Print This Page Email This Page See Most Sent

Catch up. Plenty of Note archives.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

We admit to being surprised, in the time since then, by how ferocious many Democrats have been. And it sure wound up being a watershed day in terms of the aggressiveness of the White House press corp.

As the Washington Post 's Kurtz notes, "the administration likely never faced a more hostile press corps than yesterday."

Backed by a powerful coalition of some grieving families of September 11, Ron Fournier, and John King, Democrats got down to it.

So far, they seem to be managing to walk the line between asking the questions many Americans want asked and looking as though they are playing politics.

Vice President Cheney's effort last night to paint them as inhabitants of the dark side, warning Democrats about getting political, might well have sounded a little hollow to some, coming as it did from the podium of a political event.

Cheney's words were reminiscent of Attorney General's famous "aiding and abetting the terrorists" comments from several months ago. The wrong kind of hearings, the Veep warned, will distract America's leaders from protecting us against further attacks.

There may well be truth in that premise, but the don't-you-dare warning was unmistakable, and already has gotten some Democratic backs up.

Meanwhile, as the clock ticks and a small army of congressional Republicans fan out to echo Cheney's warning, the president's own public silence on this stands out more and more. Leaked words by Bush to a group of Senate Republicans in a closed meeting aren't quite the same thing.

And the "flying a plane into a building" canard still doesn't make sense to any single objective observer we have found.

"Behind closed doors, Mr. Bush himself passionately denounced the media reports as politically motivated and that he would have 'unleashed the full force and fury' of the military if he had known. 'There's a sniff of politics in the air,' Mr. Bush told Republican senators at a private meeting at the Capitol, his voice rising. 'Someone may be trying to use this as a political opportunity.'" As we head into the weekend, this is perfect newsweekly and Sunday show material, so the story, even without any new revelations, is certain to grind through at least Monday morning.

The new revelations we see in the back part of the news cycle just ending:

1) Claire Shipman reported on Good Morning America that Cheney — seeking heads in the intelligence failures — has succeeded in getting one: the chief of the CIA's counter terrorism center, Cofer Black, has been ousted after three years in that job. ABCNEWS's Beverley Lumpkin reports that the head of the FBI's counter terrorism bin Laden unit, Kevin Foust, was fired three weeks ago after Mueller lost confidence in him.

2) NBC reported that two days before September 11, the president got a "detailed war plan" to dismantle bin Laden's al Qaeda network, and that he was given a national security directive to sign for a plan that was "pretty much" the same as the one the United States followed after the attacks.

3) The Washington Post reports that on July 5 of last year, a month and a day before President Bush first heard that al Qaeda might plan a hijacking, the White House summoned officials of a dozen federal agencies to the Situation Room.

"'Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon,' the government's top counter terrorism official, Richard Clarke, told the assembled group, according to two of those present. The group included the Federal Aviation Administration, along with the Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service."

4) ABC's deVogue reports that some members of congressional intelligence committees have copies of the FBI Phoenix memo, and that it's also locked up in the committees' safes.

Hearing dates have not yet been set, and the tussle over that is currently the most important political question in all of this.

While questions remain about the details of the specific Bush briefing, one of the major effects — arguably the primary impact — is the doubt sowed in the mind of the press corps, Democrats, and maybe (though let's wait for more polling to be done) the public about what else might be out there.

And the fact that the administration can't be sure they know what else may be out there puts them in a rather defensive position. This almost assures eventual hearings that will be different in scope, tone and amount of coverage than they otherwise would have been.

USA Today 's Keen offers up the first round of polling: "A USA TODAY /CNN/Gallup Poll on Thursday showed that 68% of Americans said the Bush administration should have disclosed sooner that it had the information. But 29% said the White House should not have discussed the information before now."

"The disclosure, however, did not affect how most view Bush. Two-thirds, 66%, said it had not affected their opinion of him, while 32% said they viewed him less favorably. Overall, 58% said the attacks could not have been predicted, while 38% said they could have been."

"Aides said Bush was angry about suggestions that he withheld information that might have prevented the attacks."

These numbers are sure to hearten Democrats, but could well prove ephemeral as the coverage, once this initial scrum is over, starts to drift.

Watch the tug of war in the press as Republicans try to narrowly focus on the argument that President Bush did the right thing given the data he had, while Democrats try to broaden it out into a massive question about the administration's, and the president's competence.

After September 11, there was, by the standards of what has happened in the past in this country and in other democracies with such failures, startlingly little call for investigating what happened and why with American security.

A combination of the administration requesting that Congress limit the timing and scope of its investigation and Congress' rallying around the flag led to very few questions being asked.

Maybe the White House will find a way to shove the toothpaste back in the tube, but right now this feels like a meaningful change: trust in the administration's credibility on what happened right before September 11 is now damaged with Democrats in Congress, some Republicans, and the press.

The two major effects of that could be:
1) a speeded up, intensified set of congressional hearings looking at all these questions, which could be potentially embarrassing for the White House; and
2) a Democratic election-year effort to use these events to push their argument that the president isn't up to the job, and that the administration is "over-rated" on handling of foreign policy.

The next phase of all this will be a revelation or two more (probably minor ones, we would guess) about other things the administration knew, maybe coming from the newsweeklies.

Beyond that, it's impossible to say where the story will go. Again, the process question of when some sort of hearings will begin, and what form they will take, will be key.

With Congress in recess and the president leaving for Europe on Wednesday, absent any new "revelations," the temperature on this story is sure to go down by early next week.

How big a story could this be, in the grand scheme of things, when by 7:03 am, "Today" was doing Matt in Monaco, and Charlie and Diane were talking about a wedding?

House Minority Leader Gephardt did the "Early Show" at about the same time, and didn't back off, keeping up his "what the president knew, when he knew it, why this is coming out now" mantra. Gephardt also did a Paula Zahn stop.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was trotted out on "Today" to push back hard.

By 7:25 am, Imus was fully on board with the White House talking points.

But because the Democrats have the press to back them up and the press has the Democrats to quote, overplaying of hands is probably not possible just yet.

The New York Times gets eight paragraphs into its lead story before acknowledging that it agrees with the White House that the heart of the information in question HAD been publicly available for some time. So the paper is forced to make this flap center on questions of competence and (possible) cover-up.

Interesting that the web version of a key paragraph leaves out a clause that appears in at least some hard-copy versions. The words in parentheses were dropped on the web: "Still, the White House revelation Wednesday night (that it had received the warning in August and its failure to point out that the information had long been publicly available) touched off a day marked by anger from the families of the Sept. 11 victims as well as demands from Democrats and Republicans in Congress for a broader investigation than the one already under way."

The excellent, well-connected and influential Thomas DeFrank is in high dudgeon.

"Team Bush struggled furiously yesterday to quell the furor over its lack of candor about pre-Sept. 11 terror warnings. It failed utterly."

"Sending out national security adviser Condoleezza Rice — the Bush lieutenant the press respects most — to stop the bleeding was an extraordinary indication of just how seriously Bush's political handlers see the possible damage to his leadership aura. Rice was unflappable but seemed ill at ease performing essentially a grubby political chore. And by day's end, some Bush loyalists were quietly worrying that the story looked like it was growing legs."

"'We haven't been able to quiet the talking heads,' one key source said. 'The situation has now improved from absolutely miserable to just terrible.'"

"'They could have easily gotten this out months ago with no [political] harm if they weren't so obsessed with playing hide-the-ball,' grumbled a prominent GOP political consultant with close ties to Bush. 'Keeping this a secret hasn't gotten us anything.'"

The Los Angeles Times analysis goes, "'It looks like somebody was asleep at the switch; this is a fundamental matter for the Bush presidency,' said one Republican with ties to the White House. Political analysts agreed, noting that what could be at risk is a strong suit of the Bush presidency: a reputation for efficiency, competency and responsibility."

As we wait to hear directly from the president, the New York Times says this is what he told the folks on the Hill: "But at the meeting, which was scheduled two weeks ago as a legislative rallying session, Mr. Bush opened his remarks by defending his decision to keep the information secret for eight months. A senior administration official present at the meeting said Mr. Bush told the senators that 'if anybody thinks we had information that could have been acted upon, they ought to know I would have gone after it with the full force of our military.'"

Here's a blind quote from the New York Times from an Administration official who understands (as does the Note) the key distinction between what IS and what OUGHT to be. "'This is going to be an ugly phase in the war on terrorism,' one White House official said today, 'one that looks backward, with all the benefits of hindsight.'"

And make no mistake: from Cheney's remarks last night to various saber-rattling by the usual Administration suspects known the wield the political nun chucks, the White House was trying to hit back hard.

First Lady Laura Bush said this to the AP's Sobieraj: "I know my husband. And all Americans know how he has acted in Afghanistan and in the war with terror. I think really, we need to put this in perspective and I think it's sad to prey upon the emotions of people as if there were something we could have done to stop" the hijackings.

Take this from the New York Times : "Another senior administration official criticized Democrats for feeding what the official described as the latest Washington hysteria. 'The Democrats are trying to grab onto something that isn't there, and they're going to embarrass themselves,' the official said. 'Was there anything that would have suggested remotely that we should have done something different? The answer is no. There's a certain naiveté on the part of the presidential candidates in the House and the Senate. Just go through who the first people who were out there criticizing, and they're all running for president.'"

And the White House quickly got talking points to the Hill to make sure the push-back accusations of politicization got full echo-chamber assistance.

We'll say it again, even though it is not in our professional interest. the White House is right: information given to the Hill leaks all the time.

On the other hand, the Vice President's warning last night that an investigation carried out the wrong way by Congress will distract the very people who need to protect America from future attacks is going to look very different if new facts emerge that suggest Cheney was trying to discourage inquiry for other reasons.

Semi-pegged to the latest disclosures, the Wall Street Journal front-pages a good look at how the administration homeland security apparatus deals with the vagaries of intelligence reports of possible threats. There are some good anecdotes, and good insight into SOP.

Almost immediately after the Note went out yesterday, we got responses from Democrats on the Hill raising questions about how the president was in Crawford last August chopping wood and clearing brush, with his foreign policy team focused only on Russia.

Maybe the Los Angeles Times got the same: "around the country last August, strange things were happening--things that are now stirring increasingly troubling questions about whether authorities back in Washington should have suspected that a terrorist attack was imminent."

"While not specifically criticizing President Bush, the comments from dozens of lawmakers--mainly Democrats--represented the most forceful challenge yet of the president on a matter relating directly to the Sept. 11 attacks. Until now, the president's post-attack popularity has rendered him beyond political reproach on counter terrorism matters."

The Washington Post 's Milbank and Allen write, "Although Bush avoided public remarks on the subject, his aides sought to quiet the controversy. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pleaded Bush's case on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took to the Senate floor, and Vice President Cheney's office called television networks to say he would use a political speech in New York City last night to address the issue."

"Democrats are determined to press the issue, particularly because it comes in the same week the White House has been trying to answer complaints that it allowed the Republican Party to sell a photo of Bush aboard Air Force One on Sept. 11. Some Democrats revived questions about Bush's aptitude not asked since Sept. 11, suggesting that the administration was caught napping while Bush vacationed on his ranch in Crawford, Tex., in August."

"'There is a question of whether they lost their focus in August when everybody was far flung and nobody was around,' said John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton.

From the ABCNEWS London Bureau: Israeli troops entered Jenin this morning, in what the Israeli army said was a search for militants who escaped capture during heavy fighting last month. Exchanges of fire erupted after Israeli forces reached the city and the refugee camp. Israeli forces surrounded the house of a Hamas militant and ordered him outside. The militant, Jamal Abu al-Haija, did not appear, but his wife and children left the house. The army said its forces did not come under heavy fire and intended to withdraw as soon as it arrested the suspects it wanted. In the Gaza Strip, Israeli soldiers killed a Palestinian who approached the perimeter fence of the Jewish settlement of Dugit and threw hand grenades at the troops. Palestinian officials, meanwhile, said the Central Elections Committee would convene over the weekend to begin preparations for general elections.

9/11 Bombshell

Per the New York Times : "Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, have long argued for an independent commission. They said they would move quickly to try to create one in an attachment to other legislation, perhaps as early as next week. Mr. Daschle suggested he might support the idea."

If you aren't familiar with the importance and influence of the AP's Fournier and his political predecessor John King (who works for another non-profit organization now), you should be paying closer attention. Fournier and King are hugely talented reporters who led an unshackling of the White House press corps yesterday.

Leveraging off of apparent Administration vulnerability on some aspects of the narrative, we got to see shades of how those two dudes behaved in 1992. It wasn't quite the Colonel Holmes letter, but things got pretty intense.

And Ari's quotes in the Howie Kurtz piece clearly were intended to send the signal that "his" reporters should not replicate that tone and substance at today's briefing and going forward.

Watch closely to see what happens.

The Boston Globe , under the header "Poll Numbers Awaited," rounds up analysts' expectations.

The New York Times ed board cautions against Congress playing the blame game, and is strikingly brief in even its tentative criticism of the administration.

The New York Post ed board says "yes" to hearings, "no" to Bush bashing.

As is the Washington Post editorial page, which focuses on possible communications problems further down the ladder (read: FBI), which possibly/probably is where the White House wants to focus, as well: "It's easy after Sept. 11 to insist that more should have been done. But what? Without any idea of what was in the works, it's hard to know what further action could have been taken."

The Washington Times editorial page leads with "What Did the FBI Know?"

Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who charged on California talk-radio several weeks ago that the administration knew about the attacks beforehand, claims vindication.

Massport officials weren't told anything.

Budget Politics

The Washington Times reports, "Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is unlikely to make his self-imposed Memorial Day deadline for adopting a fiscal 2003 budget blueprint, leaving House leaders to use their budget in the appropriations process and Senate appropriators without a framework. Mr. Daschle, who on Tuesday said the bill would get done before the start of the Memorial Day break, said yesterday that may not be possible."

The Wall Street Journal ed board urges the president to get tough on spending: "[The] danger is the signal Mr. Bush is sending about his resolve. In only his second year, amid a war that has heightened his popularity, the president is nonetheless showing Congress he can be rolled on any domestic issue. It took a Democratic Congress until Ronald Reagan's seventh year before it steamrolled him on spending. Once the Members catch a whiff of weakness in a White House, they can be savage."

"Far from costing Mr. Bush politically, the use of his veto pen would increase his standing. Taxpayers understand that the government can't have it all, and they expect a President to represent their interests, with a veto if need be."

Bob Novak, on the other hand, celebrates House Appropriations chairman Young's willingness to show more loyalty to Mitch Daniels, George Bush, and fiscal discipline than to his fellow appropriators or his own "imperious" staff director.

Trade Politics

The Washington Post 's Ignatius revisits Bush's steel decision as the starting point for Congress' protectionist moves on trade. "Bush sadly doesn't have anyone to blame for this unraveling of trade policy but himself — and his White House political savant, Karl Rove. You increasingly get the sense that what really matters in Washington these days is the 2004 electoral map in Rove's head. If a decision looks like it will expand the number of states that will vote Republican, then it's good."

Legislative Agenda

The Wall Street Journal reports on the GOP and health care policy/politics: "They may pare Medicare plan to fatten drug benefit."

"Bush officials resist the House move. Today at the White House, Bush will restate his call for a Medicare bill to encourage private-sector options. GOP leaders, fretting over fall elections, may opt instead for one that steers clear of controversial changes and devotes $350 billion just to a new prescription-drug benefit."

"They would strip provisions to boost Medicare payments for doctors, and to raise patients' share of costs. Some Republicans figure nothing will pass Congress this year anyway, so the House GOP should just go on record for a bill most appealing to voters. A key dissident: Ways and Means Committee's Chairman Thomas of California."

"A House vote on a GOP Medicare bill is expected next month."

And on the other big health care item that was, he told us, at the heart of the president's campaign platform, things are looking dicey, which means Mr. Bush is sure to get heavily involved soon.

Per David Rogers in the Wall Street Journal : "Talks between the White House and the Senate on a patients bill of rights are near collapse, all but dooming the chances this year of enacting long-sought legislation making it easier to bring personal injury lawsuits against managed-care health plans … "

"A draft letter has been prepared from Senate negotiators to President Bush, expressing their disappointment and calling for a formal House-Senate conference on the competing bills adopted last summer. Going down this path will only make a deal more difficult, however, which is why the leadership has delayed going to conference in hope that the talks would be productive."

The House passed its welfare reform-reform bill yesterday, leaving in most of what Republicans want out of the bill. The Senate version is likely to be weaker, in the GOP's eyes, and a rancorous conference is very likely.

Republicans are filibustering an amendment to the Senate trade bill that would pay for retired steelworkers' health benefits. "The steelworker amendment, introduced by Senator John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., would help steelworkers who retire because foreign competition drives their companies into bankruptcy. They would be eligible for the same health benefits the bill now affords workers who lose their jobs because of trade."

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary

The Forward has a pretty savvy piece on Gore's standing with his top 2000 fundraisers, pegged to the defection of Florida moneyman Monte Friedkin to, actually, no one. He just says he doesn't want to raise money for Gore again, per the story.

While Gore supporters play down Friedkin's importance to the Gore money operation (even in the Sunshine State), this paragraph gets at some essential truth: "Although it's early, and experts say a drop-off in support after losing an election is normal, recent surveys paint a murky picture for the former candidate. And while Gore retains many of his key fundraisers, Friedkin's comments hint at an additional vulnerability for the former vice president: a decrease in the willingness of Democratic volunteers to push his candidacy. Gore has left Washington full of former aides who will say privately that they feel unappreciated. Well known within the party for his outspoken views, Friedkin may be voicing what other Democratic loyalists will not, or have yet to, say."

John Harwood lays down his The Wall Street Journal editor duties long enough to author a must-read on how the 2002 elections are setting the table for 2004. He focuses on the prospects for those seeking to run from Congress, none of whom face tough races this year, and on the prospects of the governors. Gray Davis gets lots of attention, while Vilsack and Barnes get big mentions.

The Wall Street Journal 's Washington Wire says, "Democratic operatives grumble that 2004 aspirant Senator Edwards should lay low and legislate after a series of glowing media articles raise his profile. Even a sympathetic strategist says the North Carolina freshman could burn out from overexposure: 'You're only a fresh face once.'"

Here's the kicker: "Edwards privately scoffs at such talk," which rings true to us, because we are getting the sense that the good Senator does a lot of private scoffing on a range of matters. Meanwhile, other Democrats who have seen the data suggest that maybe he shouldn't blow it off.

So it's a bad news cycle for John Edwards, courtesy of Dow Jones.

In his story on patients' bill of rights talks, the Wall Street Journal 's Rogers reports that the junior Senator from North Carolina isn't playing nice with the senior Senator from Arizona: "We've offered a number of ideas to bridge the gap,' Mr. Edwards said Thursday. But there is increasing friction between him and Mr. McCain, who came back this week with an offer setting a cap of about $4 million for the most serious injuries."

We've watched a stream of press releases pour out of Edwards' office this week touting provisions he has sponsored that have passed as part of bigger bills. We've also noticed that the subject headings of the e-mail releases tend to leave out the "provision" part and just say, like today's for example, "Senate Panel Passes Internet Privacy Bill By Senator Edwards." The release itself makes clear that we're talking about provisions here.

The Raleigh News & Observer's Wagner reports out of the latest Tar Heel Thursday, "Edwards sided Thursday with the current Republican president against" former President Carter over Cuba. "Edwards was asked by a constituent visiting Washington about his views on President Carter's call for ending a 40-year trade embargo against the Communist-ruled island. 'I, at this time, don't agree with President Carter,' Edwards said, adding that 'I understand his argument.' Carter and others who favor lifting the embargo argue that it hurts the Cuban people and has done little to spur democratic reforms. Edwards said lifting the embargo now 'may send the wrong signal.'"

Continuing to taunt us, Bill Bradley campaigned in Ohio.

We have covered Clinton-Gore, and we have covered Bush-Cheney, and all we can say is: if you are thinking of running for president in 2004, and you want to build up some good will with the press corps that covers you, arrive at and start your events on time. We love that, particularly after eight (really, nine) years of late-night pools and balky motorcade departure times. Oh, and your Secret Service detail will like it, too.

Gephardt heads to Los Angeles tonight and spends tomorrow out there raising money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Today, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean addresses the Gill Foundation Outgiving Conference in San Diego. On Saturday, Dean will keynote a Riverside California Democratic Central Committee meeting.

Senator Chris Dodd will deliver the Democratic Hispanic radio address this weekend. Topic: 245(i).

And on Sunday, Al and Tipper Gore will celebrate their 32nd wedding anniversary. Senator Joseph Lieberman will hold a PAC fundraiser in Milwaukee, in advance of his speech to the Detroit Economic Club on Monday.

Politics

You don't have to be Bernie Goldberg to see why the White House is so perpetually annoyed with the fawning coverage that Senator Jim Jeffords gets in the press. The latest installment is a Q&A in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine that ends with this exchange: Q. "President Bush is known to give legislators nicknames. Any idea what yours might be?" A. "I wouldn't want to think."

Jeffords will campaign for Senator Jean Carnahan (D) in St. Louis on Saturday, and for Senate nominee Ron Kirk on Texas on Sunday.

Rolling Stone's Matt Bai gives the Thompson Twins — no, not the 80's rock group, but the brothers Tommy and Ed — the New York Times Magazine treatment this Sunday.

One highlight: Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Ed bashes those "career politicians" in Madison. And one nice moment by Bai: "there's something poignant in Ed's quest — something that can be appreciated by all the little brothers who ever struggled in the shadow of the perfect sibling. His message, after all, is aimed at the powerful establishment his 'illustrious' brother has always embodied. In an era when candidates labor to separate politics from their personal struggles, Ed Thompson is binding them together and running for redemption."

This weekend, the Republican National Committee holds a legal compliance seminar in Chicago. Senator Patty Murray, chair of the Democratic Senate campaign committee, will keynote the Arkansas Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Little Rock on Saturday night.

"A federal judge has denied the Health Insurance Association of America's request to immediately block the pro-cloning research group CuresNow Action from using the fictional characters Harry and Louise in a television advertising campaign," the Washington Post reports.

The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate has released its long-awaited study about televised debates, finding that two thirds of "major office" debates aren't televised, including seven of every 10 contested House races.

California

Live by the oppo, die by the oppo.

"The financial firm of GOP millionaire gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon — who has criticized Gov. Gray Davis for 'pay-to-play' fund-raising tactics — was fined and censured by New Jersey regulators following a probe of "pay-to-play" practices and violations of securities rules, documents show."

Gov. Gray Davis (D) has proposed a plan to give legislators more say in how contracts are awarded. Florida

As Gov. Jeb Bush (R) defends his decision to privatize the state child welfare system, investigators are planning to scour the Bahamas for Rilya Wilson.

New York

The Washington Times ' Z. Hallow writes up the Conservative Party dinner.

New Jersey

The Wall Street Journal 's Washington Wire says "Democrats expect Torricelli's ethics case to be closed by July 4 recess."

Pennsylvania

TV ads for Democratic gubernatorial candidates Ed Rendell and Bob Casey have run nearly 30,000 times, according to an analysis. That's more than 250 hours. Primary day is Tuesday.

A GOP polling firm released its latest gubernatorial race data: Rendell leads Casey by about 10 points — but the undecided percentage remains high. The findings jibe with other polls recently released.

Iowa

The Des Moines Register pores over the state congressional delegation's financial disclosure forms. The highlight: Senator Chuck Grassley got $1,000 for his cameo in 'Traffic."

Texas

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Tony Sanchez has added two new ads to his repertoire, both pretty tough.

"The new ads, which join three spots the Sanchez camp began airing Wednesday, include one questioning Mr. Perry's record on education."

"Against the dual image of a smiling, winking Mr. Perry and a ticking clock, an announcer notes that the Republican has been in office for nearly two years. 'Can you name one thing he's done to actually improve our schools?" the announcer asks, followed by several seconds of silence. Rick Perry. We didn't elect him. We don't have to keep him,' says a tagline the Sanchez operation is using in its new media appeals. That's a reference to Mr. Perry assuming the job of governor because George W. Bush was elected president."

Does anyone have an abacus on how much Bill Knapp is making on this thing to pile next to his Bloomberg payday?

Absent a charismatic governor, the most powerful political job in Texas might be that of his lieutenant. Republicans are fielding state land commissioner David Dewhurst, who is "selling himself as a successful businessman with the cowboy virtues of courage and self-reliance," according to a profile in Texas Monthly.

Key facts: 1) the reporter finds that he "is a large, strikingly handsome man, six feet five inches tall, and has the lean, muscled body of someone thirty years younger-the product of frequent weight lifting at Powerhouse Gym in downtown Austin." 2) In 1998 he won more votes at the polls than Rick Perry, John Cornyn, or Carole Keeton Rylande." 3) BUT he faces "a vigorous countermyth that goes like this: Dewhurst is a vain, aloof aristocrat who is scorned by his fellow officeholders; a detail-obsessed martinet who is difficult to work for; a candidate so stiff and formal that his public appearances work against him."

"You do not have spend much time in Austin political circles before you hear the rumor that he is homosexual-notwithstanding his six-year marriage to former model Tammy Jo Hopkins, which ended in divorce last year-or the more finely articulated stories that he is obsessed with having his nails manicured or that he changes his shirt eight times a day or that he sometimes wears makeup for public appearances."

[The gossip, he says, is deliberately, maliciously false.]

Dewhurst faces former state Comptroller John Sharp (D).

North Carolina

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright campaigned for Erskine Bowles last night in Greensboro. "'He is the nicest really smart guyI have ever known,' Albright said."

South Carolina

The state NAACP is ticked off at influential Rep. Jim Clyburn for allegedly seeking to undermine the organization's efforts at an economic boycott.

Missouri

The state, which saw allegations of ballot irregularities in 2000, has passed a comprehensive election reform bill favored by the outspoken secretary of state, Matt Blunt (pun half-intended). The biggest changes: the introduction of provisional ballots (pleasing Democrats) and tougher voter identification rules (pleasing Republicans).

Nevada

If a new contract isn't reached by June 1, the 47,000 members of the Culinary Union in Las Vegas (its biggest and most powerful --remember "Casino"?), have threatened to strike, potentially bringing gambling to a halt.

New Hampshire

The New York Sun writes about New Hampshire as a surrogate stage for a Rudy-versus-Hillary re-match, using the fact that Rudy has endorsed the incumbent, Senator Bob Smith, and Hillary has endorsed the challenger, Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, and playing off speculation that the two are aspirants for their party's 2008 nominations. Bush Administration Strategy/Personality

Peggy Noonan on the Wall Street Journal website, quotes the Note quoting James Carville, and compares GWB to FDR, absolving him of his sins: "Mr. Bush is … accepting what he thinks he has to accept (pork, a bad trade bill) in order to keep or expand the power balance he has in Washington, and in order to keep from angering or offending your basic, normal, politically nonobsessed citizen."

"If Mr. Bush's popularity falls, his party's popularity suffers. The congressional elections six months from now could produce a Democratic House and a more heavily Democratic Senate. Mr. Bush will do almost anything to keep that from happening. Because if it happens his ability to prosecute the war will be weakened, perhaps fatally. Power would shift and his opposition, no longer fearing his popularity, would go for his throat. The war effort, such as it is, would be compromised. He has to keep his popularity high."

"So Mr. Bush is doing an FDR, and angering only a base that will forgive him."

And the Washington Post business section takes its turn writing up the Bono/O'Neill African tour.

Media

Another Friday-for-Sunday warning: save some time for Frank Rich's New York Times Magazine cover story (complete with arresting cover photo) on Peter, Tom, and Dan, and how reports of their demise, and of their shows, are much exaggerated. For those of you who STILL don't understand the numeric reach of broadcast television versus cable, this is another well-written, clear chance for you to figure it out.

We think Peggy Noonan just might have written this to make Paul Begala mad: "Another problem for Republicans: Some of them are actually dignified and reasonable. A few of them are actually nice. And a lot of them are trying to avoid being stigmatized by the press. If a GOP operative--a nervous, please-like-me Scott Reed, a well-meaning and courteous Alex Castellanos--attempts to be as crude and manipulative as a Paul Begala, and actually succeeds, the press will not say he is a worthy opponent. The press will paint him as dark-jowled and Nixonian, a hater, a hammer. The press doesn't like rude Republicans."