGLISH — 10:15 a.m., First Lady Christie Vilsack visits English Valley High School, 765 W. Broad St.
Contact: Amanda Crumley or Matt Paul at (515) 281-0173.
DES MOINES — 1:30 p.m., Gov. Tom Vilsack's weekly press conference. Kennedy Conference Room, State Capitol.
Contact: Amanda Crumley or Matt Paul at (515) 281-0173.
WASHINGTON — 2:15 p.m., First Lady Christie Vilsack visits Washington High School, 313 s. 4th Ave.
Contact: Amanda Crumley or Matt Paul at (515) 281-0173.
IOWA CITY — 6 p.m., "Understanding Islam and Muslims" lecture, sponsored by the Muslim Student Association. Minnesota Room, Memorial Union, University of Iowa.

WASHINGTON — 6:30 p.m., Gov. Tom Vilsack and First Lady Christie Vilsack attend the Washington Chamber Dinner. KC Hall, 606 W. 3rd St.

Contact: Amanda Crumley or Matt Paul at (515) 281-0173.

And anyone heading out to Iowa April 4th don't miss Joe Millionaire's one-night engagement in Cedar Rapids — 2 shows only, 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.. LINK Contact: Amanda Crumley or Matt Paul at (515) 281-0173. (Just kidding about the "contact," although not about the event.)

Highly visible Secretary of Education Rod Paige took time out of his busy day at some point recently to right a letter to the Des Moines Register (which they published yesterday) defending Leave No Child Behind. LINK

Politics

: Big news in our world: "National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-NY) announced today that Communications Director Steve Schmidt is leaving the NRCC to become Senior Vice President of Media Relations for The Direct Impact Company. He will be replaced by Deputy Communications Director Carl Forti."

Steve: good luck, from everyone here at The Note.

The Washington Post 's Tucker says if the lower court doesn't rule on McCain-Shays-Meehan-Feingold soon, SCOTUS might not get to it this term, with all sorts of fascinating implications. LINK

The New York Times ' Raymond Hernandez reports that, since winning re-election to a third term in a landslide, new York's Gov. Pataki "has been talking and acting like a politician who has his sights set on Washington, according to strategists and lawmakers in both political parties." LINK

. The story cites the Republican governor's shift from the social liberal stance which attracted New York's Democratic voters to a more conservative approach, coming out against tax increases, and in favor of the administration's tax plan, homeland security designs, and judicial nominee Miguel Estrada, about whom he wrote a supportive opinion piece.

Even a local "ally" is quoted saying "'He's auditioning for a job in Washington … To the degree he pushes for anything, it's behind the scenes. He's not going to publicly pressure the White House.'"

While Pataki aides insist he is content to work hard at his current job, and Marc Racicot Notes "'He is loyal and a team player … He has been willing to do things for us that are not necessarily glamorous,'" it is suggested Pataki's artful yet grand plan is to deliver to Bush the elusive New York in 2004, and accept a top Administration job as a reward.

Bush Administration strategy/personality

: There were so many sentences in David Carr's Sunday New York Times story about Ari Fleischer and the White House press corps that screamed out for a NEXT sentence containing the words "Ann" and "Devroy," but it's war time, so we won't dwell on that. LINK

Somehow, Carr's editors seem to have forgotten that Jim Rutenberg already DID this story for the paper, and not that long ago.

Compare this LINK to this LINK

Carr brings the same kind of anthropological fascination that infuses any outsider-goes-to-the-daily-briefing piece like this that we have all read over and over through the years.

Just SOME of the choicest stuff, annotated for your amusement:

"A recently reconfigured seating chart has set up a new hierarchy, with those reporters from major news organizations who show up the most regularly receiving prized permanent spots, and Mr. Fleischer scrupulously observes it. By calling on people right to left, front to back, he radiates even-handedness, even as the routine thwarts the possibility of rapid-fire questions that would build momentum … ." (Surely Ari will denounce Carr for this calumny, if past is prologue … .)

"'Good will doesn't equal good coverage,' explained one press officer, stubbing out a cigarette on the driveway in front of the press room … .'" (Hey, Bill Plante: whose blind quote is that? Just kidding: it couldn't BE more obvious.)

"Enterprising reporters have been invigorated by the challenge of covering a ship of state that almost never leaks, but an air of fatalism hangs over those awaiting spoon-fed scoops,,,." (Dear Mr. Carr: you found "invigorated" reporters in what is inarguably the most beaten down press corps in the modern era — just the way the then-Governor of Texas, with his STILL underrated knowledge of how the political press works, had planned it.)

"Reporters initially railed against Mr. Fleischer's engaging nonengagement, but briefing by briefing, he has worn them down." (Somewhere, Joe Lockhart is crying, or, at least, REALLY annoyed.)