The Note: Holding the Center . . .

— -- WASHINGTON, May 24

NEWS SUMMARY
What we don't know about the filibuster deal and the aftermath:

1. What the White House in its heart of hearts actually thinks of what happened.

2. Whether it will be easier -- or harder -- to employ the nuclear/constitutional option in the middle of a very public Supreme Court battle. Will the public hold everyone accountable for violating core principles if it happens?

3. How long the press will stay with the storyline. (Alternatively: how long the storyline stays "the center holds!")

4. How long the interests groups will try to keep it alive.

5. How quickly and against whom (if at all) the right will exact real revenge against the heretics. (Will the right push harder for a Supreme Court nominee who is seen as more ideologically conservative, than, say, Michael W. McConnell?)

6. How quickly and against whom (if at all) the left will exact real revenge against the heretics. (How will the left interpret a Supreme Court nominee who is roughly analogous in temperament and conservative philosophy to Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen?)

7. When -- and if -- the deal falls apart. What happens to Brett Cavanaugh and William Haynes. (We checked this morning with tippy-top Republican and Democratic aides, and Democrats insist there's a side deal to drop them while Republicans think there's no deal at all. Do Democrats have reason to believe that the two won't get out of committee?)

8. If the White House will accept not getting up-or-down votes on every nominee.

9. If John Bolton can be filibustered now. If any Democrat wants to take that risk.

10. If various combinations of Senators build around the Gang of 14 to produce bipartisan compromises on other issues.

11. If the White House will change one iota the way it picks judge nominees.

12. If there is a definition of "extraordinary circumstances" that any two Note readers (let alone any two Senators) can agree on.

13. If Bill Frist will now have to change anything about the way he manages the conference. What Sen. Rick Santorum says today about, well, everything.

14. How the vote would have come out if there had been one.

15. If Frist could have gotten a better result if he had heeded the urging of activists and moved to push the nuclear button sooner.

16. If Frist takes a short term hit from some grass tops movement conservative leaders but reaps longer-term benefits because he took a stand against filibusters and refused, in the end, to compromise himself.

17. If the Gang of 14 will like the praise and adulation of the Chattering Class more than they dislike what is said about them on the blogs (and, in some cases, at home and at fundraisers).

18. If the right's rage at the GOP members of the Gang of 14 will spare Frist much criticism.

19. If John McCain has any fear left in him and if he ever met a microphone he didn't like (OK: those two have known answers.)

10. How many days we'll have to read tick-tocks lionizing the Gang of 14 -- if they will endure through Sunday thumb-suckers and the newsweeklies.

20. If any of this will change a single citizen's vote for any contested race anywhere in America.

22. If polling will show America loves the deal as much as the Washington press corps does, and if Congress' job approval will go up.

23. What Mitch McConnell has up his Kentucky sleeve. Why Arlen Specter and Chuck Hagel truly dropped out of the Gang.

24. When an elder statesperson of commentary, i.e., David Broder or George Will writes a column extolling the virtue of a gentleman's agreement and hearkening back to an earlier time when word truly was bond and trust (but verification) among principled negotiators was more than sufficient for a deal to stick.

25. Whether agreeing to this compromise makes someone a "moderate" or a "centrist."

26. How much money did the Alliance for Justice spend on the ad featuring Sen. Reid calling for comity (that ran a minute after Fox News and others) ended its live coverage of the compromise press conference?

As for the cliché of all clichés -- the winners, the losers, and the ambiguity:

Conventional wisdom winners: Harry Reid; the judges who get confirmed under the deal; the Democrats; the Gang of 14; the traditions of the Senate.

Actual winners: 10 members of the Gang of 14; the judges who get confirmed under the deal; the people who devised the White House strategy of (disengagement; David Rogers; Dan Balz; Norm Ornstein; advertisers on A & E (the Fox News Channel broadcast McCain's pitch for his movie in its entirety!)

Conventional wisdom losers: Sen./Leader/Dr. Frist; the nominees thrown from the sled; James Dobson, Nan Aron, and their allies.

Actual losers: Some cable news producers; four members of the Gang of 14; public orgies of self-congratulation.

Conventional wisdom too-soon-to-say-how-they-fared: the White House.

Actual too-soon-to-say-how-they-fared: the White House; Dr. Frist; Sen. Reid; Sen. McCain.

Now the Senate turns to well, the aftermath (and appropriations and asbestos and Bolton and a surface transportation conference).

The Senate reconvenes at 9:45 am ET in executive session and has a noon vote on cloture for Priscilla Owen.

Party policy luncheons last from 12:30 pm ET until 2:15 pm ET and may give Leaders Frist and Reid a chance to appear before the cameras.

At 9:00 am ET, Sen. Arlen Specter joins a handful of conservative luminaries to discuss the judicial nomination battles, including Dan Lungren, Judith Hope, Viet Dinh and Roger Pilon. We wondered why we didn't see him last night.

Tomorrow, at a place yet to be determined, Sen. Reid officially begins the Democratic pivot away from judges and toward selling a domestic agenda of their own.

Per a Democratic official, Reid plans to "discuss the impact of the abuse of power on the American people. He will outline how Republicans are out of touch with the needs of average Americans."

"He will discuss how Democrats will fight to reform government, make it accountable to the American people, and work on the people's business."

President Bush today participates in conversation on Social Security in Rochester, NY at 10:50 am ET and then returns to DC to speak about bioethics and stem cell research at 2:30 pm ET. (Americans United for the Preservation of Social Security has a 2:00 pm ET protest at the library pole in downtown Rochester.)

The Senate appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice and science will hear from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller at 10:00 am ET.

The House debates and possibly votes on how they want to expand stem cell research. There are two versions -- one supported by leadership that deals mainly with cord blood, and one supported by about half the chamber, that would allow stem cell research from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization.

President Bush has promised to veto the latter bill if it gets to his desk as is. The cord blood bill gets consideration this morning; the in vitro bill takes up the afternoon. Majority Leader DeLay will be heavily involved in the floor debate.

The AIPAC policy conference today hears from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission meets today at 10:00 am ET to update its various ongoing projects.

Faith based initiative czar James Towey speaks at 10:45 am ET to the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at GW today.

The Center for Public Integrity releases campaign finance data on 200 state party and caucus committees.

At 1:00 pm ET, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. and other members of Congress will host a freedom of press forum at the Rayburn House Office Building. Al Franken and Randi Rhodes and other Air America Radio.

Bill Moyers speaks at 4:00 pm ET to the Future of American Media Caucus (who knew there was such a thing?) at the Rayburn House Office Building.

Virginia gubernatorial candidate/LG Tim Kaine (D) hosts a tribute to Gov. Mark Warner fundraiser at 7:30 pm ET. And yes, he'll be there. (!)

Filibuster: news of day:
The Washington Post. LINK

The Los Angeles Times. LINK

USA Today. LINK

The Chicago Tribune. LINK

The New York Times: LINK

The Washington Times. LINK (This one you must read, if only for Charles Hurt's knowledgeable-insider tone . . . )

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that Americans are paying more attention to the filibuster fight than last week's Pew survey -- but only marginally. Forty-seven percent said they are following the filibuster debate closely, and 16 percent said they're following it "very closely" -- and they're about split on what to do about changing the filibuster rules: 43 percent say they favor the change, 40 percent say they oppose it, and a solid 17 percent say they don't care.

Jon Cohen of ABC News' Polling Unit Notes that this poll surveyed more Republicans than usual, and that adjusting for usual party divisions would make a 40-44 pro-con split. Among the partisans, two thirds of Republicans wanted to change the rule, and nearly two thirds of Democrats wanted to keep the filibuster. About 20 percent more Republicans than Democrats said they are following the issue closely -- particularly since Senate debate began last week, and the number of those overall who say they're following the filibuster debate outpaces is outpacing those who said they were paying attention to the ethics controversy surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay by 11 percent.

Filibuster: big-think celebrating the center:
Per the Wall Street Journal's Rogers and Cummings: "The announcement followed a day of mounting tension between the leaders, and the political situation is quite unlike any in the past because the centrists came to control their own destiny and the Senate's."

"Typically, such groups must reach agreement on an issue and then go back and sell their ideas to the left and right wings. In this case, the 14 senators effectively defined the balance of power in the Senate, delivering support to cut off endless debate but also denying votes to Mr. Frist to weaken the filibuster power."

The Washington Post's Dan Balz Notes that the deal is a mixed bag for President Bush, who now won't have as much free rein in how he picks Supreme Court nominees, and faces pressure from moderates to work more with the Senate on judicial nominations (Go back and read Sen. Graham's comments.). LINK

The Los Angeles Times' Janet Hook and Ron Brownstein call the deal "an unusual challenge" to the White House and Republicans who have stuck together, and write that it throws a monkey wrench into plans for major policy and governmental changes by emboldening moderates to challenge their more conservative brethren. LINK

The Chicago Tribune's Jeff Zeleny warns that one deal doesn't mean the bitter partisanship has suddenly dissipated. LINK

Writes Susan Page of USA Today on the latest poll conducted by her paper, CNN and Gallup: "On the filibuster confrontation -- defused by a compromise announced late Monday -- those surveyed favored the Democrats by 48%-40%. But they saw merit in the arguments of each side. A 53% majority say the filibuster -- the ability of at least 41 senators to continue debate and delay a vote -- should be preserved. Still, 69% wanted the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on judicial nominees."

"Interest in the issue wasn't particularly high, though. A 57% majority wasn't following the news on filibusters closely; more than one in three weren't following it at all." LINK

The poll finds President Bush's approval rating at 46 percent, with 40 percent approving of his handling of Iraq and 33 percent approving of the way he's handled Social Security.

Note also: "Satisfaction with congressional Republicans also has sagged. By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since the GOP won control of both houses of Congress in 1994."

Poll results: LINK

E.J. Dionne cheers the deal. LINK

The Washington Post editorial board applauds the messy, tenuous efforts of the "Bipartisan Fourteen." LINK

The Los Angeles Times' editorial board says "boo" -- now the Senate can get back to business as usual. LINK

Filibuster: big think on related issues:
The New York Times crafty Dick Stevenson uses this moment in the nation's history to look at the status of the President's agenda. LINK

"In recognition of the stakes, Mr. Bush has been stepping up his courtship of Congress members, holding nine meetings over the last month in the Cabinet Room and the White House residence, with two more meetings scheduled this week. Vice President Dick Cheney has been taking a more active role in dealing with Congress on domestic issues. The White House message machine has been relentlessly seeking to put the onus on Congress not to block Mr. Bush's initiatives, in effect putting the responsibility on Democrats to move toward Mr. Bush rather than the other way around, and pre-emptively casting them as obstructionist."

The New York Post's Deborah Orin leads her analysis thusly: "The real winner in the Senate judge deal could be President Bush -- because it opens the way for Congress to finally start getting things done . . . " LINK

" . . . A Democratic staffer predicted one result will be the confirmation of Bush's controversial nominee for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton 'No one is going to want to filibuster him now,' the staffer conceded."

USA Today's Kathy Kiely and Jim Drinkard preview today's vote on Judge Priscilla Owen. LINK

The Los Angeles Times' Richard Simon and Mary Curtius look at the pressure from the extremes and how no activists on either pole are happy. LINK

More of a celebration of one of the right's key players: the Washington Post's Jeffrey Birnbaum profiles "the eccentric" conservative causester C. Boyden Gray, one of the founders of the Committee for Justice, who can claim partial victory from last night's deal because filibusters will be more rare. LINK

Filibuster: homestate coverage of the Gang of 14 and other important senators:
Billy House of the Arizona Republic reports that although the overnight success was ushered in by Sen. McCain, his political forecast may ultimately depend on how tightly the knots of negotiation were tied. The dealmaker's darling didn't appease everyone, though. Arizona GOP Rep. Trent Franks saw the agreement as Republican surrender. LINK

Richmond Times-Dispatch: "J. Warner helped avert showdown." LINK

The Arizona Republic's editorial page applauds McCain and the bargaining bunch for perceiving the long-term Capitol Hill gains of compromise. LINK

In the Des Moines Register, Jane Norman relays that Sen. Tom Harkin (D) is a happy-talking man this morning, while Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) is not all that chipper. LINK

Per the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader: "When the Senate made a deal to protect the filibuster Monday night in exchange for up or down votes on three of five Bush nominees to federal circuit courts of appeal, the news was received well by both South Dakota senators." LINK

John Kerry defends the Democrats' power to filibuster in his Boston Globe op-ed: "the filibuster fight is more than a beltway battle. The very foundation of our government -- an effective system of checks and balances -- is at stake." Kerry also argues that certain Bush judicial nominees are bias and "seem ready to set precedent and fact aside to promote their personal political agenda." LINK

Filibuster: profiles and tick-tocks of the Gang of 14:
The New York Times on Byrd and Warner, peas in a pod, an "institutionalist" and a "constitutionalist," a Virginian embraced by the center and a West Virginian embraced by MoveOn, etc., etc., etc. LINK

The clever Mark Leibovich of the Washington Post tick-tocks the agreement and reads a little body language by the Gang of 12 -- er, 14. LINK

Filibuster: blogs on the right:
On The Corner and in Bench Memos, read John Podhoretz (a compromise was inevitable and this one ain't bad), Matthew Franck ("The leadership can press for up-or-down votes all it wants, but two nominees -- Myers and Saad -- will never get them, in this Congress anyway. . . . . It's futile to try to attach a principle to the agreed-upon language about "extraordinary circumstances," since the people put in charge of what is "extraordinary" are the Democrats, who have already proven themselves perfectly unprincipled in this fight.:) Ed Whelan ("a temporary cooling off . . . Republicans need reinforcement.") Jonathan Adler "First, if Chief Justice Rehnquist retires at the end of this term, as may expect, and President Bush nominates a mainstream conservative to the court (e.g. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Michael McConnell), if the Democrats filibuster the deal was made in bad faith. Indeed, the only possible "extraordinary circumstance" if a mainstream conservative were nominated to replace Rehnquist would be clearly documented ethical improprieties. Second, if any of Bush's nominees had to be thrown overboard, I would have picked William Myers to be among them. In my mind, he is the least impressive of Bush's appellate nominees. As for Henry Saad, his fate was sealed an e-mail he sent disparaging a Senator was inadvertently exposed.) Mark Levin (It breaks the Democratic logjam on circuit-court nominees. . . .. It establishes the principle that conservative judges have every right to serve on the higher benches even if Democrats can't stand it. How so? A president has always left his imprint on the federal bench -- whether it be conservative or liberal. This deal treats this president's nominees like no other president in history.) LINK and LINK

[Captain Ed] LINK "This, in short, has been a clear victory for the Democrats and a massive failure for the GOP and the White House. The GOP just endorsed the filibuster, and will have no intellectual capacity to argue against its use later on. They sold the Constitution just to get less than half of its blockaded nominees through, and the result will be much less flexibility on future Supreme Court nominations."

[Hugh Hewitt] LINK "It is impossible to say whether this is a "terrible" deal, a "bad" deal, or a very, very marginally "ok" deal, but it surely is not a good deal. Not one dime more for the NRSC from me unless and until the Supreme Court nominee gets confirmed, and no other filibusters develop. I won't spend money on a caucus supporting organization when the caucus can't deliver a majority. Mark Kennedy and other Senate candidates with spines, but not for the NRSC."

[John Hinderaker] LINK "hideous . . . " " . . . disappointing." Someone explain to me why the Republicans haven't been rolled once again. To me, it looks like a pathetic collapse on the part of the Republicans -- not the leadership, but Senators like McCain who sold out their party.

[Michelle Hinderaker] LINK [She links to a picture of a Republican belt buckle.. As in Republicans 'buckled'.]

Filibuster: blogs on the left:
[Daily Kos] LINK : "There'll be more outrage from their side, since quite frankly, they lost. Obviously we didn't get everything we wanted, but they lost the ability to have carte blanche on the next supreme court justice."

By stitchmd: "[B]ut I am sick to death of being sold out by the Democratic 'middle' and, by implication, the party leadership."

". . . Methinks, the more methinks, that the likelihood of ever getting a truly progressive movement in this country is moribund. Yes I know that part of this is to discourage people like me, and well, they're getting there."

[Joshua Mica Marshall] LINK : "A bad deal? We're supposed to say we got a great deal to win clearly through spin what could not be won so clearly on the merits. It seems an awfully bitter pill to forego the filibuster on both Brown and Owen, particularly the former. And the main issue isn't resolved so much as it's delayed. The moderate Republicans agree to preserve the filibuster so long as the Democrats use it in what the moderate Republicans deem a reasonable fashion. And yet the use of the filibuster, by its very nature, almost always seems unreasonable to those whom it is used against."

". . . But precisely because the Republicans -- or their leading players -- are absolutists in a way the Democrats are not, I think this compromise will batter them more than it will the minority party, which is after all a minority party which nonetheless managed to emerge from this having fought the stronger force to something like a draw."

[John Avarosis] LINK : "The little puppet doctor, Bill Frist, looks hapless. He wanted to end judicial filibusters. That did not happen. Frist does not control the Senate. And, he let down the theocrats. This is not good for his political aspirations."

"Will there be some judges appointed who we despise. Yes."

"But, in the long run, this forces the White House to think differently about the Supreme Court. That seemed to be the message from the gang of 14, most notably Lindsay Graham who said as much during the press conference."

Filibuster: press releases from the right:
From Sen. Chuck Hagel: "I am disappointed that the agreement reached by 14 Senators does not guarantee up-or-down votes on all of the President's nominees. That is a basic principle that should have anchored any agreement.

"I was very disappointed to hear the Senate Minority Leader say that Democrats would continue to filibuster some of the President's nominees and his harsh words concerning the President of the United States. Unfortunately, the Democrats abuse of the filibuster to prohibit votes on presidential nominees will continue. This is not a good compromise and I do not support it."

From Manuel Miranda and the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters: "'The biggest losers are the Republican centrists who showed a complete disconnect with their constituents, and a preference for their Office Building over their country. Another loser is the Presidency. Senate centrists have rewritten the Constitution. Now all future Presidents will have to do what no President has previously done...determine whether a nominee can get 60 votes rather than 51. The biggest winners are Leader Bill Frist and Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum who have shown themselves to have cojones.'"

From Dr. James Dobson: "We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

Filibuster: press releases from the left:
Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn PAC: "President Bush, Bill Frist and the radical right-wing of the Republican Party have failed in their attempt at seizing absolute power and the "nuclear option" is off the table."

Planned Parenthood Federation of America Interim President Karen Pearl: "While we are relieved that checks and balances remain in place for future nominees, the compromise struck today on judicial nominees is bittersweet for women who were counting on their senators to make sure that moderate, reasonable judges head up our federal courts."

People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas: "The agreement embodies the very principle of consultation and consensus that the filibuster encourages. This is good news for the American people. . . Nonetheless, we cannot endorse every aspect of the deal that was announced today. We are deeply concerned that it could lead to confirmation of appeals court judges who would undermine Americans' rights and freedoms. . . . It is time for the White House to abandon its confrontational strategy on judges, and to work with senators from both parties to find some consensus nominees, especially in the case of expected Supreme Court vacancies."

Bush and stem cells:
The Hill's Patrick O'Connor marks the stem cell debate on the House floor today as Tom DeLay's legislative reemergence "after months fending off negative press . . ." LINK

The Washington Post's Rick Weiss looks at the stem cell bill that opponents of the research are offering as an alternative: to use stem cells from umbilical cords discarded after birth. Sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), the bill would create a network of blood banks to make cord cells available, and will go up for a vote today before the measure designed to give more federal money to research cells from human embryos to be disposed of at fertility clinics. The question remains whether cord blood cells can be used in the same ways as stem cells. LINK

The Chicago Tribune's William Neikirk nicely sums up the stem cell showdown. LINK

USA Today's editorial board writes that it's time for the U.S. to take a leading role in stem cell research. LINK

Cardinal William Keeter argues that using embryos for research isn't progress. LINK

From Harvard stem cell researcher Dr. David Shaywitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal: "Perhaps the most underrated achievement of the modern conservative movement has been a renewed appreciation for the danger of 'junk science' -- unsubstantiated scientific research that is exploited for political gain. How sad, then, that in the ongoing debate over stem cell research, many conservatives have chosen to abandon their well-founded skepticism and to embrace dubious but convenient data for the sake of advancing their cause."

SCOTUS takes on abortion:
The Washington Post's Chuck Lane forecasts a long battle over the decision by the Supreme Court to consider a case involving a New Hampshire parental consent law on abortion that requires 48 hours' notice to the girl's parents unless a judge grants an exception if her life -- not her health -- is at risk. It will be argued next fall, with a decision expected by mid-2006. LINK

The Los Angeles Times' David Savage lays out the directions that the decision could take. LINK

Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times writes, " The court's answers could be important for its consideration of future abortion cases, including ones challenging the recent federal law that prohibits the procedure that abortion opponents call partial-birth abortion. That law has been declared unconstitutional in federal district courts around the country, and appeals by the Bush administration are now pending in three federal appeals courts." LINK

"Those cases are likely to reach the Supreme Court in its next term, increasing the visibility and volatility of the abortion issue in what may be a transitional time for the court in view of the likely retirement of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. He has, however, been a consistent dissenter from the court's decisions upholding the right to abortion, so his replacement would not be likely to shift the balance on the court."

Tom Fahey of the Manchester Union Leader writes that not everyone in New Hampshire was pleased with the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case. However, due to the autonomy of the state's attorney general, Gov. John Lynch was not authorized to halt the appeal. LINK

Bush in Rochester:
The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle has no fewer than six stories on the President's visit today.

Jim Memmott of the Democrat and Chronicle prepares for the President's visit by asking area residents what they would like to ask the President about his plan to change Social Security. LINK

The Democrat and Chronicle also uses the presidential trip to look at George W. Bush's "western New York ancestry." LINK

Those with the golden tickets get to sit on the stage at today's event. LINK

The rest of the news in Washington:
The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey Birnbaum take a look at the growing discontent among the small-government, pro-business groups within the Republican Party who are feeling increasingly disenfranchised by the forces that are focusing Republicans on social issues rather than business and regulation issues. LINK

The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler takes Note of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's preview at the AIPAC conference of this Thursday's visit to Washington by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, during which President Bush is expected to push him to build a Palestinian democracy and get rid of the militant groups working in the territories. LINK

Dana Milbank scene-sets the AIPAC conference in all its over-the-top and glad-handing glory. LINK

President Bush rebuffed the requests of Afghan President Hamid Karzai to gain more control over U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, and for Afghanistan to take custody of its citizens being detained by the U.S., during their White House meeting yesterday, the Washington Post's Michael Fletcher reports. LINK

Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune Notes that Karzai ratcheted back on his criticism of the Bush Administration. LINK

First Lady Laura Bush had encouraging words about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's plan to hold the country's first multi-candidate presidential election this year, the Washington Post's Jim VandeHei reports. LINK

Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick argues in favor of CAFTA on the Washington Post's op-ed page. LINK

Be sure to read this A1 story in the Wall Street Journal in full: "Even if high oil prices ease, prospects for cheaper gasoline, diesel and jet fuel are likely to be limited for at least several years by a growing global problem: a severe crunch in refining capacity."

And there's a Journal editorial that's a must-read for Grover's Wednesday meeting participants tomorrow on the Domestic Offshore Energy Reinvestment Program.

Edmund Andrews of the New York Times on the news that Sen, Chuck Grassley has signed on to a quick AMT repeal, Noting that the Bush Administration wants the tax reform panel to come up with its version of AMT reform by July 31 but wants it to be revenue neutral. Will the Administation "relent" on deficit reduction to get the tax repealed? How will their deficit reduction projections (which include revenue from the AMT) be scaled back if the AMT is reformed soon? LINK

The Houston Chronicle reports that some Democrats are wishing Howard Dean would retract his jail bird rhetoric when it comes to Tom DeLay. LINK

2005:
"Gifford Miller's lagging bid for City Hall got a huge boost yesterday when the powerful Queens Democratic Party threw its backing behind the City Council speaker, snubbing Fernando Ferrer," writes the New York Post's Frankie Edozien. LINK

It's probably too soon to declare the press love affair with Anthony Weiner over. However, the tone of the story on the front page of the Metro Section today is far different than the one from Saturday showing an energetic congressman running through the halls of Congress to try to make it back up to New York for his busy campaign schedule. LINK

"As Representative Anthony D. Weiner pursues his race for mayor of New York, he has been tapping into his Congressional campaign to pay some of the same people who work on his mayoral campaign, raising questions about whether the payments comply with city campaign finance rules," write Mike McIntire and Randal Archibold of the New York Times.

2006:
Jeanine Pirro is ready to leave Westchester County behind and prepare for a statewide run in 2006.

The New York Times' Pat Healy and Jennifer Medina use these three must-read graphs to capture the current thinking among many New York Republicans. LINK

"Political operatives at the White House and the Republican National Committee have told state Republicans that Ms. Pirro would be a strong candidate for Senate. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the committee, recently called Ms. Pirro to urge her to consider running, and other Republicans with ties to the White House -- including Mr. Pataki -- have made entreaties to her, according to high-level New York Republicans."

"As their thinking goes, Ms. Pirro, who has won votes across the political spectrum, is better suited than any New York Republican to take on Mrs. Clinton, being a telegenic, intelligent and well-spoken woman who lives in the suburbs and supports abortion rights."

"According to Republicans who have made that argument directly to Ms. Pirro, even a loss in the Senate race would make her a national Republican celebrity who took her best shot -- and took one for the team -- and who could still easily run later for Senate or governor."

"But Pirro has confided to associates that, given her extensive law-enforcement background, she's likeliest to run for attorney general," write Fred Dicker and Tom Topousis of the New York Post. LINK

Does anyone else think that the "I won't have to listen . . . " quote could come back to haunt her?

The Hill's Savodnik looks at the role gay marriage may play in a Republican primary for the Michigan senate seat currently held by Sen. Stabenow. LINK

The Rosen trial:

Josh Gerstein's daily update: LINK

2008 Republicans:
John Podhoretz looks back at Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush's records on abortion and uses his New York Post column to offer some advice to Rudy Giuliani. LINK

"The record is plain. A pro-choice candidate can win in the GOP provided he has a change of heart and goes pro-life. The change of heart does not even need to be all that believable. It just needs to be."

Politics:
Opening arguments in the Washington State gubernatorial election trial: LINK

Lloyd Grove gets an aide to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) to explain the difference between cannoli and canoodling. LINK

Spokane, WA Mayor Jim West said yesterday he's guilty of bad judgment, but he's not stepping down. LINK

"Washingtonienne:" Jonathan Yardley read it so you don't have to. (Actually, he calls it "nearly 300 pages of juicy and occasionally amusing Washington gossip as told through the anti-litigious filter of fiction.") LINK