The Note: Like Going to the Racetrack

— -- NEWS SUMMARY
There is obviously political and policy significance to the debates over deficit reduction, tax reform, legal reform, energy policy, immigration, education, health care, gay marriage, bio-ethics, judges, at-risk boys, HIV/AIDS, and the Barry Scheckification of Bush Administration policy.

Not to mention a (newly?) broad definition of success in Iraq, verbal challenges to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and cards thrown down over Syria, North Korea, and Iran.

TO mention also The Hug and The Kiss (Bush-Lieberman replace Al-Tipper as owners of The Kiss!!!). LINK

But last night, today, and the domestic political year (and maybe the Bush presidency) all revolve around Social Security.

The President laid down two numerical markers last night (55 and 4), but his failure to (all together now) SAY CLEARLY THAT THE *POINT* OF THE CHANGES HE PROPOSES IS TO TAKE PRESSURE OFF OF THE TRUST FUND IN THE FUTURE BY LOWERING THE GUARANTEED MINIMUM BENEFIT SOMEHOW is, for some (read: "us"!!!) the story of the night.

When a White House official conceded in a pre-speech background briefing (the truth) that the personal accounts plan would not save the system the President described as being in peril, that got the day off to a fine straight-talk start.

But the President's one-paragraph listing of past stray Democratic flotations of ways to reduce guaranteed benefits did not continue the pattern.

Some day (we are sure of it), the President will give a whole big speech laying out the reason for benefit cuts and the level of guaranteed minimum benefit that he thinks is appropriate.

That day was not last night, and we bet it won't be this week.

Let's start with the insta-political good news for the White House: as best we can tell, not one GOP member of Congress made a bid for the LaHood Award after the speech.

You can bet if ANY Republican had uttered a discouraging word on the record that the meee-djaa would have jumped all over it.

As is often the case with primetime events on the East Coast, the Los Angeles Times mammoth Washington bureau had more opportunity than its rivals to snag post-speech reax, and that they did:

The MOST discouraging remarks were similar to what the Los Angeles Times got from one Blue Stater:

"'Congress is not near a consensus on this issue,' Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) said, noting (sic) that many Republicans still were uncommitted to backing Bush's plan. 'But it was an effective opening of the debate.'" LINK

And from a different Los Angeles Times piece, from another Blue Stater:

"'While tonight's speech laid out more detail than we have seen to date, I still believe at this point there are more questions than answers,' said Rep. Michael N. Castle of Delaware. 'Personally, I need to see hard numbers and substantial details that would protect existing retirees before I can commit to any proposal.'" LINK

On the other hand, background quotes are a different matter -- also from an Los Angeles Times piece:

"A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems."

"That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans."

"'Oh, my God,' one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. 'The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board.'"

And what are we to make of this kicker from Jackie Calmes Wall Street Journal piece?

"Steve Moore, president of the Free Enterprise Fund that supports private accounts, said of the president's proposal, 'It's probably not going to happen in 2005.'"

"Privately, a White House strategist agreed."

(Boffo use of "privately," Jackie!!!)

More, from a different Los Angeles Times story:

"Independent political analyst Stuart Rothenberg said that the administration's admission that there was no connection between private accounts and Social Security's long-term solvency could complicate Bush's planned two-day, five-state campaign swing later this week to tout his proposals." LINK

"'This is bad news for the White House,' Rothenberg said. 'If Democrats can successfully argue that personal accounts won't solve the problem, they not only erase the [Bush] message, but they also cast doubt on the crisis message.'"

And: "'The administration is working on the theory that [members of Congress] need to see the dessert on the table before they'll eat the green beans,' said David C. John, a research fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation and longtime advocate of private accounts."

Beat perfect Dan Balz of the Washington Post:

"The president and his advisers were far more willing to offer specifics about the personal savings accounts than they were about the steps required to keep the system solvent. Those omissions, administration officials say, were deliberate to give congressional leaders more maneuvering room to find a consensus later this year. But that stance still leaves the administration open to Democratic criticism that it is avoiding the toughest questions about the plan, and reaction last night was uniformly negative among Democratic lawmakers . . . " LINK

"The political landscape Bush faces is the mirror image of the one he encountered during first-term battles over tax cuts. In those fights, Democrats were on the defensive, reluctant to oppose tax cuts for fear of political repercussions. Those battles ultimately came down to a question of whether Democrats could reduce the size of the cuts Bush wanted."

"In this battle, Bush has chosen to fight on what has been traditional Democratic turf, a program created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and jealously protected by his party ever since. Republicans have been singed enough times by Democratic charges that they favor cutting Social Security benefits that the president's first task is to calm his own caucus members and reassure them that they will not suffer in the 2006 midterm elections if they follow his lead."

And please, please, please don't let your eyes glaze over as you read all of Jonathan Weisman's unmatched must-read Washington Post story that explains a new(ish) wrinkle in the plan that is quite different than some free marketeers expected (and want):

"Under the White House Social Security plan, workers who opt to divert some of their payroll taxes into individual accounts would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system . . . " LINK

"Stephen Moore, a conservative supporter of Bush's Social Security effort, said the mechanism would undermine the president's notion of an 'ownership society.'"

Watch how that plays out with some of the biggest supporters of these accounts.

President Bush attended the National Prayer Breakfast in DC, delivering remarks at 8:00 am ET before hitting the road to sell his Social Security plan. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Thomas DeLay (R-TX) also attended that breakfast.

The President will talk overhaul in Fargo, ND at 12:35 pm ET, and in Great Falls, MT, at 6:10 pm ET. He overnights in Omaha, NE.

After Bush's North Dakota appearance, the Center for American Progress hosts a conference call with Sen. Byron Dorgan and Gene Sperling to respond to his sales pitch at 2:30 pm ET.

If you're interested in talking about the President's Social Security plan, listening to other people talk about it, or ask questions about it, you're looking at a mother lode today.

At 9:00 am ET, House Minority Leader Pelosi, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Democratic Caucus Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Reps. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Sander Levin (D-MI) slam President Bush's Social Security overhaul in a news conference.

At 9:30 am ET, Sens. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and John Sununu (R-NH) join the New York Times' Paul Krugman and Cato's Stephen Moore to talk about Social Security at the National Press Club.

At 10:00 am ET, Democratic women Senators hold a news conference to talk about how and why they oppose the President's plan.

At 11:00 am ET, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and others in the Senate Democratic Caucus "hold an event" to discuss their opposition to privatization of Social Security at the FDR Memorial. AP politely uses "hold an event" -- what we hear they're going to do is hold a séance in an effort to invoke the memory of the late president who created Social Security.

The, uh, creative event will focus on how Bush's " privatization scheme " levies a "birth tax" on newborns and will detail how the Bush plan (whatever it is) allegedly increases the per capita debt each American owes by more than 100 percent.

At noon ET, AARP, Rock the Vote, and the Joint Center for Economic Studies hold a news conference to release a poll on attitudes of younger voters and minorities about Social Security.

At 1:00 pm ET, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities holds a conference call on Social Security issues. Kenneth Apfel, former Social Security commissioner and now a professor in public affairs at the University of Texas, Robert Greenstein, executive director of CBPP; and Jason Furman, senior fellow at CBPP, participate.

At 2:00 pm ET, the Senate Special Committee on Aging holds a hearing called, "Social Security: Do We Have to Act Now?" Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office; David Walker, comptroller general of General Accountability Office; John Rother, policy director of the Association of American Retired Persons; Bob Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition; and David John, research fellow the Heritage Foundation, testify.

First Lady Laura Bush attended the National Prayer Breakfast at 8:00 am ET, then travels to Philadelphia for a 10:30 am ET speech at the Boys and Girls Club. She overnights in New York.

At 11:00 am ET, the Senate resumes deliberating on the nomination of Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales. A roll call vote is expected.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at 10:00 am ET.

The Labor Department reports that first-time jobless claims dropped by 9,000 to 316,000 last week -- the lowest level in nearly two months.

Correction: We got a little ahead of ourselves regarding the climate change speech that Sens. Kerry and Hagel are set to deliver at the Brookings Institution. The speech is Feb. 9, at 10:00 am ET. We look forward to it, and we regret the error.

State of the Union: lede-alls:
New York Times: LINK

Washington Post: LINK

Los Angeles Times: LINK

Boston Globe: LINK

USA Today: LINK

State of the Union: Social Security:
More from Jonathan Weisman's absolute must-read on the specifics of the White House Social Security plan, including exactly how those personal accounts and the money would work -- that workers would receive dividends exceeding the inflation-adjusted 3 percent interest rate, and not the whole balance. The nest-egg-vs.-loan difference is absolutely crucial. LINK

"If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's."

"With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit."

The New York Times' David Rosenbaum lays out the basics: "The theory behind the proposal is that the government can make the Social Security system financially solid by reducing guaranteed retirement benefits, but ideally workers' retirement income would not be lower because their investment accounts would make up for the lower guaranteed benefits." LINK

"Workers could participate or not, as they chose. Those who did might fare better financially than those who relied on guaranteed benefits. Though Mr. Bush did not acknowledge any risk, they could also do worse. Bush administration officials say the accounts would be heavily regulated, but even so, the unpredictability of the financial markets would be injected into what has always been a straightforward social insurance program."

Other key paragraphs:

"The official, who spoke to reporters on the condition that he not be identified because he did not want to upstage the president, said that as a rule of thumb, workers who think their investments would earn at least 3 percent a year should participate and others should not."

And what happens if workers start to retire when the equity markets are bearish?

Todd Purdum's analysis Notes the president's penchant for bold strokes but cautions that his lack of details could hinder the bipartisan cooperation Republicans say he will need.

"'Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who heads the Finance Committee, which would have to approve Mr. Bush's proposed changes, warned at a hearing Wednesday morning that in the Senate 'nothing gets done that's not bipartisan.' For their part, Democratic leaders are already vowing to fight the president's proposal as it now stands, with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, dismissing it as "'Social Security roulette.'" LINK

The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse Note the difficulties faced by Democrats. LINK

Karen Hughes wasn't in Washington for the speech, a sign to one Republican quoted in this New York Times story that the White House did not consider this speech all that important. Just wait 'till the budget comes out next Monday. LINK

We almost missed this sentence from the Wall Street Journal's lead story about paying for the transition to personal/private accounts: "Administration aides yesterday also didn't rule out expanding the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax."

Ron Brownstein found new signs of flexibility in the President's speech. LINK

But, showing his usual gift for metaphor, Brownstein writes, " . . . (T)he president's gestures toward his critics may prove a 50-foot bridge over a 100-foot gorge."

Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe found it "soothing" and "calming" after the "soaring" and "sometimes strident" inaugural. LINK

"On this night, the man who admires Winston Churchill came off a little like Bill Clinton, taking the driver's seat but offering those who don't fully agree with him a chance to help navigate."

Judy Keen reports that a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showed that 74 percent of those who watched the speech found the President's Social Security argument convincing, and takes a nice look at the politics of the proposal and the larger picture. LINK

Op-ed takes from Podhoretz: LINK

And Morris: LINK

And Novak: LINK

State of the Union: takin' the Social Security show on the road:
The Billings Gazette's headline: "Cheers, Jeers for Social Security Plan." LINK

The Omaha World Herald chooses the New York Times story but flags it with a nice-for-Bush headline: "Bush Sets Sights On Change." LINK

Fargo is excited, but the paper fronts a story about an alleged "Do Not Admit" list to the President's speech today that's causing controversy. LINK

Old campaign habits die hard, perhaps.

The White House and Gov. John Hoven's office say they don't know anything about a list, but "sources close to Tuesday's ticket distribution" say it went out to Fargo distribution sites and say some on it wrote critical letters to the newspaper criticizing President Bush.

The paper also has a stand-alone story about opposition to the President's plan. LINK

(The Benator knows he's a target of today's visit: LINK)

Reactions from Members of Congress from Nebraska and Ohio: LINK

And from Florida: LINK

State of the Union: non-Social Security:
The Los Angeles Times' Peter Wallsten explains one of the more intriguing proposals laid out in the speech: First Lady Laura Bush heading a new program for troubled boys aimed at reducing gang violence. LINK

Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of the Los Angeles Times looks at the President's rare nod to critics of his record on the death penalty in Texas -- a program to train defense lawyers, prosecutors, and judges on the application of capital case law. LINK

Congress:
The Washington Post's Mike Allen reports that House Republican leaders chose Rep. Richard Hastings (R-WA), considered a loyalist and favorite of House Speaker Hastert, to chair the House ethics committee. They also installed two new members, Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Tom Cole (R-OK) who have donated to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's legal fund. LINK

More from the Los Angeles Times' Richard Simon. LINK

The cabinet: Michael Chertoff:
The Washington Post's John Mintz wraps Chertoff's "cordial" hearing, where he said he offered no guidance to intelligence officials on interrogating terror suspects. LINK

The AP's on-the-beat Lara Jakes Jordan, however, found the questioning pointed. LINK

The Los Angeles Times' David Savage Notes that Chertoff's questioners used the session to get a few things off their chests about the Department of Homeland Security. LINK

DNC chair's race:
ABC News has learned that DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe dined privately last night with his would-be successor, Howard Dean, according to people familiar with the reservation schedule at Café Milano.

McAulliffe reached out to Dean when it became evident that Dean had accumulated enough support among the DNC membership to win next Saturday's vote, Democrats said.

And Dean happened to be in town, meeting with other leading Democrats.

The two men discussed the transition process and McAuliffe described the day-to-day mechanics of what his job is like.

Dean still has three other official opponents, and the delay has begun to concern some of Dean's allies, who want Dean to be elected at the DNC meeting by a near-unanimous vote.

Said a Dean adviser: "It's clear we have the votes to win on the first ballot. If any of our opponents who doesn't see that, well, it's' only because they don't want to. It's in everybody's interest to bring people on board behind the new chairman."

Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe says Dean gets it and is now seasoned enough to take the helm of the Democratic Party -- and reads Harold Ickes' endorsement and the backing of the state party chairs as signs of his readiness. LINK

The Des Moines Register's Tom Beaumont reports that both Gov. Vilsack and Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson endorsed Dean on Wednesday. LINK

The New York Post's Deb Orin reports that New York Dem chair Denny Farrell threw in his support as well. LINK

Gov. George Pataki:
New York Republicans contemplate the future of fundraising in a post Michelle Stubbs world. LINK

Ms. Stubbs' son has a nice state job, the New York Post reports. LINK

What, we wonder, is the Governor's strategy for dealing with all this, beyond the denials that Ms. Stubbs did personal chores for the family? And predict if you will the first day the Post doesn't have a story on this?

The New York State Assembly voted to ban certain state officials from appearing in commercials that tout the state, and you know who you are. LINK

House of Labor:
The AFL-CIO executive council meets today in Washington, and while part of the agenda deals with traditional staff reports, a healthy chunk of time is reserved for debate about the proposals by various union leaders to remake the labor movement.

Says an AFL-CIO spokeswoman: "The entire meeting is about restructuring . . . mergers, growth, bargaining standards."

Lest recent press coverage give you the wrong impression, labor reform has moved beyond the province of the Carpenters' Doug McCarron (he sorta started it), the recently dissolved New Unity Partnership, or even Andy Stern, its most bombastic and visible explicator.

We gather that there's a healthy majority of AFL-CIO union leaders who, because they fear they'll be left behind when the train leaves the station or because they simply believe that the status quo is untenable, have signed on to the reform brigade.

Problem for them is that the AFL-CIO itself remains an organizing dominated by soothing, calming, consensus-builders, not bomb-throwers, and no single proposal has caught fire. And President John Sweeney, as beloved and respected as he is, does not seem constitutionally able to support one plan over another, or any approach that speeds things up, rather than slows things down.

As Bob Novak pointed out this week, the Teamsters have muscled their way to the edge of the spear.

In December, James Hoffa's union proposed an ambitious 10-step plan, the highlight being a rebate of up to 50 percent of each union's per worker tax that currently goes to the AFL-CIO headquarters on 16th Street in Washington.

Under the plan, if unions commit to grow their ranks, they'll pay the central organizing body much less and have much more to spend locally. The proposal would encourage unions to stay within their own core industries -- the Teamsters themselves would be discouraged from organizing any more flight attendants, for example.

That would still leave the AFL-CIO with an annual budget of between $70 and $100 million, plenty for politics, lobbying, and organizing. Cutting the per-capita tax on unions would in theory incentivize their internal reformation, as more and more of their own staff would have to be dedicated to organizing new members.

The Teamsters' proposal would also prod the AFL-CIO's executive committee, currently an unwieldy 25 members, to shrink, and to focus more on mapping out mergers between unions in the same field. Mergers would be voluntary -- not compulsory, as the SEIU's Stern has suggested, but certainly strongly encouraged.

The Teamsters' proposals echo Stern's, which were introduced in detailed form in November of 2004 but which has been gestating for years. Most debate in labor circles centers on political militancy, the per capita tax proposals and the philosophy of mergers.

Opponents say that the AFL-CIO is not a corporation and should never adopt corporate values. Besides, they say, Stern's idea to put large national unions with specific responsibilities for organizing sectors of the economy on the executive committee would turn labor into a centrally-controlled, undemocratic cartel. (Stern envisions about 15-20 overall unions, compared to more than 55 today.)

Obviously, some of the smaller unions don't want to lose their clout, or whatever is left of it.

This month, a series of AFL-CIO components will discuss the reform proposals, beginning with the organizing committee on Feb. 9.

There's a big meeting on Feb. 17 of the AFL-CIO's central labor council and state federation heads, many of whom have proposed their own reform plans. Outside observers say that this group is particularly wary of the AFL-CIO's leadership and is among the coalitions most open to reform.

There's a full executive council meeting on Feb. 28, and the Winter Meeting of the full AFL-CIO begins March 1 in Las Vegas, Nevada.. In theory, some type of official AFL-CIO recommendation will result from all these meetings.

And on July 25, when the AFL-CIO selects its new president (UniteHere's John Wilhelm, possibly, or Richard Trumka, the current secretary-treasurer) or re-elects Sweeney, all unions will vote.

That's the theory, anyway. Stern or other labor unions could well decide to take their unions out of the AFL-CIO if the pace of reform is not sufficient.

For more, see this great Q and A: LINK

In any event, we bet that Harold Meyerson will get the scoop before most anyone else. LINK

Campaign finance:
Martin "Lowell's Son" Meehan, John "My Consultants Are Telling People I'm Running in 08" McCain, Christopher "I'm The Key to Karl's Connecticut Hopes" Shays and Russ "Draft Me For President" Feingold, the quartet behind BCRA, the first campaign finance bill that President Bush, ah, enthusiastically signed into law, has proposed legislation to reform the so-called 527 groups that famously brought us the Swift Boat veterans, the Texans for Truth, Ashley's Story, and the zillions of outside Democrats who swarmed Ohio on Election Day.

The 527 Reform Act, which will probably be endowed with the "McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan 2" moniker, would require the 527s to register as political committees to the FEC and therefore be subject to federal campaign finance laws, unless everything they spend is targeted to non-federal races and elections.

The bill would require that at least 50 percent of all federal expenditures be funded with regulated, "hard money" donations and restrict individual donations to $25,000 or less.

There are many members of Congress in both parties wary of 527 reform, but there are many who will be quick to embrace it (like Sen. Trent Lott, the committee chairman who will first consider it), and President Bush has made it clear that he favors a crackdown on 527s, at least in theory.*

* = Cf the Swift Boat controversy, where he refused to condemn the charges against Sen. Kerry but voiced opposition to the action of all 527s.

Glen Justice signals opposition from the likes of Ellen Malcolm and the ACT folks, and makes it mostly/all about Sen. McCain!!! LINK

Roll Call's Suzanne Nelson writes that the measure looks headed for the fast track.

David Broder has (somewhat) been made a believer about BCRA. LINK

Dems regroup:
Roll Call's Erin Billings writes that House Democrats are going to be spending their retreat time this weekend focusing on a message on faith and security. Interesting guests, including Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA), Gen. Wesley Clark, Mark Gersh, and Bill Moyers.

2006:
Gov. Jeb Bush's preferred successor, per some tea leaves: Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings. LINK

2008:
Roll Call's Chris Cillizza looks at Bayh for President '08, starring Paul Maslin on polls; Linda Moore Forbes as his deputy chief of staff; and Steve Bouchard on the political action committee, Americans for Responsible Leadership -- and watch that leadership PAC go over the next couple of years.

Bayh, writes Cillizza, met last week with about 50 financial backers in Washington, DC, has "a solid network of supporters in New York City" and has made contacts in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Florida as well.

The Boston Globe's Sasha Talcott looks at the loan program through Citizens Financial Group that Gov. Mitt Romney is expected to unveil today, which will give low-cost assistance to companies that add jobs to the Bay State or New England's economies -- a version of Citizens loan program launched in Pennsylvania in 2004. LINK

Great news for Democrats in 2008. One of the state's most beautiful cities, Greenville, finally approved a Martin Luther King holiday for municipal employees. (Thank Republicans on the city council for that, by the way.)

As a Democratic insider in South Carolina relates, "the national political implication is that it makes it much easier for presidential candidates to campaign in Greenville -- now Dems can avoid protests and Repubs don't have to risk alienating conservative voters who oppose the holiday. Hillary came to Greenville last year and went to great lengths to point out that she was only visiting Greenville City (which observes the holiday) and not Greenville County. All the Dem presidential candidates did the same."

Politics:
Hard to decide if we'd have wanted to be a fly on the wall or are glad we're only reading about the not-so-smooth late-1960s meetings between Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. We bet it's the last time anyone called out, "Is there someone named Cheney here?" LINK

All of this from the Washington Post's Richard Leiby in his Reliable write up of Craig Shirley's must-read new tome "Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All."

Stuff that struck us from this great book: . . . the 1970s amusing tone deafness of the New York Times editorial page to conservative angst . . . the fact that Shirley scored an interview with Arthur Finklestein . . . recognition of the role of the American Conservative Union and Human Events in building mass support for conservative politicians . . . our inability to conclude whether Shirley believes Dick Cheney was a good chief of staff or an ineffective one for Ford . . . Cheney's role in spreading the "Errors and No Facts" memo . . . Cheney's lack of contempt for Reagan and his affinity for his fellow Westerner . . . Ford's secret anti-Reagan strategy memos . . . the roller coaster ride of primaries... the surprisingly light role that Nancy Reagan played in her husband's political strategy . . . Pete Wilson's calling Reagan "the worst governor" in California's history . . . harsh Ford-on-Reagan commercials in North Carolina that make the Swift Boat vet ad sound like a Nick at Night commercial . . . appearances by a "youngster named John Kasich" . . . William Loeb...Bay Buchanan . . . Fred Barnes . . . and much much much much more.