Posted on 07/10/2002 7:31:06 AM PDT by Timesink
—No disrespect meant to Carter Eskew, Al Gore, or any of the other combatants who took on Rove/Hughes/Allbaugh/Bush/et al in 2000, but one of the great frustrations for those of us who live to cover presidential politics is that we will never get a George W. Bush—vs—Bill Clinton face-off.
Note Archives, updated weekly.
E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.
At least, not at the ballot box.
Although President Bush himself carefully avoids taking on 42 directly, and Republicans in general prefer to pick on Gore (for reasons too obvious to list), when the White House feels really cornered, it decides to play the Clinton card, recognizing that such a move revs up the GOP's base of Clinton haters, and also engages the voters in the center who were alienated by aspects of the personal controversies and of the moral tone of the previous Administration.
Despite President Bush's news conference demurral on Monday, clearly a decision was made earlier this week in the upper echelons of the Republican party (and probably at the White House) to try to create an undercurrent of blame on the 42nd president, and argue both substantively and politically that today's business scandals are a product of the decisions and — this is their real point — moral climate of the Clinton/Gore '90s.
Given how broadly and bare-knuckled this message was disseminated by leading Republicans on the record, in written statements, on background, and in GOP research on Tuesday, we were a mite startled this morning to see that the effort produced only about 100 words of coverage total on the press conveyor belt.
Most front-and-center, in the Washington Times : "Mr. Bush did not mention former President Bill Clinton specifically, but the Republican National Committee yesterday called the 1990s the 'era of irresponsibility' and said, 'Scandal after scandal, revelation after revelation, Clinton-Gore always had an excuse.'" LINK
"The president did take pains to emphasize that the rash of corporate scandals that erupted in recent months had its genesis before he took office in 2001."
At the risk of stepping out from the parade, we have to say that even some Democrats admit there's some substance to this charge, and that the politics of it just might work, particularly given recent polling data suggesting that the public is at least open to believing that Bill Clinton deserves more of the blame for what's going on now than George W. Bush.
We're not sure how accurate ALL the polling on this is, including a GOP-generated poll the White House and the national party were touting yesterday, but it's clear that two of Bush's most effective arguments (usually trotted out at times of maximum political peril or opportunity) are that 1) Clinton left unaddressed many important issues during his presidency, such as prescription drugs, Social Security reform, and perhaps business regulation; and 2) that the moral climate set by 42 helped create the opposite of the "responsibility era."
Maybe the reason why the media ignored the GOP argument is because the 100-percent press zeitgeist currently is that the Bush/Cheney/White/Pitt leadership team has, in its longtime business ties and ongoing opposition to the regulation of the marketplace, no claim to supporting the kind of corporate responsibility that the same zeitgeist believes is currently the biggest thing ailing America.
In other words, a "glass house" dynamic.
The downside for the White House on all of this is that bringing Clinton into the mix ensures that some of the Democratic party's most talented operatives of the last generation — Carville/Begala/Lockhart/Sosnick,/Geenberg/Podesta — are going to get engaged in the pushback strategy, and while there are some perfectly skilled Democrats involved day-to-day in combat against the current Administration, those hombres are battle-tested and take no prisoners.
Senator Lott was the only leader who decided to cap off the bipartisan, bicameral, now about monthly breakfast at the White House with a dessert session at the press stakeout. Beyond Lott's happy talk with Paula Zahn, one source familiar with the meeting says nothing that occurred was newsy, and that beyond corporate legislation, topics covered included Iraq, the Middle East, the budget supplemental, and homeland security.
Onto the speech …
For starters, the president's speech and proposals didn't do so well with most elites, comprising most of what's in the papers today, but the more important question is how is it plays with midterm election voters and those people who don't hang up on pollsters calling to ask about consumer confidence in the coming days and weeks.
Lots of papers note that the stock markets declined yesterday: "During Bush's 27-minute speech, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 50 points. By day's end, when it was evident Washington was no closer to agreement, the Dow had fallen 178 points and the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index had suffered its biggest loss in five months," says the Washington Post 's Milbank. LINK
As the Boston Globe 's Kaplan suggests, "The most dramatic aspect of the speech … may have been that Bush delivered it at all." LINK
The Los Angeles Times ' Brownstein, as usual, places the speech neatly in the larger context of the Bush psyche and gets somewhat glass half-full where Democrats are being so loudly half-empty: "Even in a speech that urged a new government offensive against corporate fraud, President Bush on Tuesday again revealed his deep-seated skepticism about the ability of Washington regulation to solve social problems." LINK
"As he frames his response to the wave of corporate scandals, Bush seems buffeted between that fundamental leeriness about new regulations and the growing political and economic pressure for measures to restore confidence in the stock market. The result has been to steadily tug Bush toward more aggressive securities regulation than he envisioned when he took office--although still not nearly as sweeping as most Democrats believe is necessary."
"Measured against that starting point, Bush's agenda Tuesday marked a striking level of new intervention."
Brownstein also notes that Democrats' "hard line is a change in direction for many … who in recent years sided with the financial industries to resist tougher government oversight."
The nut graph of the Wall Street Journal 's front-page story is a pretty solid version of the BosWash corridor CW: "The rhetoric of Mr. Bush's remarks was far more dramatic than the substance, which went little beyond prior White House proposals and existing law, and fell far short of what critics are demanding. But the president's new, harsher tone likely raises the bar for how Washington ultimately addresses the issue this year. It was the most recent example of a changing attitude in Washington about the balance of power between the federal government and American corporations."
The Wall Street Journal ed board wades right into politics of all this, mostly spot on: "But coming so long after the Enron scandal first broke, and amid election season, the [President's] speech was widely and accurately described as an exercise in defensive politics … " LINK
"Senate Democrats are also demanding that Mr. Bush sign onto expanding the time available for plaintiff plutocrat Bill Lerach to file shareholder suits. In other words, what they're really after is a Bush veto, which they will then run against … ."
"As a political matter, Republicans are also paying for protecting the accountants. Bush SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt, who once worked for the Big Five, is now being urged to resign by the likes of Al Gore, Tom Daschle and John McCain. As these columns noted long before these politicians wet their finger to the wind, Mr. Pitt's temptation now will be to appease these critics by cracking down too hard on too many, in a way that further roils financial markets. A regulator with more credibility usually has to regulate less."
Nowhere to be found in the news cycle are any Democratic voices following up on John Harwood's sound suggestion yesterday in the Wall Street Journal that Democrats may want to shy away from seeming too anti-business. Everywhere you look, you find the Democratic charge, "comes up short" — echoed occasionally by the press.
The Post 's Milbank notes, "Even the normally pro-business Democratic Leadership Council joined in, issuing a statement comparing Bush to Warren Harding. The Republican National Committee tried fervently to change the subject, releasing a six-page compendium reliving the Clinton administration's scandals." (That'd be one of the other Clinton mentions.)
The New York Times ' news analysis casts a very skeptical look at the substance of the president's speech, suggesting he didn't go far enough in many key areas, particularly accounting oversight. LINK
The AP's Sobieraj writes, "Democrats faulted his proposals as inadequate and Wall Street investors yawned." She quotes a bunch of leading analysts saying that the speech was all well and good, but the proposals have to have teeth, and that increased jail time won't "'deter misdeeds.'" LINK
The Washington Post 's Pearlstein smartly leads, "The world according to George W. Bush is often portrayed as a matter of good and evil, you're either with us or against us. Yesterday, he brought the same approach to issues of corporate ethics and responsibility." LINK
And yet, Bush said on Monday that accounting practices are not always black and white, which Pearlstein picks up on nicely in laying out why the law enforcement threats may not work: "experts in securities laws and corporate governance warned that stepped-up enforcement by itself is unlikely to end the game-playing and corner-cutting that became accepted practice during the boom of the late 1990s."
"As President Bush noted Monday in discussing his own brush with the SEC a decade ago, cases of financial misstatements often turn on arcane accounting issues that don't lend themselves to black-and-white interpretations."
Pearlstein also gets at this rather trademark Bush habit:
"Bush … stopped short of calling for any government action, preferring exhortation to regulation. His view, shared by many in the business community, is that it's now up to the business community and the financial markets to recalibrate the ethical compass and set out what is and isn't acceptable corporate behavior."
The White House's political problem is that any private or governmental entity that is likely to praise the president's speech and proposals as good enough is going to be seen by the press and the public as an interested party who might not necessarily have the non-corporate public's interests at heart — so the praise would be suspect. Meanwhile, Democrats are taking up a lot of space with their on-message "big rhetoric, little stick," almost 100-percent politically motivated rallying cry.
Republicans are in line, too, with nary a GOP voice we've heard describing the president's proposals as inadequate. This is one of those times when the Republicans feel the press corps is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic party.
The Wall Street Journal says the White House offensive isn't over: "On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill will unveil a new joint venture with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to improve corporate ethics."
Jackie Calmes nails reality to the wall with the important "Mr. Cheney, meet Mr. Klayman" storyline: "A close adviser says the Bush circle isn't worried about the president's own vulnerability, since the Harken SEC case is behind him. Advisers are concerned, however, about a current SEC probe of Halliburton Corp.'s bookkeeping when Vice President Dick Cheney was its chief executive. The conservative group Judicial Watch, known for its fights against President Clinton, said it will file a shareholders suit against Mr. Cheney and Halliburton Wednesday in Dallas."
"Messages seeking comment from Cheney and the White House were not immediately returned late Tuesday." LINK
When Larry Klayman enters your life, it can be anything from a small annoyance to a life-changing experience. Usually, the result depends on the extent to which the judge hearing the case gives the man latitude.
The counsel to the Veep (and we still want to know: will he NOW have to hire a private lawyer?) is surely betting for a judge who tosses this thing before any depositions or discovery.
The Washington Post 's Allen writes, "Several administration officials said the measures Bush outlined today were watered down as they were debated within the White House over the past few weeks. These officials said Bush and Vice President Cheney were adamant that they not hurt the economy by imposing too much regulation." LINK
"One official said that as some of the harsher proposals were examined, it was decided that they would be ineffective or have unintended consequences."
Per the Journal, "The White House strategy appears driven, in part, by the recognition that whatever Mr. Bush proposes will simply set the floor for how far the government acts, with Congress all but certain to push even further."
It seems pretty clear that the Senate will pass a bill with more stringent provisions than the White House would like, as many Republican Senators feel compelled to vote for things in which they don't believe because of a mob mentality.
The big substantive and political question remains for us: what posture do Congressmen Armey, DeLay and Blunt take toward allowing their skittish members to vote against the wishes of the accounting industry and Big Business?
The Wall Street Journal 's princely David Rogers does some brilliant tea-leaf reading of where all this might be headed in the pro-business GOP House conference, where members facing tough races have their staff and consultant-moistened fingers high in the air: "The House Appropriations Committee stunned corporate lobbyists by voting overwhelmingly to deny future federal contracts to American multinationals that relocate offshore to avoid U.S. taxes."
Our get tells us that some of those corporate lobbyists are either going to have to resign themselves to being stunned for the rest of the year, or alter their expectations.
Continuing with Rogers' work: "Amid the wave of business scandals, the 41-17 vote dramatizes the anger among lawmakers over such 'corporate expatriates' and further increases the political pressure on the House Republican leadership to act on the tax issue before the November elections … "
"More important is the political symbolism and clear unease among GOP lawmakers facing tight races in the fall. Among Republicans joining in the vote was no less than Rep. John Sununu, challenging fellow GOP Senator Robert Smith in New Hampshire, and Rep. Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.) urged his GOP colleagues to drop their resistance to the Democratic amendment. 'These folks are right,' Mr. Wamp said. 'It's un-American.'"
Maybe the dynamics will turn, but for now, we betcha the Republican campaign committees work with the leadership and the lobbyists to make sure no incumbent with a tough race is forced to cast any votes that could be portrayed in a negative ad as insufficiently tough on corporate greed.
The Wall Street Journal 's must-read lead story nicely captures a bunch of stuff, including this Pitt juxtaposition, illustrating the guy's shift to his Naderite posture: "Mr. Bush's choice to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, former Wall Street lawyer Harvey Pitt, last year pledged a 'kinder and gentler place for accountants.' These days, Mr. Pitt says, 'criminal charges may be too good for the people who brought about this mess,' and he boasts about the number of fraud cases the commission has launched and the severity of penalties it has imposed."
More broadly, the Journal story writes about what is going in in pan-historic terms: "In sum, the early 21st century may be turning into one of those periods in American history — such as the populist and progressive eras at the turn of the last century, and the New Deal of the 1930s — where exposure of corporate excesses during a period of loose regulation creates a political consensus for new government control over business."
Although the war on terror surely reigns supreme in the hearts and minds of this Administration, are we the only ones struck by the symbolism of the president diverting some of the Justice Department's attention to deal with corporate malfeasance? That says a lot, we think, about where the priority matrix is headed.
The New York Times ed board wants the president to explain more about his Harken life, and fire Thomas White and Harvey Pitt, and do all sorts of other things to achieve their self-generated acceptable level of moral clarity. LINK
Maureen Dowd's column is a must-read for many Note readers today, but the president, we are guessing, won't like it one bit, with it's born-on-third-base-thinks-he-hit-a-triple theme. LINK
Snaps to the New York Times for its short story on the Mike Lux-urious backing for the just-slightly-more-funded-than-a-video-press-release ad attacking Bush/Cheney/Pitt on business ethics. The piece's strongest element is its lead, since it casts the group paying for the ad as "secretive," something the press normally (and unfairly) only does for ads supporting Republican candidates, giving liberal causes a pass. LINK
The nimble Mr. Lux refuses to identify the backers who funded the spot's placement on DC and Gotham cable, but we love the language of this graph: "Mr. Lux said 12 donors responded to a request for money, and he hinted that the contributors included a trial lawyer, an executive in high technology and a prominent person in Hollywood."
And we like it whenever the White House's Ms. Womack takes on her colleague's spouse: "The absence of direct involvement by the Democratic Party did not assuage the White House. 'Given the source of the ads, given that they come from James Carville,' said Anne Womack, a White House spokeswoman, 'they represent the most partisan of partisan attacks.'"
Today, President Bush will seek to reassure about 3,000 federal employees "that their rights will not be threatened by the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and to urge them to support his proposal for the massive government reorganization." Bush will address about 3,000 government workers at DAR Constitution Hall in DC. LINK
"In an interview at his White House office yesterday, [Tom] Ridge said Bush plans to thank the workers for being on the front lines of homeland security well before the Sept. 11 attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."
The Boston Herald reports, "Bush's Commerce Secretary Don Evans is scheduled to visit Boston Thursday to trumpet the president's proposals at a town hall meeting-style event at the World Trade Center." LINK
On Yucca Mountain, here's our simple question: did the way the vote went down give either major political party an advantage in the state's two (arguably) competitive House races, or in the key battle for the state's 2004 electoral votes?
Here's how the Las Vegas Review-Journal leads: "Fifteen years after Congress passed the 'Screw Nevada Bill,' the deed was done Tuesday as senators voted decisively to store the nation's deadliest nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain." LINK
Their rivals at the Sun are more sober: LINK
The Wall Street Journal finds the silver lining for Nevada Senator Harry Reid, saying the fight has been a good booster and demonstrator of his caucus popularity and his power.
From the ABCNEWS London Bureau: A man claiming to be a spokesman for al Qaeda told an Arab TV station yesterday that bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are alive and well. The man, identified by the alias Abu Laith al-Libi, told the Middle East Broadcasting Centre by telephone that bin Laden and his top lieutenants are in good health. "Bin Laden, may God keep him safe, Dr Ayman Zawahri and Sheikh Sulaiman bu Ghaith, all of them are in good health," said the man, whose alias indicates he is of a Libyan origin. The man also said that the Taliban is reorganixing. He said that the fighters, whom he called holy warriors, are preparing for guerrilla warfare.
The trial of four Islamic militants charged with the kidnapping and killing of The Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl ended today. Lawyers for British born militant Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh and his three co-defendants argued for a dismissal of the charges, saying the evidence was inconsistent, legal procedures had been ignored and some of the evidence seemed to have been fabricated. The judge has retired to consider the verdict, which is not expected to be announced before next Monday.
Minnesota GOP Senate candidate Norm Coleman's campaign will return its donations from WorldCom. LINK
ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary
The Washington Post 's Edsall, quoting a bunch of unnamed campaign operatives, looks at the — apparently "waning" — possibility that some of the Democrats positioning for a 2004 run will forgo public financing in the nominating contest, and nicely captures all the conflicting concerns and cross-pressures of this particular decision-making process. Because while it sounds like an appealing idea, the party simply may not have enough high-dollar donors to go around, given the likely crowded field.
"Bush's potential Democratic challengers will soon face a difficult choice. They can accept roughly $15 million in public funding, but they will have to abide by spending limits that might leave them strapped for cash while Bush spends freely in the summer of 2004. Or they can reject the money in hopes of recruiting thousands of new, generous donors who can keep them competitive with Bush throughout the campaign." LINK
Also, "Democrats considering taking public money face the possibility that there will be little or no money in the special taxpayers fund at the start of 2004."
"In the unlikely scenario that Gore could get all 20,000 of his past $1,000 donors to give again, and double their gifts, he would raise $40 million. Such large donations usually make up about 60 percent of all money raised, suggesting Gore could raise a total of $68 million."
"Gore's opponents, however, contend that many past Gore backers will defect. That possible problem, combined with pressure to have as much cash available as possible when the campaign begins, makes the decision regarding public financing difficult."
"Some strategists say rejecting taxpayer financing could prove modestly damaging to a candidate among likely Democratic primary and caucus voters, some of whom are strong supporters of public financing. But most agreed that the liability would be minimal in the face of a well-financed Bush campaign."
"More important, some Democrats say, if the party plans to make the Bush administration's ties to business interests a major campaign issue, it might prove strategically helpful to take public funds in order to contrast them with the president's corporate donations."
"The two Democrats who might be most tempted to reject public financing are Lieberman — who may be able to appeal to large numbers of Jewish donors — and Kerry, who, together with his wife, Teresa Heinz, commands a fortune estimated at $500 million or more, enabling him to 'self-finance.'"
"Sources in the Edwards and Gephardt camps indicated the candidates lean toward taking public money, while the Gore camp remains uncertain."
The Boston Herald gets Kerry on the record about Bush's speech yesterday. "'Right now the American public knows that talk comes pretty easily," said Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a potential Bush foe in the 2004 presidential contest. 'The president has to follow through on what he says. We'll see.'" LINK
"Kerry said he was deeply disturbed by the rash of corporate fraud that has crippled the economy: 'These are unprecedented amounts of money. It's shocking. There's a complete lack of conscience.'"
Clearly, former cookie shop owner Kerry always remembers, however, that a Democratic nominee needs business support, a la Bill Clinton. "But Kerry said he did not want to tar all business leaders with a broad brush."
"'Some of my friends who are Fortune 400 CEOs are angry about this,' Kerry said. 'There's a lot of business community outrage here.'"
"Other Democrats took a much tougher line than Kerry, who has sought to portray himself as a pro-business senator."
The Washington Times devotes most of a whole story to Republicans dismissing Gephardt's charge yesterday that the corporate scandals are the fault of the Republican-run House. LINK
In disclosing their FEC numbers (see "Campaign finance," below), a Democratic House campaign committee aide touts the facts and figures that Gephardt attended DCCC events outside of Washington one out of every four days this year, and that by June 30, Gephardt had done 53 DCCC events in 41 cities this year.
In a Washington Post story on the battle for the Latino vote (see "Politics," below), there's this: "House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) has focused intensely on the Latino vote lately, studying Spanish in Mexico, appearing almost weekly on Spanish-language television and hiring a full-time aide to reach out to Hispanic journalists. Gephardt issues a weekly column in Spanish, holds roundtables with Spanish-language reporters and editorial boards and, like the White House, now has a Spanish-language Web site." LINK
The Boston Globe notes on the Yucca Mountain vote, "Among the four Democratic senators most often mentioned as potential presidential candidates — Daschle, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina — only Edwards favored the legislation." LINK
"Aides said Edwards' concerns about transportation risks did not outweigh his desire for a central waste site that would reduce the presence of nuclear material in North Carolina."
"Edwards' vote was applauded by officials at CP&L, a Raleigh utility company that operates the Shearon Harris nuclear plant 22 miles southwest of the city and is storing waste there … "
"But environmentalists were disappointed in Edwards, who is considering a 2004 presidential bid."
"'He has not endeared himself to the environmental community with this vote,' said Laura Chapin, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Environmental Working Group. 'This is one we were watching very closely.'"
The New York Times ' Alison Mitchell highlights Edwards' "yea" vote, and his status as a potential presidential candidate, in her Yucca Mountain story. LINK
Sens. John Kerry and Kit Bond today will host a "homeland security expo" on security devices today, featuring Tom Ridge.
We are going to continue to chronicle the life and times of Delaware's senior Senator in this space, until he is Shermanesque with the Note about his 2004 intentions. Senator Joe Biden continues his habit of revealing the exact conversations he has had with the president about national security issues (today: Iraq), and we think that if he learned to do it with dueling sock puppets, it would play pretty well at an Olney dinner theater. LINK
Possible presidential candidate Al Sharpton broadens his base with a New York Times photo depicting him with Michael Jackson AND Johnnie Cochran. LINK
Sharpton looked pretty keen on the Today show this morning. We noticed his remark that since Michael Jackson had recently headlined a Democratic party fundraiser, the public must accept him (and ignore the lingering charges of pedophilia). We wondered at the time why Republicans and others didn't seem to notice or care about Jackson's DNC star turn.
The Washington Post Style section takes its turn with the story. LINK
Neal Travis claims that on the weekend of July 27-28, "[t]he Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is putting on a $20,000-a-couple dinner at the East Hampton home of the Dan Neidichs to be attended by Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and other party luminaries."
The Wall Street Journal editorial board takes a whack, harkening back to Gore's zinc/Armand Hammer matter, and (mostly) giving President Bush a clean bill of health.
On the convention front, it only took a few weeks since the site visit for dings on Boston' chances with the Democrats to leak out. The Boston Globe 's Johnson reports, "Boston's effort to land the 2004 Democratic National Convention is facing criticism from some members of the site selection committee that visited the city last month, who feel they were greeted by a largely white group that reflected neither Boston's new diversity nor the Democratic Party's historic commitment to that ideal." LINK
"At least two black committee members complained about a lack of diversity during debriefings that followed a three-day visit."
"Among the complaints, the Democrat said, was that nearly all of Mayor Thomas M. Menino's staffers the committee encountered were white, as were nearly all of the workers the group encountered during a tour of the FleetCenter, the proposed convention venue … "
"While the group of complainers is relatively small, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who is pushing to bring the convention to his hometown, is hoping to meet this week with DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe to highlight the city's diversity efforts. Some Democrats are also planning to ask Menino to appoint a minority outreach official for the convention to serve as a liaison to the minority community."
"In terms of picking a convention site, 'the Democratic National Committee is always concerned about diversity,' said the Democratic official who heard complaints from the two committee members. 'It's one of the top five ticks when they go down the list.'"
"The committee members 'received a very corporate viewing of Boston, they didn't see any of the communities or the neighborhoods,' the official said. 'Part of Boston's appeal is that those neighborhoods have been really revitalized with the help of the community leaders.'"
John King could tell the DNC a thing or two about the wonders of diversity in Boston.
The DNC site selection committee will head to Miami next week.
The Democratic House campaign committee is first out with its second-quarter fundraising numbers: $15 million raised for the quarter, for a total of $61 million for the cycle, with no debt. The committee raised $5.6 million in hard money (do the subtraction, get the soft total), up $1 million from the same quarter in the 2000 cycle (though really, while that may be encouraging for Dems, that ain't that much). Also, $2 million came from Democratic members under the committee's member-fundraising program.
The Washington Post 's Broder has a feeling that things may be starting to go sour for President Bush in a typical midterm election kind of way. "All I know is that declaring a war on terrorism is, not surprisingly, a great deal simpler than waging one. And meantime, the rest of life goes on. Unemployment has ticked upward, signaling a slowdown in the economic recovery on which business depends for profits and governments at all levels for revenue. Partisanship is in full cry in Washington, and the president is publicly chastising his longtime supporters in the corporate world for the finagling and lying some of their colleagues have been accused of doing — crimes that have clobbered the stock market." LINK
On Imus, Don and Senator McCain talked about Harvey Pitt, Maureen Dowd, and Terry McAuliffe.
The Washington Post offers a fresh and picturesque take on a story that's become something of a yawn, even though we also know it's really important: new Latino US citizens getting nabbed by volunteers to register for one party or the other literally as they walk out of their naturalization ceremonies, in the ongoing battle for the Latino vote.
"In January, the Democratic National Committee sent a full-time staffer to work with Latino politicians and voters in North Carolina, a state that hosts pivotal races in the House and Senate this fall — and whose Latino population grew 400 percent over the past decade. DNC officials also dispatched an organizer to help set up the Arkansas legislature's first Hispanic Caucus, and they sent two aides to promote Oregon's election of its first statewide Latina officeholder. By this fall, Democrats plan to have Latino-oriented programs in at least 15 states." H LINK
Republicans, meanwhile, have pledged to register half a million new voters in California by Election Day, many of whom will be Hispanic. They have begun a broader 'New Citizens Initiative,' targeting naturalization ceremonies in Las Vegas and elsewhere."
"The RNC is staging numerous Hispanic 'Team Leader' events, two-hour sessions in which officials convey the GOP agenda to community leaders and ordinary citizens. Such events are planned for Miami this month and for 10 other cities — stretching from Atlanta to Portland, Ore. — by November."
"The party has retained GOP consultant Ada Diaz Kirby in Colorado to appeal to Hispanics."
Two House Republicans "have asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the National Education Association's political campaign expenditures," the Washington Times reports. LINK
Coverage of GOP gubernatorial nominee Bill Simon's homeland security plan, which he laid out yesterday, included this line which sparked our interest: "Simon's plan, which an aide said was crafted with input from White House officials, is designed to maximize the amount of money California will get to enhance its emergency response and protection, the candidate said." LINK
State Sen. Joe Dunn (D) is one of the more sophisticated, more influential members of that chamber. He's a budget committee insider, has the ear of Gov. Gray Davis, and he's now heading up the legislature's investigation into California's relationship with energy companies.
Tomorrow, his Select Committee to Investigate Price Manipulation in the Wholesale Energy Market will hear under oath from H. Ross Perot, otherwise known as the man who, in Dunn's phrase, "raped" California's energy market by allegedly helping energy companies beat the system by using a Perot Systems computer program that could manipulate supply and demand. Or something like that.
Perot's testimony will be followed by that favorite attention-grabbing tactic — two ex-Perot Systems employees who may talk about the alleged wrongdoing.
We hear that Perot just might bring some of his trademark set of charts and graphs.
And, by the way, it's summer, and the demand for electricity in rising, which will give Dunn's hearings greater play in the press. LINK
And, by the way, California still has no budget. But that's a whole other story. Most Californians say they don't want their government to cut health care programs to help balance one. LINK
The Sacramento Bee reports that Dick Cheney might fundraise for Republican House candidate Dick Monteith, who is running for Gary Condit's seat. LINK
Gov. Jeb Bush is expected to nominate his first state Supreme Court justice today. His folks are very tight-lipped about who he's picked. But …
The Orlando Sentinel's sources say that Raoul Cantero III, a Harvard-educated appellate lawyer from Miami, who is also Fulgencio Batista's grandson, will get the nod. That'd make him the first Cuban-American — and the first Hispanic — to sit on the court. LINK
"One prominent Hispanic lawyer familiar with the nomination process said Cantero's appointment appeared certain. Another close to Cantero said, 'The talk in the legal community is that he's got it locked up.'"
"This is Bush's first solo nomination to the state's highest court and the first by a Republican governor in 15 years. In 1998, shortly before he took office, Bush joined with outgoing Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles in naming Justice Peggy Quince as the first black female to the seven-member court."
The Miami Herald reports that Cantero is a "registered Independent."
Democrats are likely to seize on this: LINK
"Cantero was a junior associate in 1989 when the firm, then Adorno & Zeder, helped Orlando Bosch stay in the U.S. and out of prison after he was released from jail in Venezuela for his alleged role in blowing up a Cuban airliner with 73 passengers aboard."
"Bush has his own ties to Bosch, having worked as the campaign manager for Bosch's leading champion, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, when she was a state legislator. He also visited pro-Bosch hunger strikers in Miami. And it was Bush's father, former President George Bush, who agreed to release Bosch."
An Orlando Sentinel columnist has a message for Bush's message team: your Hispanic language commercials are nice, but they're not playing at the right times on the right stations. LINK
Facing Democratic criticism, Republican gubernatorial nominee Mark Sanford has chastised his state party for hiring as their new operations chief the former executive director of the Virginia GOP, who was indicted on eavesdropping charges earlier this year, though the charges were later dropped. LINK
The proposed state lottery is one step closer to getting onto the November ballot, having passed a state House committee yesterday, and facing a full House vote today. LINK
Former Charlotte Mayor and two-time gubernatorial candidate Richard Vinroot "ripped into" Democratic Gov. Mike Easley yesterday in a speech that apparently sounded a lot like a 2004 campaign salvo. LINK
Attorney General John Cornyn (R) released his version of the Bush prescription drug plan yesterday. His Senate opponent, Ron Kirk (D), has yet to release a proposal. LINK
"Gov. Rick Perry blistered Democrat Tony Sanchez for his business ethics Tuesday, saying his opponent's corporate ventures have "ripped a page right out of the Enron and WorldCom playbook," Wayne Slater reports in today's Dallas Morning News. LINK
"The Republican governor said recent revelations over disputed tax shelters underscore a pattern of business behavior that brings into question whether Mr. Sanchez is fit for office."
"Firing back, Mr. Sanchez said it is Mr. Perry who is 'ethically challenged' for pursuing policies to benefit campaign contributors."
In Massachusetts, the piling on top of state Treasurer and Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Shannon O'Brien continues, with news in the Boston Globe about Fleet Bank stock owned by O'Brien's husband at a time when O'Brien voted in favor of the bank's purchase of another bank. LINK
The New York Times sheds an ink-stained tear for the apparently lower level of political ethics prevailing in the Badger State. LINK
The state chapter of the Sierra Club is responding to GOP Rep. John Thune's Senate campaign ads criticizing the group for its policies on timber logging and road building in forests. Both Thune's and Democratic Senator Tim Johnson's campaign had hoped to avoid having to respond to outside groups, knowing that it would make it more difficult for them to communicate their own messages. But they both benefit, in certain ways, when these groups distract their opponent. So it's not a totally zero-sum game. LINK
"U.S. Rep. Nancy L. Johnson holds a $1.7 million edge over fellow Rep. James H. Maloney in the closely watched 5th District race that is pitting one congressman against another," the Hartford Courant reports. "Johnson, a New Britain Republican in her 10th term, had almost $2.2 million in the bank as of June 30. Maloney, a Danbury Republican serving his third term, had $520,517 on hand, according to new campaign finance filings released Tuesday." LINK
The Birmingham News previews President Bush's fundraising visit for GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Riley. LINK
Bush Administration Strategy/Personality
Surgeon General nominee Richard Carmona's hearing is turning out to be a pretty bumpy ride, though there is no reason yet to think he won't get confirmed. LINK
If the Note is the guy by the swimming pool, and Mr. McGuire (Walter Brooke), and Note readers are Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman), the one word we would whisper to you to make sure you know how to follow the trajectory of the Bush Administration is not "plastics," but … "steel." LINK
Check out this multi-purpose, multi-meaning paragraph from A2 of the Wall Street Journal : "The U.S. steel industry is much stronger since import tariffs were enacted in March, paving the way for higher prices and demand as buyers, once devoted to imported steel, now purchase domestic steel. Bush administration officials told top steel executives Monday that they should use this lull from cheap imports to restructure their operations and make them more competitive. If not, the tariffs would end immediately. Mr. Bush, himself, has been under pressure from the European Union and Asia to end the 8%-30% tariffs or face a trade war. So far, he has bought time by granting key product exemptions for overseas steelmakers most hurt by the tariffs."
"Aides said Edwards' concerns about transportation risks did not outweigh his desire for a central waste site that would reduce the presence of nuclear material in North Carolina."
"Edwards' vote was applauded by officials at CP&L, a Raleigh utility company that operates the Shearon Harris nuclear plant 22 miles southwest of the city and is storing waste there … "
Edwards Watch:
Articles relating to NC Senator John Edwards
(esp. regarding his Senate duties and upcoming campaign for President in 2004)
To add to this list, type *Edwards Watch in the "To:" field.
To view articles on this list, click the link above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.