2003 Note Archives, updated weekly.

Click here for The ABCNEWS Political Unit's exclusive major futures calendar and today's daybook.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints and Questions.

Who we are ... And What We're About.

NEWS SUMMARY ——————————————————————————

"TAKING ACTION TO STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY" the subject line blared.

The Buckeye and national press want to focus on "Bush versus Voinovich," but the consensus seems to be that getting the Senator to switch his tax vote is a fool's errand, and this President is no fool, so why is he spending the day in Ohio?

Read on through the summary, and the question answers itself, although we aren't completely sure you all will come up with precisely the same answer. Watch closely the transition from war to economy, even though that process will surely not end today.

Suffice to say, the president's political and scheduling shops are glad that today wasn't slated to be the umpteenth trip to neighboring Pennsylvania, since that surely would have put the White House at least a bit off message.

Democrats are ready to pounce, with the DNC setting up a conference call with one Ohio congressperson, and another weighing in on his own.

Homestate Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich welcomed the president with this blistering statement:

"It is clear this Administration's misguided economic policies have failed Ohio and failed the nation. Addressing our nation's ailing economy must be the top priority of this Administration and the Congress. The president's economic strategy of tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent, and aggressive foreign policy, will make it impossible for our economy to recover and will lead to continued cuts in important domestic needs."

The Cincinnati Enquirer's Carl Weiser reports that, in a last minute develop.m.ent, Senator Voinovich will officially welcome the president to the state today when Air Force One lands at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. LINK

However, the Senator still has no plans to join the president during his visits to the Lima Army Tank Plant and a research facility in North Canton to promote the administration's economic plan.

Weiser predicts that Voinovich and the president "will come close enough to shake hands today in Dayton, but they'll still be $200 billion apart."

Nice line.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Tom Diemer observes that because the president is not likely to openly intimidate a senator, especially a popular former governor, "the rough stuff has been left to others." (The others presumably being the soft-spoken gang of Bob Novak, the Wall Street Journal and the Club for Growth.) LINK

USA Today 's Kathy Kiely reports that Senator Voinovich can't join the president because of a "long standing engagement" in Dayton. She also writes about why the president's economic stumping in Ohio means more than meets the (buck)eye. LINK

"Today's trip is highlighting an awkward split between two schools of Republican economic thought: supply-siders who think cutting taxes will spur consumer spending, corporate investment and, therefore, economic growth; and deficit hawks who worry that it will only add to a rapidly growing national budget deficit."

Kiely also has some interesting things to say about life at Chez Voinovich.

"He's a penny pincher in his personal life. Voinovich, 66, and his wife still live in the Cleveland house they bought when they married 40 years ago. They recently purchased their first dishwasher. It was only when interest rates went to zero that he broke down and took out his first car loan to buy a new Ford Taurus wagon."

On A3 of the Washington Post , the paper twins what seems like an Allen/Weisman curtain raiser with a Milbank "George vs. George" look at Voinovich.

But the former piece is crammed with so much news we cannot digest it all, and/but the piece's good stuff oddly did not dominate the Air Force One gaggle.

It's too bad that NBC was not pool on the flight, or David Gregory could have used his close relationship with Ari Fleischer to make sure everyone got along. LINK

So the following is a Note News Alert, which the Washington Post chose to hide inside the paper:

Allen/Weisman, have all sorts of substance and politics stuff on the tax situation that we told you earlier in the week is likely to freeze the political field until it is resolved, and the duo lead like this: "President Bush is likely to propose another round of tax cuts later this year if the Senate follows through with plans to substantially curtail his current package, administration officials said yesterday." LINK

"The officials said a new request for cuts, likely in September, probably would include measures meant to spur capital investment by business, or some of the more popular parts of Bush's plan that might be sacrificed in the current negotiations on the theory that they later could win enough votes on their own. These include speeding up a reduction in the 'marriage penalty' tax and the planned expansion of the child credit, which might win enough support to survive a possible Senate filibuster."

Picking up on some previous reporting, the pair implicitly tease out the difference in attitude and willingness to talk among those Bush advisers who draw government paychecks, and those who, well, make a lot more doing other stuff, and advise the president on the side:

"Bush is so eager to preserve the bulk of his package that his aides are considering an address to the nation or to a joint session of Congress that would combine a pitch for tax cuts with a closing report on the war in Iraq, sources said. 'This would follow the Ronald Reagan approach of speaking over the heads of Congress and trying to generate a flood of letters and telegrams and, now, e-mails to Capitol Hill,' said an official involved in the planning."

"Another well-placed official said the philosophy is 'to mobilize the most important pressure group Congress has: all of America.' Numerous polls, however, have found tepid support for tax cuts in the face of growing deficits and the costly war on terrorism."

"Bush's outside political advisers are urging a presidential address from the well of the House because of the relative rarity of such speeches, the sources said. But White House officials favor an address from the White House or a location in the nation's heartland. In arguing for a less dramatic approach, these officials say they view Iraq as one battle in the war on terrorism, not a finite event from which Bush can pivot to a full-time focus on the economy … ."

And this is a tough stakeout, even for Dana Bash: "Bush's economic team — Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. and economic adviser Stephen Friedman — plan to set their negotiating position Monday over lunch in the West Wing."

"Sources said that among the ideas being seriously considered is turning the proposed 10-year tax cut into a seven-year cut. That would end it in 2010, which would make it look cheaper on paper — costing $500 billion or so. Officials said that should increase its appeal to moderate Democratic senators, some of whom have cited the deficit as their reason for resisting the full package."

"Another way of appealing to moderate or conservative Democrats would be to offset the cost of the tax cut elsewhere in the budget. Tax policy aides in Congress and at the Treasury Department are drafting lists of potential ways to raise revenue that could generate money for Bush's tax cut plans. But they also could spark a new fight."

"A senior Senate Republican tax aide said the first targets will be corporate tax shelters that were exploited by Enron Corp. and other scandal-tainted companies. The definition of 'abusive corporate tax shelter' could be codified to make clear that any tax transaction without a true economic benefit beyond tax avoidance would be illegal."

"Penalties could be doubled for inaccurate tax statements. New penalties could be instituted for tax shelter promoters or accounting firms that fail to maintain lists of clients involved in tax shelters. Such shelter measures alone could bring in as much as $16 billion over 10 years, the aide said."

"The Senate Finance Committee could also revive legislation to prevent companies from reincorporating in offshore tax havens such as Bermuda, legislation that could net an additional $3 billion. The aide conceded that the measures could open the tax bill to all-out attack by powerful business lobbyists. One GOP lobbyist with close ties to House leaders said business groups that have offered only tepid support for the Bush plan could turn hostile."

"'A lot of the business community is agnostic on this package,' the lobbyist said. 'You start throwing in things like this, and you've really raised some hackles.'"

Digest all that (imagine how hard to stomach that is going to be for the Wall Street Journal 's DC bureau editors!) and then go on:

Milbank writes from his Canton pre-position, where he drinks a lemonade and pretty much determines that getting Senator Voinovich to change his mind about taxes vs. deficits is probably not possible. LINK

And without using the letter "Z," Milbank has this budget history deal narrative: "Privately, the White House has been less forceful. After Voinovich and Snowe reached a deal with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) to halve the tax cut, the White House, alerted to the agreement six hours before the Senate voted on it, did not raise objections. After a tense meeting on the tax issue between Bush and Voinovich earlier this month, the White House has not lobbied Voinovich much."

Today, Reverend Al Sharpton and Howard Dean will be in Houston, Texas, for the U.S. Conference of Black Mayors convention.

Senator John Edwards campaigns in the Bay Area. Representative Kucinich is expected to travel to New York. Karl Rove is scheduled to attend a fundraiser for North Carolina Senate candidate Richard Burr.

Big Casino budget politics:

The New York Times ' David Firestone has a completely newsless (albeit long) look at the supposed civil war of the Republican party over tax cuts, once again imbuing the Club for Growth with mystical influence, without even knowing the size of television ad buys whose costs (whatever they are) are much lower than the value of all the free media they have garnered. LINK

The Washington Post 's Dan Morgan, showing a touch more Cardinal/Appropriator Stockholmity than makes us comfortable, has a lovely, loving profile of Senator Ted Stevens. LINK

The Wall Street Journal 's Dave Wessel, it can be presumed, was having some sort of infant flashback as he sucked his thumb hard while writing his column on President Bush and tax cuts, in which he comes out fully for stimulation.

The economy:

The Wall Street Journal 's Greg Ip puts the economy in sharp relief: "Federal Reserve officials are cautiously optimistic that the economy, which hit a wall in the months leading up to war with Iraq, has begun growing again."

"But they are split on how vigorous the expansion will be. Fed policy makers are thus likely to hold interest rates steady at their May 6 meeting, while they await proof that the end of the war is lifting businesses' spirits."

"Like private-sector economists, Fed policy makers disagree on what has held the economy back. The optimists cite the war and predict the economy will be reinvigorated as hostilities recede. The pessimists blame lingering effects of the popped stock-market bubble, excess capacity and corporate-governance concerns. They worry that the economy will lapse to subpar growth, sending unemployment higher and inflation lower and would be easily persuaded to cut the Fed's short-term interest-rate target, now at a 41-year low of 1.25%."

Senator Santorum:

Yesterday, we wrote that the Red v. Blue state divide is fueling this portentous storm.

On a basic level, that's true.

But if we change our abstraction to politics, rather than moral sensibility, the Purple People come into focus.

They're the slice of voters who hold a different set of principles from secular, urbane, liberal blue staters or conservative, religious, traditional red staters. Or they hold a combination of those principles.

Defining who they are and how they vote is difficult. Limning them from established constituencies is even harder. Republicans like David Brooks and Democrats like Ruy Teixeira and John Judis have made noble attempts. So have sociologist Alan Wolfe, and, of course, the incomparable Michael Barone.

Both sides generally agree that many young, suburban women (whether single or married) and a number of professionals make up this group. Many of them are either too young to have been caught up in the dichotomous culture wars of the 1960s or too busy to think about the culture wars of today.

They're the Americans who may be uncomfortable with homosexuality but who are just as skittish at the prospect of government having a say about it.

They're the Americans who might have objections to affirmative action but who are equally as weirded out by what they think is the Republican party's refusal to repudiate its "Southern Strategy."

They're the Americans who would rather have some tax cuts, rather than none at all — but who worry about the nation's fiscal health if the rate reductions are too large.

They're the Americans who believed, mind boggling to many in both parties, that Bill Clinton did something really stupid (and maybe should have resigned) but didn't think he should be impeached.

And they're the Americans who Republicans, in particular, fear alienating right about now.

So on with it, as CNN's Aaron Brown would transition:

We'll let the Philadelphia Inquirer set us up.

"As a tempest whipped up by his own words raged around him, Senator Rick Santorum yesterday stood by his remarks that homosexuality — like polygamy, incest and adultery — is 'antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.'" LINK

"Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Williamsport, the Republican senator from Pennsylvania defended his comments in an April 7 interview with the Associated Press, which were sparked by a Texas gay-sodomy case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court."

"Santorum said yesterday that his statements varied little from Justice Byron White's 1986 opinion that there is no constitutional right for gay men to engage in sex, the AP reported. 'To suggest that my comments, which are the law of the land and were the reason the Supreme Court decided the case in 1986, are somehow intolerant, I would just argue that it is not,' Santorum said."

"In the 1986 case, which was based on police's witnessing a homosexual sex act in Georgia, the Supreme Court upheld a state's right to regulate such sex."

The New York Times cagily leads with the call for a Santorum apology from the Republican Unity Coalition (a "Republican group whose officials include former President Gerald R. Ford and Mary Cheney"), and for some reason thinks another statement from Bill Frist supporting his colleague is news. LINK

The Washington Post also oddly treats the Frist and Specter carefully crafted response statements as new news, but then goes on to this better stuff: LINK

"At the White House, meanwhile, press secretary Ari Fleischer said President Bush would not comment on Santorum's remarks, because 'the president typically never does comment on anything involving a Supreme Court case.'"

"When a reporter pointed out that Bush recently weighed in on a Michigan affirmative action case before the court, Fleischer said that was why he had used the word 'typically.'"

Not really clear, though, about the use of that pesky "never."

Getting the political snapshot just right, or, mostly so, the Post 's Cooperman says: "Throughout the day, Democrats contended that the White House was trying to avoid taking a position that would alienate gays or conservatives from the GOP. Republicans contended that the Democrats were hoping for a repeat of the furor over Senator Trent Lott in December … "

"'As additional reports have come to light, revealing a disturbing history of inflammatory, anti-gay rhetoric by Senator Santorum, the deafening silence of President Bush and his party has become inexcusable,' said Howard Dean, the Democratic presidential candidate who signed a bill allowing same-sex unions when he was governor of Vermont."

"Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, complained in an e-mail to supporters that the defense of Santorum was weak. He said Fleischer 'ducked three questions about the affair,' while Frist and Specter 'issued statements offering personal assurances that Senator Santorum is not a bigot, but conspicuously avoided the real issue.'"

"'It is clear that many top GOP leaders cannot bring themselves to offer a spirited defense of marriage for fear of being accused of bigotry by Democrats and their allies among homosexual activists,' he wrote."

That seems like pretty good analysis to us; we wonder what George Bush and Dick Cheney think of it.

The Today Show did another spot on the tale, at about 7:14, including sound on tape from Senators Collins and McCain, both a bit off the leadership message (McCain told that Hardball guy in a clip that Santorum should apologize.).

The Joe Johns' spot ended by saying Santorum was blaming the media, and was tagged by a Katie-Tim colloquy in which the latter invoked Mary Cheney and disputed the Senator's contention that the AP took his quote out of context.

At the end, Katie seemed to ask Tim if the Santorum thing would be a problem for the president, and Tim talked taxes.

Roll Call 's Paul Kane reports that Senator Ted Kennedy, who did not publicly call for Senator Lott's resignation from leadership last December (but privately told his colleague Senator Kerry to do the opposite), is once more putting the onus on Republicans to decide the fate of Senator Santorum.

Kennedy, "the chamber's leading supporter of gay rights, declined Wednesday afternoon to call for Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum's resignation from the GOP leadership, saying the Pennsylvanian's support for criminalizing certain sexual activities should be judged by his Republican colleagues."

"'It's a decision that is going to have to be made by Republicans,' Kennedy told reporters at a domestic policy briefing in his Russell Building office."

No need to wonder what the Washington Post ed board thinks — no surprise here. LINK

Richard Cohen wryly parses Senator Rick Santorum's controversial remarks, with more than a touch of antipathy. LINK

Cohen finds fault with likening criminal behavior (incest) to consensual sex, mocks Senator Frist's awkward defense, ridicules Gary Bauer's comment that "elites" alone object to Santorum's remarks, ties in the Trent Lott controversy, offers data on hate crimes, and then changes tone from pleasant hostility to downright rancor:

"Deconstructing Santorum is no easy matter. His logic is Euclidean, his analogies Limbaughian, and he has, I must add, a stern countenance that in no way bespeaks the resolute voice for inclusion he really is. But he does, I think, raise a profound question that he ought to answer himself: If you have the orientation of a moron, do you still have to talk like one?"

The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial page is demurring about the resignation question: "Some have called for Santorum to resign from his leadership post. That's for the Republican Party to decide. Santorum is a rising GOP star and many in the party's base cheered his every word to the reporter." LINK

Howard Dean's comments got him his own AP story. LINK

USA Today 's Jill Lawrence looks at how the Santorum folio complicates GOP efforts to keep conservatives and moderates happy. LINK

Ramesh Ponnuru and Andrew Sullivan have going a wonderfully interesting debate about sodomy, sex, privacy and the Constitution. LINK

Why is the Santorum story different than the Lott story?

Bryan Keogh of The Chicago Tribune wisely asked that question to Professor Jacobs. LINK

"So far, Santorum's GOP colleagues have either remained quiet or offered support. Laurence Jacobs, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, says that is unlikely to change." "'Racism will turn off a lot voters,' he said. 'But homosexuality is very different. It doesn't present the same kind of dilemma.'"

We did remind ourselves that The Human Rights Campaign was saying nice things about Santorum as of three weeks ago for agreeing to drop provisions of a faith-based initiative that the group believed would allow private charities to discriminate, even if they received federal funds. LINK

And now the Senator might have a new problem. Per the AP: "The leader of one of Utah's largest polygamist sects has objected to Senator Rick Santorum's comment lumping plural marriage with other practices the Pennsylvania Republican considers to be antifamily." LINK

Where, we ask, are Al and Tipper Gore on this?

ABC 2004: The May 3 South Carolina Democratic presidential candidate debate:

The New York Post 's Deborah Orin thinks the South Carolina debate is B-I-G, elevating the Palmetto State to Iowa, New Hampshire, and thee Three Amigo status, and wondering how the Democratic candidates will interact with the scene-stealing, not-to-be-underestimated Reverend Al Sharpton, particularly in an early primary state with many black Democratic voters. LINK

Orin writes a colorful description of the so-called "top tier" who will compete in this post-Iraq debate: "Right now, Senator John Kerry (Mass.) is still the sort-of front-runner, despite stumbles from trying to have it both ways on Iraq. The others in the top tier are Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.), surprisingly slow-starting Senator Joe Lieberman (Conn.), moneybags Senator John Edwards (N.C.) and anti-war ex-Vermont Governor Howard Dean."

Noting Sharpton's negligible standing in the polls and controversial past, Orin wonders if any of his rivals will have the nerve to go after him, and offers this hometown advice: "Of course, New Yorkers know to never, ever underestimate Sharpton's skill at inserting himself into the headlines. If no one goes after him, don't put it past Sharpton to challenge the others on whether they agree he's qualified to be president."

With all the focus on the African American vote and the two African American candidates, don't forget there ARE other voters in this primary.

Although we think the AP goes a bit overboard with this: South Carolina has more than 11,000 Jews — potentially significant if the usual number of Democrats go to the polls. LINK

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary:

There is so much sniping going on below the radar on all sorts of things that The Note grows dizzy trying to keep track of it.

GEPHARDT

Correct us if we are wrong, but Congressman Gephardt's health care speech got more coverage than any previous policy speech by any of the candidates this cycle.

And for those playing along at home, try to keep count of how often "bold" or some variation of it appears in today's stories.

Dan Balz of the Washington Post makes these great points:

"The plan is one of the largest domestic initiatives offered by any recent presidential candidate. By presenting it at this early stage in the battle for the Democratic nomination, Gephardt signaled his determination not only to steal a beat on his rivals, but also to blunt criticism that he has been around so long that he lacks fresh or innovative ideas with which to lead the party against Bush in 2004 … ." LINK

"Today's fiscal outlook is far bleaker than it was four years ago, with the country facing sustained deficits rather than the record projected surpluses of that time. In substituting his plan for Bush's tax cuts, Gephardt guarantees that, if he were to win the election, the deficits would continue unabated. He made clear that eliminating the deficit during his presidency would be neither likely nor a priority … ."

"Gephardt's plan includes no provisions for containing rising health care costs, which could mean that the plan would be significantly more expensive in later years. The candidate said that insuring all Americans would help lower health care costs. The plan also lacks a provision for prescription drug benefits for senior citizens, a cornerstone of the Democrats' agenda. Gephardt still favors such a benefit, which would add a minimum of $50 billion a year to the budget deficit."

"Gephardt strategists have long said that his route to the nomination would begin by winning the "ideas primary" among the Democrats, and today, he laid down a marker to challenge his rivals to match him in addressing an issue that ranks high among Democratic primary voters … ."

"Most of Gephardt's rivals chose not to react publicly to the proposal. (Note Note: Note the use of the word "publicly.") Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who has made expanding health care coverage to virtually all Americans a key element of his campaign, called the plan 'a pie-in-the-sky, radical revamping of our health care system that has no chance of ever being passed … .'"

The Los Angeles Times ' Ron Brownstein had some "private" conversations with Mr. Gephardt's opponents. LINK

"Privately, aides to other Democratic campaigns charged that the plan was inefficient because it would spend so much money subsidizing firms already providing insurance. And some economists said it could accelerate the rise in health insurance costs because the increased federal subsidy would make employers less sensitive to such price hikes."

"Gephardt said he's eager to debate those arguments. And he called on his rivals to reveal their own ideas. 'I challenge every candidate for president to offer a health-care plan that covers every American, stimulates the economy and creates jobs,' Gephardt said in his speech. 'And I challenge them to tell us exactly how they'd pay for it.'"

And there is opponent sniping that this was just a desperate play for union support.

The Wall Street Journal 's John Harwood sees the big stakes:

"The plan's details and enormous price tag — more than $240 billion a year — make it a ripe target for Republicans and Democratic primary rivals who haven't gone nearly as far. The proposal also lends the veteran Missouri legislator an aura of boldness and frames a clear, high-stakes election choice pitting rising public concern about health care against Mr. Bush's persistent focus on cutting taxes."

"'It could work' politically, says Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster whose research helped defeat President Clinton's ambitious health-care overhaul in 1994. 'He could be launching that message on very fertile terrain … '"

"Mr. Gephardt's political aim is threefold. He seeks to jump-start a campaign that has shown only middling fund-raising prowess, and firm up support among labor unions, which would eye his proposed corporate tax credits as a source of higher wages as well as health benefits. And he wants to pressure rivals such as Mr. Edwards and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who haven't detailed their own plans on this front."

Both Jeff Zeleny and Congressman Gephardt think the health care plan is bold. LINK

"The bold health-care proposal will be the centerpiece of his campaign. Since the collapse of Clinton's plan, Democrats have struggled to find a workable political solution to the growing problem of the uninsured."

"For Gephardt, whose expectations are high because he is the only candidate who has run for president before, the health-care proposal could accelerate or hinder his candidacy. After a quarter-century of service in the House, Gephardt is criticized by some Democrats for advancing ideas that lack freshness."

The New York Times ' Nagourney leads with a few graphs of policy, but then hits the fact that Democrats have "concern that Mr. Gephardt's proposal, with its unambiguous call to reject all of Mr. Bush's tax cuts, might pull the Democratic contest to the left." LINK

"Mr. Gephardt, who has been struggling in a crowded field of Democrats to win any attention, clearly welcomed the attention. Accordingly, some of Mr. Gephardt's opponents declined to offer any public response to the speech, though that did not stop them from sending out detailed not-for-publication documents eviscerating it."

"One exception was Dr. Dean, who has made health care a centerpiece issue and has increasingly turned to it now that the war in Iraq, which he opposed, is fading."

"'What has Congressman Gephardt in his 25 years in office — along with the other candidates running for president — ever successfully accomplished in all their time in Washington toward solving this problem?' Dr. Dean asked."

Jimmy Pindell says that Gephardt's health insurance plan will be the centerpiece of his campaign in New Hampshire. LINK

The New York Daily News' Joel Siegel covers Representative Dick Gephardt's health insurance plan, suggesting the presidential hopeful is putting all his eggs in one slippery basket. LINK

Siegel Notes the "tepid applause from members of the health care workers union," the howling reaction of Republicans, and the scoffing of rival Howard Dean, who, as "the only other candidate to propose repealing Bush's entire tax cut, dismissed Gephardt's insurance plan as 'another pie-in-the-sky radical revamping of our health care system that has no chance of ever being passed.'"

Jonathan Cohn's writes in The New Republic that Gephardt's showing his political acumen by choosing to pit health care against tax cuts rather than talking about the far less sexy issue of budget deficits. LINK

"Still, whatever the substantive merits, the proposal demonstrates the sort tactical savvy Gephardt has lately been derided for lacking. For one thing, playing health care off against tax cuts is very smart politics. Democrats have been bashing their heads against the wall trying to make the fiscally responsible case against the Bush tax cuts. But budget balance is too abstract a value to motivate voters, particularly at a time when they're worried about lost jobs and falling wages. Health insurance, on the other hand, is something tangible; you can put it alongside the tax cuts, and ask voters to choose."

For our more wonkish readers, the AP has all the nuts and bolts of the plan. LINK

Gephardt apparently did a conference call with reporters in Iowa. LINK

The team apparently held a call with Arizona reporters, too. LINK

Two regular readers of Ron Brownstein enthuse about Gephardt's plan. LINK

The Manchester Union Leader says Representative Gephardt "lunged" to the left. LINK

Universal coverage is pricey, the New York Times reports. LINK

EDWARDS

The Note has always been from the Ray Donovan/Bill Gray school regarding leaks to journalists about on-going criminal investigations.

Professionally, we celebrate them for their scoopiness and their enhancement of democracy; as citizens, we decry them.

How these assistant U.S. attorneys let themselves become "lawyers close to the case"; how FBI agents let themselves become "people familiar with the matter"; and how reporters don't see anything wrong with this is all beyond us.

In any case, someone is giving up the fact that — duh — a criminal investigation has been opened by Public Integrity into the Arkansas law firm whose employees' donations were returned by the Edwards campaign after one of the firm's staffers inadvertently accused her boss of committing a crime to investigators from the Washington Post .

We are saving our "a Rose by any other name" joke for another day.

The Washington Post 's Tom Edsall, modestly saying that "news reports" set all this in motion, has a lot of stuff, including from "law enforcement."

"Law enforcement sources in Little Rock familiar with the inquiry said it is being handled from Washington, not by the local U.S. attorney's office. It could not be determined whether the investigation might extend beyond the Turner firm's contributions … ." LINK

"Sources said the investigation is being conducted by Craig Donsanto, director of the election crimes division in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. His office referred inquiries to the public relations office, which refused to discuss ongoing inquiries."

"Jennifer Palmieri, spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, said: 'We are glad to learn that the appropriate law enforcement authorities are following up on the matter.' She added, 'We have no reason to suspect political motivation' by the Republican-run Justice Department."

(And in the Grassy Knoll version, somewhere, El Sid is laughing at Jennifer's rank naivete, and has Ms. Comstock doing the same … .)

The Post also Notes for the first time some of Tab Turner's past largess to the Edwards empire.

The New York Times Oppell has this murky analysis: "Yet the inquiry may draw further attention to Mr. Edwards's heavy dependence on donations from fellow personal-injury lawyers … ," without really explaining how or why. LINK

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ran Edsall's story. LINK

Remember: While DOJ may be looking into the specific set of donations that does not mean they are looking into the Edwards campaign as a whole.

Roy Barnes has endorsed Senator Edwards, but other Democrats in Georgia aren't sure what they'll do. LINK

KERRY

If you one of the 174 people who have followed closely the long-running saga of how wide (or not) Senator Kerry is leaving the door open to using personal wealth to fund his presidential campaign, you will find this item from the Washington Post Pol Notes column both confusing and hilarious. LINK

Keying off yesterday's Boston Globe story (which itself had elements of both the confusing and the hilarious in it), the Post writes:

"Kerry's aides noted that Kerry has always left open the possibility of putting substantial personal money into his bid, and that he may be able to raise enough money to be able to reject public financing and the spending limits that go with the subsidies. 'This is nothing new,' one key Kerry aide said."

Oldest spin trick in the world, of course, asserting that something isn't "new" and therefore not news, but we have an idea: would someone who is either Senator Kerry or "key" to him please once and for all explain what his position is on using personal money?

The Wall Street Journal story on Gephardt's plan closes with paragraph, interesting on many levels: "Mr. Kerry's team promised, warily, that he would offer a plan within six weeks. 'Plans are overrated,' said pollster Mark Mellman, who has advised the Massachusetts senator and may join the campaign. 'The details are devilish.'"

In today's Manchester Union Leader, a man named S.S. Golden disagrees with Senator Kerry's scientific exposition of asthma.

"Let little Johnny and Susie play in the mud for a while! Exposure to bacteria and germs is a necessary part of immune system develop.m.ent. An immune system that does not develop properly will not function properly. Some people, such as myself, were unfortunate enough to inherit a genetic tendency to asthma from generations of family who had it."

"While pollution (and, in my case, molds and pollen) may trigger asthma attacks, they are not the root cause of the asthma. I just wanted people to be aware of what really causes it, so we can work to prevent it."

GRAHAM

Election timetable legislation might force Senator Graham to choose between his Senate seat and the Oval Office quest earlier than he might have liked. It's a little complicated, and it's a little less than a year away, so we'll file this clip and read it more carefully then. LINK

At the bottom of a Des Moines Register story on Representative Gephardt, Thomas Beamount teases out some details about Senator Graham's upcoming Iowa trip. LINK

LIEBERMAN

The Forward's E.J. Kessler continues her reporting on why Jewish donors aren't too keen on Senator Lieberman, so far. LINK

And David Lightman gets to the heart of Senator Lieberman's "Graham Problem." LINK

"Bob Graham is precisely the kind of person Joe Lieberman didn't want to have to run against for president."

"Both are veteran 60-something U.S. senators. Their resumes are nearly identical — both were elected to their state Senates in 1970, then held statewide offices and got elected to the U.S. Senate in the 1980s."

"Their calm, even humble styles are the same. They both promote themselves as moderates. They're both foreign policy wonks."

"And they both are counting on Florida, the nation's fourth-largest state, for big money and lots of votes. Lieberman was aiming to make Florida a critical part of his strategy. He looked to the state as a crucial source of money and a place where he could win with enthusiastic support." "But with Graham in the race, the edge now goes to the Florida senator."

KUCINICH

Representative Kucinich continues to speak out against the war. LINK

NEW HAMPSHIRE

We don't have the link for you, but we know that the New Hampshire Senate has begun consideration of a bill that would jam election day "electronic" tactics.

Politics:

What does one say about this? Probably too tragic to be ironic, but we will wait for the white smoke from Harlem.

"A prominent Republican fund-raiser who once said former President Bill Clinton was 'a lawbreaker and a terrible example to our nation's young people' pleaded guilty yesterday in Baltimore Circuit Court to production of child pornography." LINK

The Washington Post 's lobbying column has news about Max Cleland, Mark Merritt, and Barry Toiv, and amazingly leaves off his time working for Congressman Emanuel from a lengthy look at his resume. LINK

No Bob Barr, at least for now. LINK

The New York Post 's Vincent Morris blares this exclusive: "Senator Charles Schumer co-sponsored legislation sought by a private security company just two months after accepting nearly $50,000 in campaign donations from the firm, The Post has learned." LINK

Common Cause's Matt Keller is troubled by the implications. Other co-sponsors: Senators Levin Lieberman, McConnell , Alexander.

Additionally unnerving, Senator Schumer's plane door blew open mid-flight, according to the AP. LINK

The New York Post 's Fredric Dicker reports on the Quinnipiac University poll showing Governor Pataki's approval ratings way down, from 70% to 43% in the past year. LINK

The Wall Street Journal ed board is pro-Pataki, anti-Bloomberg on taxes.

Embattled, though defiant Broward County Elections Supervisor Miriam Oliphant wants a second term. LINK

Eugene Volokh for president? LINK

Webby Awards update:

Between the legendary Al Cross, the prolific Bill Nichols, and the tireless Dr. Baranowski, The Note is, for now, going with an all-Kentucky strategy in its modest pursuit of the People's Voice Webby Award.

With its eight electoral votes, Kentucky might seem like a strange choice on which to base a national campaign (heck: "international campaign"), but, by our logic, with it being Derby time and all, we think it is the right play.

Say get into the spirit and Vote The Note (We are going back to our roots again.). YOUR VOTE MATTERS

And in our bid to drive up votes there, our targeted media slogan: "The Note: Good Enough for Al Cross!"

Bush Administration strategy/personality:

Karl Rove. May 7th. St. Anselm. Be there.

Al Hunt's column is about the latest Newt Gingrich flap, and is further evidence that similarities in hair does not necessarily lead to kinship.

The New York Times ed board champions blue slipping of judicial nominees and continues to Kiss Kate by calling for Senate rejection of plenty of Bush nominees, in this case, Carolyn Kuhl. LINK

The New York Daily News' Rush and Molloy report that Eric Alterman and Mark Green are teaming up to write a book about 43. LINK

Titled "'The Book on Bush: Truth and Consequences for Our 43rd President,' the two Democrats say they'll 'offer a clear-eyed assessment of him. 'No President has been more polarizing since Nixon' … "

The New York Post 's Page Six lists John McLaughlin's guests for the White House Correspondents Dinner. LINK