Political News Summary: March 6: Simon Says So
W A S H I N G T O N, March 6, 2002 -- Democrats want the history books to reflect the President, and Karl Rove, taking one on the chin for backing former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan in the California gubernatorial primary —but what the Republicans have now, in nominee William Simon, is better than what they would have had if the White House hadn't tried to recruit Riordan into the race.
Click here, and we'll let you know when the note is ready each day.
Without Riordan, Simon probably wouldn't have been the nominee, what with his main rival likely to have been the more experienced, equally conservatively credentialed Secretary of State Bill Jones. Now, Republicans have a giant-killer as their nominee, and the White House and the state GOP surely will back him.
Simon ran a good campaign and Riordan a terrible one, thus giving the White House, in the important "technical competence" competition, the better candidate.
Still, history WILL record that the White House badly misjudged the primary politics of the state, which does not bode well for its longer-term hopes of rebuilding the party here. They also misjudged Riordan's abilities (about which they had been warned), and close observers now will closely observe the progress of some of the other hand-picked Administration candidates to see if they implode too, either in primaries or in the general election.
Can Simon in victory or defeat be the vehicle for the White House's desire to appeal to women and minorities and create a Bush beachhead in the Golden State for 2004? Maybe. But he clearly doesn't have the issue positions or the record of outreach to these groups and to centrists and Democrats that made Riordan initially so attractive.
Democrats and Republicans we've talked with in California agree: if Gov. Gray Davis (D) can make this race about Simon being "too right-wing," "too inexperienced," and with too many controversial business dealings, the Governor probably will win re-election.
"Even before the polls closed Tuesday night, [top Davis strategist] Garry South … was dismissing Simon as 'a garden-variety right-winger … By appealing in the primary to the most conservative Republican voters, [Simon] has painted himself into a very tiny and ultimately untenable corner,' South said."( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000016757mar06.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage )
But if Simon can make himself into an acceptable, business-savvy alternative to a governor with a power crisis and a budget crisis under his belt, and keep the focus on Davis' record, he might just pull off a second miraculous upset.
Simon's biggest helper in this regard, provided the campaign effectively plots to use him, could be his friend and former boss Rudy Giuliani, who stumped for Simon and cut a TV spot for him in the primary and no doubt will offer similar help in the general election campaign. How much of his time Rudy will be able to spend on this race remains in question, though, given the nationwide party demand for his time.
The Los Angeles Times story adds, "As a moderate Republican who supports abortion rights and gun control, Giuliani, some consultants think, could blunt Davis' attacks by vouching for Simon on those issues … Giuliani will be in California this week and might campaign with Simon on Friday."
Back in Washington, the White House does have a victory of sorts to celebrate — one which may be more diffuse but politically perhaps even more key: having appeared to have pulled off the steel compromise without too much grumbling from either side, while helping to secure the president's standing in steel states hosting key House and Senate races in 2002, and which could figure prominently on the 2004 electoral college map.
We'd note two possible caveats to this, however. First, the White House always has cast Bush's decision on this issue as a reflection of his character, so what does it say about that character now that blind quotes are starting to seep out describing this compromise as a political decision?
The The Wall Street Journal has a short editorial bemoaning the decision, concluding with these ringing words: "This is President Bush's worst day so far" — which, if you consider the whole pretzel thing, is saying quite a bit.
The Journal's front-page news story calls it "the most dramatically protectionist step of any president in decades."
And second, we're no experts, certainly, but we think USA Today 's story today, in which a guy who DOES appear to be an expert says the tariffs are a temporary solution, while the lack of subsidies on the legacy costs — the health benefits — are the killer, is worth asking about.
The nation's newspaper reminds us, "Bush's unwillingness to have Washington assume so-called legacy costs for retirees is likely to kill plans for U.S. Steel to buy No. 3 Bethlehem and all or part of other struggling producers, including Wheeling-Pittsburgh and National Steel. Some teetering steelmakers, including Bethlehem, could go under as a result."( http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-03-06-steel.htm )
Someone might want to talk to his guy: "Tariffs on imports 'are window-dressing,' says Leo Larkin, metals analyst at Standard & Poor's. "The legacy costs were everything.' Larkin says the Bush plan will give U.S. Steel and a handful of healthy integrated steel companies breathing room from low-cost imports while they try to restructure. 'Tariffs will buy them time, not continued existence.'"
One Washington Post story notes, "The action was a rare departure for an administration that has championed free trade both at home and abroad. But the president said it was an appropriate exception in the face of years of unfair trading practices by foreign countries that had 'resulted in bankruptcies, serious dislocation and job losses' in the United States." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44323-2002Mar5.html )
We could excuse someone who finds the White House argument that President Bush made a bold bid for free trade by imposing these tariffs to be, well, Clintonesque. But amidst all the war news, he seems to have gotten the matter behind him, and our long-running stem-cell metaphor seems more apt to us than ever.
For the most part, the president pleased steel and its workers with "the most aggressive action taken by a president to protect a domestic industry from imports since Ronald Reagan imposed steel import restraints in the mid-1980s."
The Los Angeles Times adds, "Administration officials are gambling that the political benefits of coming to the aid of an embattled industry and its workers will outweigh the costs, which may diminish if the United States enjoys a robust economic recovery. But its calculations could go awry if prices soar, downstream job losses multiply or exporting countries embark on a trade war."( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000016752mar06.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage )
Getting into the politics of it all, the Washington Post 's Allen writes that even though Larry Lindsey might have said, "'Politics will play no role'" in the steel decision, "several activists who met with administration officials on the matter said politics seemed important to those who calibrated the plan announced yesterday. Even a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said of the tariff decision: 'Politics is part of everything any administration does.'"( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44335-2002Mar5.html )
"The decision gives the Republican Party a boost in the electorally crucial steel states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, and it could enhance Bush's efforts to win greater support among labor families. Strategists from both parties agreed that six seats in this fall's House races — exactly the number of net victories Democrats need to regain a majority — might have swung away from Republicans if Bush had made a decision that was seen as anti-steel. 'I hate to say it,' a Democratic consultant said, 'but I think he's taken this issue off the table. It's very depressing.'"
Conservatives are calling the tariff a tax increase — but even Grover "Live Free or Die" Norquist is quoted in the Post saying he'll let it slide.
Another Los Angeles Times story notes that this probably helped Bush on fast track. "The legislation is pending in the Senate, where it is expected to pass. But the House may be forced to vote again on the legislation after differences between the House and Senate versions are reconciled. If another House vote is taken, about three dozen Republicans from steel-producing states who provided crucial support for Bush's trade bill in December would be able to point to the tariff decision to justify another vote for the president's position."( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-000016780mar06.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Da%5Fsection )
President Bush and Senate Democrats will face off on several matters today, as Bush fires a shot across the bow by meeting with controversial judicial nominee Charles Pickering this morning, and the Senate (finally) takes up the energy bill.
Bush won't just meet with Pickering — he'll "urge Senate Democrats to allow a floor vote to confirm the embattled nominee, according to White House officials." The Judiciary Committee vote currently is scheduled for Thursday.( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020306-782800.htm)
At the same time, even Pickering's staunch Republican allies are resigned to not having the votes to get him confirmed in committee. We wonder if the president's goal is to appease his base, or does he really want to pressure Senator Daschle to allow an unusual, though not unprecedented floor vote after Pickering is (presumably) defeated in committee? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/politics/06JUDG.html )
Raising the curtain on the energy debate in the Senate, the Washington Post looks at how "[t]he raging debate over drilling in Alaska has been a triumph of spin over science, with ideologues on both sides taking a selective approach to the facts," and tries to sort through some of the claims made by the two sides.( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44300-2002Mar5.html )
Back to California. We don't have exact historical figures at our disposal, but it sure seems to us that the candidate who has the most money spent against him/her in negative TV ads tends to lose out there. And it sure helps if the ads are well-produced. So one big question is, based on candidate, party, and outside ads, will Davis or Simon be hit by more (effective) negative ads in the next eight months?
The Los Angeles Times ' lead story is star Davis strategist Garry South. "Garry South leans back in his oversized leather desk chair … his lips curling in satisfaction … For the last three months, he has set the terms of the Republican primary for governor, even though his candidate, Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, isn't even in it. They have all played his game. South's bold decision to have Davis spend $10 million targeting Richard Riordan refocused the primary on issues like abortion, guns and conservative credentials … South even outmaneuvered the White House, which had encouraged Riordan to run."( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000016758mar06.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage )
Of course the spotlight also in on Rep. Gary Condit, now officially a lame duck after having lost the 18th Congressional District Democratic primary yesterday to state Assemblyman (and, adding to the drama of it all, former protégé) Dennis Cardoza. The decennial redistricting which contributed to Condit's fall by giving him 200,000 new voters to court also has the benefit, for Cardoza, of making the district somewhat more Democratic-leaning, boosting his odds of keeping the seat for the party in the general election.
And in the highly Democratic 39th Congressional District, Linda Sanchez, sister of Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D), won the Democratic primary, which pretty much ensures that the first pair of sisters will be serving in Congress come January 2003.
Expect some crowing from the nation's long-languishing term-limits advocates over the loss of Proposition 45, which would have weakened the state's term-limits law. We actually felt all weepy and nostalgic last night when we got a call from a spokesperson for US Term Limits in anticipation of the measure's defeat.
The Washington Post reviews the gripe sessions going on between the Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue yesterday after House Minority Leader Gephardt found he was left out of a classified briefing for congressional leaders on the contingency plans and the White House disputed congressional leaders' claims that they had not been informed.( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44324-2002Mar5.html )
"The White House moved to soothe lawmakers yesterday. Bush aides told Gephardt they would brief him today. They invited the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate international relations committees to meet with Bush today, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is scheduled to meet privately with some lawmakers."
The Post 's Broder takes up for the congressional leadership: "it is inexplicable that [Bush] would not share his prudent action with all four top congressional leaders, with whom he meets weekly, so they would have the reassurance that came from that knowledge. If he cannot trust them that far, what does it imply?"( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45863-2002Mar6.html )
From the ABCNEWS London Bureau: US-led coalition troops killed hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the opening days of the biggest joint offensive in the Afghan war, and have assumed the "dominant" position in the battle, according to Maj. Gen. Frank L. Hagenbeck, who commands the Operation Anaconda on the ground. General Hagenback, speaking to reporters at Bagram Airbase, also said allied ground forces have cleared several enemy caves and are in continuous firefights with pockets of al Qaeda forces still dug in. No new US casualties had been reported today. Local Afghan commanders say they are sending additional troops for a fresh push against al Qaeda and Taliban fighters … Five Marine Corps attack helicopters entered the fight Tuesday to bolster the aerial strike force after US Army Apaches were damaged by intense fighting Monday.
At least seven Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers have been killed in an intensified Israeli military offensive in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israeli forces carried out one of the most extensive assaults on Gaza since the current intifada began, after a rocket fired by Palestinians hit an Israeli town for the first time. The upsurge in violence came after Israel's security cabinet decided on "increased security operations" following a wave of Palestinians attacks which killed more than 20 Israelis in the past two days.
Steel
The Washington Times focuses on Republican unhappiness with the new steel tax increase: "President Bush yesterday levied heavy tariffs on imported steel, drawing sharp criticism from world leaders and raising the ire of some congressional Republicans, who said the move hurts American consumers."( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020306-75753.htm )
"On Capitol Hill, some Republicans criticized the president's decision to impose tariffs. 'The number of workers in industries that consume steel in the United States far outweighs the number of workers within the steel industry,' said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican."
Per the The Wall Street Journal , two curiosities about the steel decision that could lead to charges of political influence — one national, one international:
National: "While rewarding the powerful, unionized, old-line steel mills in key electoral states such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania, the Bush decision offers less protection to the more modern but non-unionized companies making high-end products such as stainless steel."
International: "In what appeared to be a template for Mr. Bush's handling of nonwar international issues, he rewarded certain key U.S. allies in the fight against terrorism, while slamming countries that administration officials figure they can afford to anger. Through a complicated process, the Bush plan largely exempted the main steel imports from Turkey. That was a key request of Turkish president Ahmet Necdet Sezer, an ally in the war on terrorism, when he visited Washington two months ago."
The Journal also agrees with the Los Angeles Times , saying that the White House calculated that Congress would react so negatively to no protections at all that it might hinder the administration's future free-trade promotion policies.
Slate's Explainer says the administration's decision actually is a part of — rather than set apart from — free-trade agreements and principles. ( http://slate.msn.com/?id=2062852 )
The ABCNEWS London Bureau has the foreign reaction: Steel-producing countries around the world reacted angrily Wednesday to the US decision to impose punitive tariffs on imports, saying the move betrayed years of work toward freer global trade and could spark an all-out trade war. European Union officials are planning to file a complaint at the World Trade Organization (WTO) later today against new US tariffs, claiming that the US decision would hurt the EU in an "unjustified and unfounded way." Britain's Trade and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, said that she and Prime Minister Tony Blair were "bitterly disappointed." In Germany, Economics Minister Werner Mueller said it placed "a considerable strain" on US-European relations. Japan and South Korea said they were considering a complaint to the WTO, and Chinese Foreign Trade ministry spokesman Gao Yan said the Chinese government expressed "strong dissatisfaction" at the decision. A top Russian economic official on Wednesday warned of retaliation for the US decision to impose punitive tariffs on steel imports but expressed hope that a compromise could be found to head off a trade war between the two countries. Some countries accused the United States of trying to avoid the painful steel-industry restructuring that other nations have undertaken over the last few years.
Budget Politics
Wait, wait, wait — a surplus?
According to the The Wall Street Journal , the Congressional Budget Office will tell Congress that the improving economy might actually create a small, and politically powerful, surplus this year — this big-spending year. But: "The CBO estimate doesn't include the impact of any pending proposals for new spending that are certain to be enacted this year. For instance, President Bush is likely to recommend a major defense supplemental-spending bill within weeks for the current 2002 fiscal year, in order to cover anticipated costs of the war on terrorism."
The story is bizarrely silent on the lockbox, once a powerful bipartisan symbol of commitment to America's elderly, even if some sophisticates found it to be a meaningless symbol as well.
Campaign Finance Legislation
The New York Times ' Mitchell sorta rallies the troops against the evil forces of soft money and the dastardly use of "thinly veiled" issue ads in national campaigns. While Senator Mitch McConnell proposed amendments promising not to "do violence" to the gut of the bill, which would ban most forms of soft money from being raised and spent by national parties, most Democrats seemed to think that he was speaking from both sides of his Kentucky mouth. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/politics/06DONA.html )
On the one hand, McConnell probably can't sustain a filibuster and seems (or, we are beginning to think, "pretends to be") resigned to the bill becoming law. On the other hand, he seems to be trotting out every other procedural trick and introducing killer amendments, for some reason.
Some Republicans appear willing to stall the bill for as long as possible, achieving two conflicting results at once. The longer the legislation stalls in the Senate, the longer the Howell Raines set in the media stays mad about its lack of progress. But also, the longer it sits in the Senate, the more pressure conservatives could bring to bear on the White House to veto the bill as unconstitutional, or the more mischief could be done in a conference, if they can force one. Unlike Lou Grant, we LIKE spunk.
We point out, at the risk of sounding repetitive: Republicans don't like the bill for a lot of reasons, and several say they sincerely do not a bill they think is unconstitutional to become law. That claim — that Congress has the duty to pass only constitutional legislation — might not be controversial if this bill weren't so important to the identity of Washington elites.
The Times ' Van Natta, following up on a Washington Post story from Sunday, concludes that the president has "rewarded" 43 of his hard money Pioneers with top Administration posts. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/politics/06PION.html )
ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary
Today and tonight: Al Gore hosts a fundraiser for his PAC in New York City, Senator Joe Lieberman will address TechNet in Washington, and Senator John Edwards will address a group of top labor officials, organized by the Democratic National Committee. The first and third events are closed to the media (which serves as a proxy protecting the public interest), but Lieberman wants the world to cover his speech.
Last night, Senator John Kerry headlined a Democratic Business Council dinner in Washington.
And this Friday, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt will go to New Hampshire to oh so grudgingly make good on his lost Super Bowl bet. The Portland (ME) Press Herald reports that Gephardt also will travel to Maine on Friday to raise money for some House candidates and talk about health care. (Gephardt will be in Boston Thursday night for a Democratic House campaign committee fundraiser.)
The Boston Globe 's Johnson uses Kerry's recent run of speeches, capped off by his performance in New Hampshire last Saturday night, to look at how Kerry "has traced the outlines of how prominent a role his military record will play if he makes his expected run for president in 2004."( http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/065/nation/Kerry_s_military_record_may_define_candidacy+.shtml )
"In the future, Kerry's record could help inoculate him as he challenges the leadership of President Bush, who served stateside in the Air National Guard during Vietnam and spent several months of his military career working for a political candidate in Alabama."
The The Wall Street Journal gives Tom Daschle lead editorial treatment again, criticizing him on his war statements with the kind of sophistry that we admire. Tony Blankley takes him on more generally in his Washington Times column. ( http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020306-19947744.htm
Politics
Stand by for the aftereffects of the latest Greenberg-Carville-Shrum poll briefing, scheduled to have taken place at the Monitor (formerly "Sperling") breakfast this morning. Those three cats have scored themselves a big place in Republican rhetoric about Democratic partisanship, and their memos have more energy and pizzazz in them than most Democrats can muster up these days.
Given all the other news out there yesterday, we come more in sadness than surprise to see so little coverage today of the dueling party briefings on just who is winning the congressional redistricting fight. Democrats may be cheered by the fact that one of the few stories out there, in the Washington Times , leads with their claims of victory, in that the process so far has been basically a wash — by not producing the barrelful of opportunities for Republican pick-ups that the GOP has been predicting.
The story also points out a discrepancy we noticed yesterday: "'We continue to project between a three- and eight-seat gain,' said Jack Oliver, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee. At the same time, the National Republican Congressional Committee — charged with electing Republicans to the House — is predicting an eight- to 10-seat gain through redistricting.
"The New York Daily News writes up, from outside the room, last night's Republican fundraiser featuring war hero Rudy Giuliani. ( http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-03-06/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-143509.asp )
and ( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020306-781981.htm)
In the ground combat that is the Democratic primary in the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois, a hidden dynamic has surfaced: Pole versus Jew, and it's not pretty. Former Clinton adviser Rahm Emanuel, whose father is Israeli, is running against Nancy Kaszak, who is Polish-American.
To date, aside from the ethnic glad-handing that any candidate in the Fifth (remember: this was Rosty's seat) needs to do, there hasn't been this type of rancor. And why would there be? Both Emanuel and Kaszak are experienced professionals who don't need to resort to identity politics to enliven their electoral prospects.
But this week, a prominent Polish-American supporter of Kaszak explicitly mentioned Emanuel's Israeli heritage and claimed that heritage had a legacy of oppressing Polish people. Kaszak then asked the man, Edward Moskal, to withdraw his endorsement of her, and Emanuel's campaign denounced the remarks.
The New York Times 's Wilgoren analyzes: "Although the attack makes Mr. Emanuel, known as a political bulldog, appear sympathetic and could help swing Jewish and female voters to his column, it also could further motivate Polish-Americans, who make up about a fifth of the district's population and have been angered by their declining representation in Washington and Springfield, the state capital." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/politics/06CHIC.html )
But that seems to peg the average voter in the district as being overly susceptible to identity politics, and there are other factors — outside ads criticizing Emanuel for his NAFTA advocacy is one — that will probably be just as influential. The primary is two long weeks away. ( http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/fifth_020304.html )
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whose legal dispute with the Bush Administration over its refusal to seat the latest Bush appointee to the Commission, is asking Congress for a $6 million budget increase.( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020306-286910.htm )
California
Quarterly campaign finance reports are due today, giving us all a good look at who spent what in the gubernatorial primary — including Governor Davis.
Rick Berke's California dispatch notes that Riordan was gracious in defeat.( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/national/06CALI.html )
The Sacramento Bee identifies one major pitfall facing Davis in the months ahead: "Despite his background, Davis' popularity among voters has languished since the energy crisis hit California last year. In the coming months, he will face an another challenge as he grapples with an anticipated budget shortfall that could reach $15 billion." ( http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/election/story/1776243p-1855543c.html )
Remember the axiom that the side that spends the most money wins? Because money corrupts politics, and all?
Well, cash poured into a campaign to convince voters that they were wrong — or shortsighted — in enacting term limits back in 1998. The proposed constitutional amendment would have relaxed term limit requirements. It was soundly defeated. ( http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/election/story/1767857p-1852686c.html )
Remember the axiom that the incumbent is supposed to campaign from his or her little Rose Garden? That the challenger is supposed to go door-to-door?
Well, the dynamics reversed for the Condit-Cardoza race.
"Cardoza never mentioned the Levy controversy in his campaign ads or brochures, in part because the media stepped into that role for him. Cardoza, in fact, didn't run much of a campaign. He skipped nearly a dozen debates and spent much of his time in Sacramento and at fund-raisers. Condit, meanwhile, ran an intense ground-level campaign that included phone banks, neighborhood chats, candidate forums and knocking on doors." ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/06/CONDIT5S.TMP)
Texas
Now that California is out of the way, get ready for the Texas event this coming Tuesday, with key Democratic Senate and gubernatorial primaries.
The already ugly gubernatorial contest turned macabre yesterday, as both candidates — Tony Sanchez and Dan Morales — released attack ads accusing the other of alleged criminal misconduct. ( http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/politics/1283038 )
These ads will join spots on affirmative action — Morales is against it and Sanchez supports it — already in the mix.
South Dakota
"Rep. John Thune and Senator Tim Johnson agree they don't want special interest groups helping in their duel for Johnson's U.S. Senate seat," writes the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.
"But they remain divided on how to shove special interest advertising out of their South Dakota race. Until the two sides can come to an agreement, they are calling for a cease-fire on ads funded by outsiders. At a news conference Saturday, Thune, R-S.D., said he is inclined to wait until he and Johnson, D-S.D., are back in Washington early this week and meet directly to devise the best means to request special interest groups and national parties to stop running attack ads." ( http://www.argusleader.com/election/Wednesdayfeature.shtml )
A whole separate ad war is raising the profile of the Republican gubernatorial primary in the state. ( http://www.argusleader.com/news/Wednesdayarticle1.shtml )
Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush said yesterday that a brightened economic outlook could help restore about $400 million to state coffers. ( http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/030602/met_8797410.html )
Bush was taken to task by a teachers' group which is running a radio ad urging him to support a state Senate bill to pump more money into education. ( http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-locteachad06030602mar06.story )?coll=orl%2Dhome%2Dheadlines )
The Miami Herald 's Peter Wallstein does his excellent Rick Berkean piece from the campaign trail with Janet Reno. Start with an anecdote — an undecided voter, perhaps — and pull out into a picture of a fickle electorate. Wallstein says that Central Florida is key to Reno's chances.( http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/2792443.ht m)
Florida's parental notification law has thrice been postponed by the courts, and now, pro-choice folks want to make that delay permanent. ( http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/2792451.htm)
Iowa
The Des Moines Register has a story about Thomas Dorr, an Iowan whom Bush nominated to be Undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture, which involves a secretly mailed audiotape, a government audit, and a Senate hearing. ( http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789013/17529205.html )
Other Politics
Mitt Romney has commissioned a poll to test reactions to a possible run for governor — including a primary challenge to acting Gov. Jane Swift.( http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/065/metro/Romney_sets_poll_on_run_for_governor+.shtml )
Legislative Agenda
The The Wall Street Journal 's Pork Watch continues, this time in a great story about the administration's energy bill:
"Among the tax provisions are credits to reward southern Iowa farmers who sell prairie grass from their idle land to a local power plant. They also include incentives for using cattle and pig waste to generate electricity. And the nation's 930 rural electric cooperatives would reap two energy-tax credits — even though they don't pay federal taxes."
"While the broader energy bill is described as an effort to reduce reliance on foreign energy sources, protect the environment and restructure the electricity market, the tax provisions are a testament to the Senate's enduring loyalty to farm interests: Even as the nation grows increasingly urban, the farm lobby remains powerful, thanks to each state's constitutional claim to two senators, no matter how large or small the population. But its strength is magnified in this Senate, due to the interests of both its leader, South Dakotan Tom Daschle, and of a solidly rural Senate Finance Committee, where the tax package originated."
The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post today dug up something interesting buried within the president's welfare reform proposal.
"The Bush administration has decided that minimum-wage laws should not apply to welfare recipients who are working off their benefits," the Washington Post 's Allen reports. "If approved by Congress, such a change would reverse a five-year federal policy."( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44736-2002Mar6.html )
"Bush's [welfare reform] package already was under fire by some Democrats for such plans as subsidizing experiments that promote marriage among welfare recipients. Advocates for low-wage workers charged that the proposed change in minimum-wage policy could make it harder to move from welfare to work, because governments and businesses would have an incentive to hire workfare participants at a fraction of the minimum wage they would have to pay a regular worker."
"The Bush proposal is buried halfway through his 35-page welfare overhaul plan in a paragraph that simply says Temporary Assistance for Needy Families payments for those programs 'are not considered compensation for work performed' and 'thus, these payments do not entitle an individual to a salary or to benefits provided under any other provision of law.'"
"A Department of Health and Human Services official said that is meant to include the minimum-wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a fact first reported by the Los Angeles Times ."( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000016755mar06.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage )
The The Wall Street Journal says Senate Democrats will hold fast on their pension reform bills, sparking a confrontation with the White House if necessary.
Bush Administration Strategy/Personality
Sound the alarm again in the name of freedom of information?
"The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is asking the public to help decide what constitutes 'critical energy infrastructure information' — a prelude to restricting that information from general public view," the Washington Post reports. "And … FERC has put off-limits an appendix describing data that might be considered critical infrastructure, except to people who sign a pledge to refrain from publicly discussing its contents. Some public disclosure advocates fear that FERC, which has already removed sensitive material from its Web sites, is creating a broad, new category of classified information that is not provided for under current secrecy rules or the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)."( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44578-2002Mar5.html )
Sources tell the Washington Post 's Connolly and Milbank that "President Bush plans to nominate Elias Zerhouni, executive vice dean of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, as director of the National Institutes of Health … The choice of Zerhouni … could be announced by the end of this week … Sources said Zerhouni met the administration's twin goals of a respected scientist who could live within Bush's ethical constraints on controversial research involving cloning and embryonic stem cells."( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44372-2002Mar5.html )
"Judging by his enthusiasm for the new institute, some of Zerhouni's colleagues speculated he would want to pursue stem cell research beyond the tight parameters set by Bush in August. The president announced he would support government-funded work only on the approximately 60 cell lines developed before he made his decision, a compromise many scientists fear is too limiting."
First Lady Laura Bush's conference on teacher preparation yesterday gets a Style section write-up in the Washington Post .( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45897-2002Mar6.html )
Enron
The New York Times reports on the "earliest known" Bush tie to Enron: dating back to 1986, when Enron was still in the actual oil business. It's a cute thematic story, but not really anything that will drive the story forward.( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/business/06DEAL.html )
The War Out There
The Washington Times ' Gertz reports, "U.S. intelligence agencies identified terrorists moving back into training camps that had been bombed in the war, as allied military forces pressed attacks against al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan yesterday. U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said terrorists had been spotted in some of the more than 20 camps abandoned after military strikes began on Oct. 7."( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020306-24387723.htm
New York Times Special Envoy to the Middle East Thomas Friedman writes about the different reactions to two recent killings of Muslims — the mass murder of many in India, and the killing of a few in the Palestinian territories. The former gets a "muted" reaction, while the latter provokes rage. Why? Because the latter, per Friedman, is at the core of the Muslim identity in the world. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/opinion/06FRIE.html )
Meanwhile, Friedman's peace plan now has Syrian support. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/international/middleeast/06ISRA.html )
Media
We are delighted to see that Jerry Seib has been made Washington Bureau Chief of the The Wall Street Journal ; we are sad to see that that means his outstanding column will appear less often; and we are flabbergasted that the short item announcing these changes misuses the word "periodically."