Print This Page Email This Page See Most Sent

Good Morning America| World News| 20/20| Primetime| Nightline| This Week| ABC News Now| i-Caught Home| News Brief| World| U.S.| Investigative| Politics| Polls| Money| Health| Entertainment| ESPN Sports| SciTech| Law| Travel Search Please Note: You've requested an ABCNews.com page that does not exist. If you've reached this page by selecting a bookmark that worked previously, it's likely the file moved to a new location because of our recent redesign. Please update your bookmarks. If you still can't find the page your looking for, check out our homepage or use the search form below: Search     Feedback| Wireless| E-mails & News Alerts| Message Boards| RSS Headlines| Podcasts| ABC News Store Contact Us| ABC.com| Site Map| Advertising Info| Terms of Use (Updated 5/6/08)| Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights External links are provided for reference purposes. ABC News is not responsible for the content of external internet sites. Copyright © 2008 ABCNews Internet Ventures

Catch up. Plenty of Note archives.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

On the former half of the equation, this year is special for at least two reasons: 1) control of the House and the Senate are so evenly split that both sides are incredibly hyped up, not just about whether they can make progress on their agendas and have accomplishments to tout back home, but about whether they'll be serving in the minority or the majority come January 2003. And 2) with the looming possibility of McCain-Feingold kicking in on November 6, this could be the last year of what's become the norm in soft-money spending.

Roll Call reports today of the possibility of a "massive" GOP television ad blitz this fall. More on that below.

On the latter half of the equation, the question of what the advertising campaigns are going to be about, well, both parties still are trying to figure that out. That said, there are some very big issues sloshing around today which will inspire both some tart spin and reax as well as some more serious, dry-erase board contemplation over on First Street and Ivy Street, SE.

Both sides like to claim that their own polling and their gut tells them that the other side's issues won't work, but only the best pros will be able to keep their poker faces steady for the next six months when talking to prodding reporters.

You already can hear the cogwheels turning on the House's Yucca Mountain vote yesterday and the judicial nominee shenanigans that are going to take place today.

The Boston Globe reports, "The (Yucca Mountain) dump issue, when combined with a heavy influx of Latino voters in parts of the West, has Democrats plotting a new electoral strategy for this November and beyond. While Republicans scoff at the notion that the Democrats could make substantial gains in the region, Democratic operatives are mapping out a battle plan for New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado."

"The Yucca Mountain issue is already showing up in this year's campaigns, analysts and party officials say," including a key House race in Las Vegas, and possibly in the Colorado Senate race.

"Looking ahead to 2004, Democrats plan to use Yucca Mountain as an issue in the presidential election. The Gore campaign spent little money in the Rocky Mountain region in 2000, but narrowly won New Mexico."

The Las Vegas Review-Journal has a good Yucca Senate preview and House debate wrap. The two parties in the Senate will go toe-to-toe over the status of President Bush's judicial nominees today, which happens to be the one-year anniversary of Bush's sending eight circuit court nominees to the Hill, with the dispute being whether or not the Democrat-run Senate has been worse about confirmation hearings than the GOP-run Senate was during the Clinton Administration.

The day kicks off with a Senate GOP press conference at 9:45 am, followed by a Democrat (read: Chuck Schumer)-run subcommittee hearing featuring four Clinton judicial nominees who never got THEIR hearings.

USA Today 's Biskupic writes it up.

This story surely will have Democrats clipping n' saving and saying, "Bring it on!" The executive director of Bush's Social Security reform panel tells the Washington Times that "President Bush will be very active in this year's election war with the Democrats over his Social Security reform plan, promoting private ownership and choice to give workers more control over their retirement savings."

"House Republicans oppose Democratic efforts to debate the president's reform proposals in this session of Congress, raising questions about how actively the White House wants to promote a politically potent issue that is popular with workers but not with millions of retirees."

"But Mr. Blahous, a special assistant to the president for economic affairs, made it clear that the White House plans to aggressively debate the Democrats on this issue over the coming months."

"While White House advisers are still working out some of the details in the way that Mr. Bush plans to counter the Democrats' campaign offensive against his proposal, Mr. Blahous said the president will focus on two features in his plan that are especially popular among voters:" "'giving workers the right of inheritance as a matter of choice … and ownership.'"

In another exclusive interview sure to shake things up a bit, Treasury Secretary O'Neill also says Social Security reform is a high priority, but the meat is in his telling The Wall Street Journal that AFTER the 2002 election, the administration will undertake a major effort to simplify the tax code.

"The plan will also likely be sold as an overhaul, not another tax cut. 'I guess I start with the notion that probably in order to make it as noncontentious as possible you try to do something that's revenue neutral so you don't have to fight that battle, too,' the Treasury secretary said, meaning that the plan would be crafted in a way that doesn't increase or decrease the money collected by the Internal Revenue Service."

"'You can't find many people who say, "by God, you've taken too much of my money, give me some of my money back,"' Mr. O'Neill said, breaking with some of his Republican colleagues who assert the country is overtaxed. 'But there are a lot of people who resent the fact that they can't figure it out.'"

Of course, the Secretary is characteristically (for him) honest about the fact that his own Administration has contributed to the trend of making the tax code MORE complicated with its support for the kind of targeted tax cuts it mocked Clinton-Gore for backing.

Another potential hotspot in the linkage between the legislative agenda and the election is free trade. The White House has been very happy to not stir things up on trade promotion authority, aware that more coverage would beg some questions, like about the steel deal, and what kind of political deal-making it's going to take to get the measure out of the Senate and then (through separate deals) out of the House.

Pushing a free trade bill this close to election day is the kind of risk a White House happy with its political position probably shouldn't undertake on strictly political grounds, but this issue isn't going away.

Today, the New York Times ed board shines some disinfecting light on the administration's effort to play hide-the-ball on this issue: "But if he wants to do more than cast blame, and if trade is as high a priority as he asserts, he needs to engage himself in the struggle for an acceptable compromise. Then he will have to turn his attention to the House, and find a way to get the new version of free-trade legislation approved, without adding any new dollops of special-interest protectionism to the stew." The Wall Street Journal says there is major political gamepersonship going on with trade in the Senate: "The real wild card, though, could be Majority Leader Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat, who has struck an increasingly partisan tone over the trade bill and could move to yank the bill altogether if Republicans continue to impede debate. Even some of Mr. Daschle's fellow Democrats said Wednesday that they are uncertain of both his intentions and his motives. Administration officials have accused Mr. Daschle of jousting with President Bush over the trade bill as part of a larger plot to pick up support for a possible run for the presidency in 2004."

(Cue "Batman"-like graphics mit sound: Zip! Zow!) "'I'd like to believe that Mr. Daschle is a guy who cares more about the people than about running for president, but I don't know if that's true,' Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Wednesday, when asked about the trade fight."

"A more plausible option: Mr. Daschle is attempting to draw distinctions between Republicans and Democrats over health-care and worker benefits, in an effort to help 2002 Democratic Senate candidates, and to keep his job as majority leader after November."

And as the Journal's ed board points out (and the White House rues), the Democrats have become less free-trade oriented in the Post -Clinton era, and, even more so, presumably, in the Post -Sawyer era. That would be Tom Sawyer, the Democrat whose primary loss this week is being chalked up to his support for NAFTA.

"Congressional Democrats are certainly taking notice of these results. But if the reaction is a return to their old protectionist ways, it bodes ill for the party and country alike. The U.S. needs a loyal opposition that recognizes economic realities and wants the U.S. to lead on trade. President Clinton knew this; and so, in his way, did Al Gore. When Tom Daschle and John Kerry hold trade promotion authority hostage in the Senate, it's a sign, along with Mr. Sawyer's defeat, that when it comes to trade the Democratic Party may be headed to Argentina."

See also the Roll Call take.

And — we're still on our issue riff here — in the long-range problem category, David Wessel in the The Wall Street Journal doesn't completely undermine his point (that rising health care costs are a big problem, requiring a lot of political leadership) by partially rehabilitating Ira Magaziner.

The problem is starkly bad: "The wave of hospital consolidation has peaked, and hospitals are using bargaining power to boost prices. Spending on prescription drugs is rising. So is health-care paperwork. Technology, much of it improving the quality of lives, continues to drive health-care spending. About 14% of Americans still lack health insurance. Consumers are rebelling against managed care, and employers are backing off."

And who would ever have thought that George Bush would replace Bill Clinton's farm policy with one that is more expensive and less free-market? Probably not the president's top political aide (who is acutely sensitive to the rural vote), who is described thusly in The Wall Street Journal : "White House political adviser Karl Rove joked with senators of a candle-lit ceremony to discourage television coverage when President Bush signs the measure into law."

And David Rogers breaks the code and shows how deal-making on many of the big-ticket issues (ag, trade, and the budget) has led to a spiraling set of problems for the White House: "A similar dynamic reduced the president's influence on the farm bill. Mr. Bush agreed to the extra spending early last year in a bid to win farm-state votes for his tax cut. By the time the legislation began to take shape in the House last August, the administration couldn't afford to complain because it was trying to round up farm-state votes for the president's trade-promotion authority bill."

"The final product of this bargain has upset U.S. trading partners. Some of the charges appear overstated. For example, Brazil complains of subsidies for soybeans, when the bill cuts the soybean-loan rate and is expected to reduce U.S. production. But going into future trade talks, the subsidies will be an issue."

Finally, it looks like the Washington Post 's Allen got that Democratic packet on the proposed cuts in Bush's education budget yesterday, too. "President Bush wants to campaign for the next six months as a champion of education, but he has a problem: He has proposed a budget that cuts, freezes and eliminates scores of school programs." "Democrats contend that the education budget Bush sent Congress falls $7.2 billion short of the new law's targets. A White House official said Congress routinely authorizes higher funding levels than it later actually spends."

Allen makes this nice point: "Bush is not used to being challenged on his commitment to schools. He has emphasized education throughout his political career, even when most Republicans were ceding the issue to Democrats."

Onto, and on the air wars, it's still unclear as to who the big players will be — what kind of US Chamber/Business Roundtable/NFIB melting pot of (White House) coordinated or (more typically for business) uncoordinated advertising will take place on the Republican side, versus an AFL-CIO/enviro/pro-choicer ad stew on the Democratic side.

These ads will matter a lot, particularly in House races, and to a somewhat lesser extent the Senate races, because of almost non-existent local news coverage of politics.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while Labor Day is normally regarded as the kick-off of the fall campaign rush, any negative advertising taking place at that time likely will be suspended around September 11.

All that said, Roll Call 's Bresnahan reports on the possibility of a huge GOP national ad campaign this fall. "White House officials are considering mounting a massive multimillion dollar TV ad blitz this fall to trumpet President Bush's record and the need to have a Republican-controlled Congress to help him achieve the rest of the administration's goals."

"The Republican National Committee could spend $25 million or more on the ad campaign, according to sources, who cautioned that no final decision has been made on whether the RNC will move forward with the effort."

"GOP Congressional leaders and strategists, seeking to counter Democratic success on the grassroots level, believe that 'nationalizing' the midterm elections, with a popular Bush as the centerpiece of their campaign, would be a winning strategy heading into November."

"The idea would be to 'brand' the GOP as the party with ideas in sync with the values of the American public, despite traditional Democratic advantages on issues like health care and education, as well as concerns over the strength of the economic recovery. Going forward with such a large scale ad campaign, however, would likely reduce the amount the RNC would be able to devote to get-out-the-vote operations."

"The Republican leadership on the Hill, and particularly in the House, is strongly in favor of an RNC ad offensive."

"Several of the states mentioned by Republican strategists as possible targets for the TV ads this fall — Iowa, Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia and Florida, among others — will not only host critical Congressional and gubernatorial battles but are also likely to be important states for Bush in a 2004 re-election campaign."

The AP's Espo reports that the United Seniors Association, which is "backed by the pharmaceutical industry," "plans a costly television campaign supporting Medicare prescription drug legislation that House Republicans are drafting. The effort signals an unusually early start to a campaign-season ad war."

"The commercials, expected to air in more than a dozen cities from Philadelphia to Phoenix, will run at a time when GOP candidates are working to neutralize a long-term Democratic advantage on political issues of importance to senior citizens."

Two more must-read clips for you in the same political vein. The Washington Times ' Z. Hallow leads, "Republicans, despite hopes that they would make progress with President Bush at the helm, can't seem to get the hang of outreach to Hispanic, Asian and black voters … Republican leaders acknowledge that their party's ethnic-outreach efforts have met with only moderate successes among Hispanics nationally and have been a flop with Asians and blacks."

"'It's time that Karl Rove understood that it takes more than a Mariachi band and a TV show in Spanish,' said K.B. Forbes, a veteran Republican campaign operative and current executive director of a nonprofit group that works in Hispanic communities. Mr. Rove is Mr. Bush's chief political strategist." (Forbes worked for the Steve Forbes presidential campaign, and we have to, um, admire his willingness to speak truth to power.)

"Interviews with party officials around the country indicate that Republicans are unable to cite many examples of successful Hispanic recruitment. Some acknowledge they face a cultural divide."

And, the Chicago Tribune's Zeleny puts Bush's trip yesterday into appropriate geo-political context: "Of states that are most politically dear to the White House, Wisconsin ranks among the highest. Two years ago Bush lost the state to Al Gore by fewer than 6,000 votes. The president's political advisers have included Wisconsin in a small list of states that will not be surrendered."

"The White House also is paying careful attention to the Wisconsin governor's race. Governor Scott McCallum faces the toughest race of any Republican governor, GOP leaders acknowledge … From the moment the president touched the ground at Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee yesterday, to when he left La Crosse, McCallum was at Bush's side. In three public speeches, the president acknowledged the freshman governor and thanked him for tagging along."

The National Press Club hosts Dan Quayle's 10-year-post-"Murphy Brown" address at 12:30 p.m..

From the ABCNEWS London Bureau: Israel's security cabinet approved on Thursday more military operations against "terrorist targets," and gave powers to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer to decide what action to take. Israeli retaliation is expected to be in Gaza, as there are continued reports of Israeli army buildup outside the Gaza Strip. No confirmation yet, but the call-up of reservists is also possible. The identity of the last suicide bomber is still unknown.

In Bethlehem, a new obstacle blocked a deal to end the five-week-old standoff at the Nativity Church. Under the deal, 26 Palestinian militants and all civilians were to leave the shrine while 13 wanted militants slated for exile would remain until a country agreed to host them. But one of the 13 militants said the group would reject the accord unless guarantees were provided to ensure a European Union envoy stayed in the church to safeguard them from Israeli troops.

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary

Al Gore wowed them in Knoxville last night at a big Democratic dinner, including with this seemingly new staple theme: "'The president should not use the unity and abuse it for some right-wing agenda,' Gore said."

Bob Novak continues to have as much trouble as we do finding elite Democrats enthused about another Al Gore run for president. Today's Novak column is a must-read for those who live and breathe the Invisible Primary.

Novak's main theme (that wise-guy and -gal Democrats think Bush is beatable, but that Gore is the wrong person to try, but that if he runs, he will be the frontrunner for the nomination) is played out through an unnamed congressman who dreads getting a call from Gore asking for his support.

But the more interesting aspect of the column is about — guess who?! — Senator John Edwards.

It's funny: among people who saw Edwards spar with Tim Russert last weekend, some thought he did really well, some thought he was slick and evasive in a borderline disastrous manner. We would love to get the Note's Core 100 readers into a room altogether (with air-popped popcorn and some cranberry and seltzer), watch the tape, and figure out the reasons for the diverging views.

Novak's sources (at least two of whom, we bet, are among our Core 100), however, say the perf was far from boffo. In fact, the Novak premise is that Edwards was the "guy" before MTP, but he was so bad that "[t]he same Democrats who had been enchanted by Edwards were appalled" by his showing himself to be "himself unprepared for the big time."

Us, we found him no more evasive on the main issues covered (tax cuts, Afghanistan, and the Middle East) than his more experienced rivals, but his short public resume probably gets him judged by a different standard.

Following on the Novak column, however, Stu Rothenberg, whom we love, isn't a Vanity Fair or a GQ kind of guy (and we mean that neutrally), and we doubt more people in North Carolina read Roll Call than either of those two glossy mags.

We're not terribly surprised that Rothenberg, keying off that same MTP appearance, writes the first largely negative piece we've seen about Senator John Edwards, raising the question (posed here earlier this week) of whether this will spark a trend.

"[I]f the freshman North Carolina Senator really wants to emerge as his party's nominee in 2004, he needs to acknowledge the obvious: His appearance on NBC News' 'Meet the Press' last weekend showed that he has a long way to go to beat out House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.), Senator John Kerry (Mass.) and former Vice President Al Gore for the Democratic nomination."

"After watching Edwards, I learned that the United States needs to 'show leadership' in the war against Afghanistan. I know it, because Edwards repeated that mantra as if it had been programmed into his brain. Voters clearly want 'leadership' from their leaders, but repeating a phrase like a trained parakeet does not make someone a leader."

"Leadership also isn't dodging and weaving on domestic issues, including taxes and what the Senator referred to repeatedly as 'fiscal discipline.'"

"Edwards is right, of course, that voters want to elect someone as president who displays leadership qualities. But that means Edwards needs to display leadership ability, both in the Senate and by proposing ideas and grappling with tough choices, not by regurgitating some phrase that Bob Shrum probably told him to use."

"Luckily for John Edwards, the Democratic race is just beginning. He has a number of important assets in a presidential bid, and he'll have many opportunities to sell himself, to present proposals and to demonstrate his leadership potential. And he set the bar pretty low for himself with Tim Russert on Sunday."

The Raleigh News & Observer notes, "Another glossy has apparently started work on an Edwards piece as well. A reporter from GQ was among those tracking him during last weekend's visit to South Carolina."

Last Monday at Hunter College in New York, Bill Clinton did a brief Q&A with the students after his talk. One of the questions was about what advice he "would" give Democrats thinking for running for president in 2004 — the questioner obviously unaware that that is not a hypothetical matter, insomuch as many of those now thinking of running regularly consult with the Man Who Won Twice.

We challenge all those staffing the would-be candidates to try to obtain the full text of the FPOTUS answer, but here's one thing he said: in trying to explain how to finesse attacks on the popular, war-time commander in chief, Clinton suggested using newspaper headlines critical of Bush's record on domestic issues (such as the environment), to soften the blow and make the negativity appear to be coming from an independent entity.

We think we just might have connected Dot A to Dot B in a V-8 moment yesterday when it occurred to us that one Senator John Kerry did just that in his speech at the Florida Democratic party cattle call.

Roll Call 's Kane continues perusing the leadership PAC filings and finds that "Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) has made dozens upon dozens of contributions to boost House Democrats and the party's challengers and open-seat contenders," with "an emphasis on black and Hispanic candidates."

"From mid-June 2001 through March 2002, Lieberman's leadership political action committee handed out at least $1,000 to 66 different House campaigns, spreading his money to more candidates than any other potential Democratic contender for the White House in 2004."

"Lieberman's aggressive support of House candidates, particularly CBC and Hispanic caucus members, stands in stark contrast to other Members eyeing a White House run. He has given to more than twice as many House campaigns as House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.)."

Of course, Gephardt has done more than any other wannabe in traveling to districts to help candidates raise money …

John DiStaso writes up Joe Lieberman's June visit but gives the real kudos to Dick Gephardt. (We love the fact that we got this clip from three different people aligned with one of the subjects of the column … )

Surely this doesn't mean that Gephardt has won the DiStaso primary, but it clearly makes him the frontrunner in that race: "Senator Joe Lieberman is coming to events in Keene and Nashua on June 2 and 3. But he and other Democratic hopefuls have a way to go to match Dick Gephardt."

"New Hampshire Dems appear comfortable with the House minority leader, and Gephardt, who first campaigned here for the 1988 Presidential Primary, is clearly comfortable with New Hampshire."

"His Main Street stroll in Concord with House candidate Katrina Swett on Monday had a distinct Presidential primary feel. Only the snow and cold were missing."

"Gephardt's main organizer 'on the ground in New Hampshire hasn't changed since 1988, either — Jim Demers, the former state representative and veteran State House lobbyist."

The Note … well … the Note lives to be micro. So when we tee up the fact that John Kerry is hosting a meeting at his home for young Democratic strategists, well, that's fine. But the Boston press corps can be pretty micro, too. Imagine the Post Dispatch running an item like this about their guy: "Roughly three dozen Democratic operatives descended on the Georgetown home of Senator John F. Kerry last night, for what his aides called a gathering to thank them for their party loyalty. Kerry, who is up for reelection this fall and is expected to run for president in 2004, regularly holds gatherings for his staff and campaign workers in both Boston and Washington. Last night's was his first for young party activists."

Today, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean will address the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council Chairman's Dinner in DC.

DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe tells Roll Call in an interview that he has urged the wannabes to focus on helping out the party for 2002, and a "senior Gephardt aide" uses the excuse to draw attention to the (we believe) fair point that "when [2000 presidential candidate] Al Gore's people were in charge of the DNC they didn't help us do anything … They made the decision that they didn't want to help us. So compared to that, this DNC has been much better."

Kerry, as well as Lieberman, will address the New Democrat Network spring conference on May 21 in DC.

Politics

And here we were thinking that the Bush Administration's reaching out to President Clinton and offering him a role in the big East Timor delegation could be part of the long-awaited (by fairies and trolls) rapprochement between the Clintons and the Bushes.

Ever since USA Today ace reporter Bill Nichols broke the story of the appointment earlier this week (the first time the Bushies have reached out to give the FPOTUS something to do), things have kinda slid downhill.

The Clintonistas haven't liked all the framing background quotes that have described the reasons for the assignment, and one former Clinton aide has now gone so far as to tell the Note in a huff what exactly they haven't liked:

"The (Administration's) use of the word: 'accommodate.' They are not accommodating us. Clinton didn't want to go to East Timor. He was invited by Condi Rice. Once he was able to move his schedule around, he accepted her invitation to HEAD the delegation. And all this happened in March."

"They really should stop their lies and stop being cute about this and just stand up for once and do the right thing."

Their unhappiness, they say, is on the staff level.

And Clinton, they say, had already been invited by Kofi Annan to be part of the UN delegation.

Good for the cable programmers: Tavis Smiley plans to get more details out of Bill Clinton about his TV plans.

More from the Roll Call story on all the stuff the DNC has done to prepare 2002: "The DNC appropriated $5 million to help Democrats with redistricting battles … Aside from the redistricting funds, McAuliffe's biggest undertaking since assuming the DNC helm has been overhauling a political operation he claims was technologically outdated and on the verge of being unable to compete with Republicans. So far, the DNC has updated 18 state Democratic Party lists and McAuliffe said they have saved $3.7 million in money that would have been spent on direct mail sent to people who have died or moved … These lists could be crucial for Democrats in the upcoming elections, particularly in states where close contests are expected to take place." Roll Call

"In addition to his efforts to create a Democratic Party for the 21st century, McAuliffe is also seeking to integrate the DNC, House and Senate political and policy message. For the first time, the DNC is paying for polling for both the House and Senate, lifting the financial burden from Gephardt and Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.)."

"Former President Jimmy Carter will make a live, televised address to the Cuban people during a trip to the island next week," the Los Angeles Times < reports. "He will become the only American head of state--in or out of office--to visit the Communist country. Carter is to speak Tuesday evening from the main auditorium of the University of Havana, according to a schedule issued by the Carter Center in Atlanta." p>

California

Page One editors in California couldn't seem to decide whether Oracle or Enron was the bigger story. But that doesn't equal a political stalemate. In a lengthy e-mail to reporters yesterday, aides to GOP gubernatorial nominee Bill Simon announced their intentions to take a long, hard look into Davis's ties to the Oracle contract, dismissing their own candidate's Enron connections with a French-style "bof!"

We are agnostic about which matters more, in the cosmic justice sense, and further Enron complications might confuse the political calculations even more.

These are different stories, but both with huge political potential. But it's worth noting that the electoral expiation of choice was to return Enron campaign donations; yesterday, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer returned $50,000 in Oracle campaign donations.

The Sacramento Bee's Dan Walters sums up the key Oracle questions:

"Why did high-level aides to Gov. Gray Davis, including his all-purpose troubleshooter, Susan Kennedy, give Oracle a $95 million no-bid contract whose provisions were not even checked by state lawyers or verified by state financial analysts?"

"Kennedy and Davis insist that the Democratic governor was unaware of the contract, and three of those involved have been either fired or suspended, including a man who only days later accepted a $25,000 Oracle campaign contribution on Davis' behalf. But no one, at least so far, has explained why Kennedy and other high-level officials were insisting that the Oracle contract be executed without the ordinary vetting so that the financially troubled company could book the business by the end of its fiscal year on May 31, 2001."

The San Francisco Chronicle inevitably (we say, because these things tend to happen) raises questions about yet another Davis-California contract.

"A company that won approval of a $453 million contract in 2000 to help California manage welfare cases gave $50,000 to Gov. Gray Davis' campaign within a day of hiring one of the governor's top fund-raisers as a lobbyist. The contribution by Accenture, an international consulting firm, was made while the Davis administration was weighing whether to drop one of the four providers of software for the huge computer system California uses to keep track of welfare recipients. The company says there was no link between its contribution in March 2000 and the decision later to retain all four software providers, including Accenture."

So: has Garry South ordered every potentially controversial Davis contract scrubbed, before the oppo people find it?

Texas

Gubernatorial nominee Tony Sanchez (D) is touting President Bush in an ad designed to convince voters that he'd govern just like him. "The ad, which began running statewide this week, cites the close relationship the former governor forged with the late Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, a Democrat, when the two served together at the Texas Capitol several years ago. Sanchez said he'll bring the same approach to the office if he beats Republican Gov. Rick Perry in November. 'They reached across party lines to get things done for Texas. That's my model,' Sanchez says in the ad, which hits the airwaves this week."

Florida

It seems pretty clear that the New York Times wants the Rilya Wilson case to become an issue in the Florida gubernatorial contest, and we are basing that on both the silly headline, and the frequency with which they have covered this story.

The Miami Herald reportsthat Rilya was a second-generation foster child; her family had a history with the state's Division of Children and Families.

Gov. Jeb Bush ordered state officials to make visual accounting of every child in the DCF system.

Bush has been hit by some national conservative commentators (like Bill O'Reilly) for not doing this more quickly, but the state's punditry, so far at least, doesn't seem to want to lay the blame at his feet. Democrats have gingerly begun to the raise the issue.

Orange County and Orlando civic leaders the Republican National Committee that they don't want to host the 2004 GOP convention. >

New York

Former Rep. Dan Frisa (R) has said he will challenge Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy for her seat, which used to be his until Maloney defeated him in 1996. McCarthy, whose husband and son were killed in the 1993 Long Island Railroad shooting, campaigned against Frisa that year on his vote to repeal the assault weapons ban.

On May 22, CNN's James Carville comes to a city in which he loves to eat (New York) to give a big ol' keynote speech for a party he loves (New York Democrats) at its biannual meeting, which will feature the first mega McCall-Cuomo face-off of this election the next day.

Michigan

(In other Carville/Matalin news:) On Friday in Detroit, vice-presidential adviser Mary Matalin will headline a fundraiser for GOP House candidate Candice Miller, at the Detroit Athletic Club at 12:30 p.m..

Massachusetts

We're not so sure this actually will play in Boston, but gubernatorial candidate Robert Reich vowed yesterday to cut patronage and "influence-peddling" if elected governor.

By our count, today marks at least the third Wall Street Journal story on the perverse system of campaign finance that Massachusetts has put into place. This time, the story makes the front page, and we have to admit that it COULD be a TV story. Maybe they're trying to tell us something.

Basically, in 1998, Massachusetts voters passed an initiative to allow candidates to take public financing if they adhered to spending and money raising limits. The state legislature refused to pass legislation that would fund the provision.

Interest groups sued; a constitutional imbroglio ensued, and now, the state Supreme Judicial Court is literally trying to seize the legislative office accounts to redirect the money. (They can't, constitutionally, do anything else, aside from, presumably, ordering marshals to arrest lawmakers … or trying to physically force them to say "ay" to a funding bill.)

Those comical prospects aside, the only other avenue is to seize state property and assets that are allocated by the legislators. Like $100,000 parking spaces. Surplus SUVs. Pastel print chairs.

Iowa

The Des Moines Register 's David Yepsen recalls his grandparents' frugality and asks, why can't Iowa's legislators be more like them?

Missouri

What would Freud say about this New York Times correction, and what chain of events led to its appearance? "A front-page article on Sunday about a disagreement over altering the flow of the Missouri River referred incorrectly in some copies to an interview in the office of Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, who opposes changing the flow. He was not smoking a cigar."

Bush Administration Strategy/Personality

President Bush benefited from an impromptu Socratic dialogue during his Wisconsin stop yesterday:

"An anonymous voice from the crowd at the Bush speech at Rufus King may have capsulized the policy debate underlying his visit. At one point, the president asked the crowd of about 1,000, many of them students, 'How do we make sure that teachers are well-trained, well-equipped, well-prepared?' 'More money,' rang out the voice. 'Not a bad answer,' Bush said. " 'It's exactly what we did in the 2002 budget. We spent $3 billion more on teacher recruitment, teacher training, teacher preparedness. And that's important.' " "But Bush talked little about more money and a lot about such things as the need to promote teaching as a noble career, to set high goals for all students and schools, and to use tests to find out if those goals are being met."

Again, you gotta love a picture like this , if your name is Montgomery:

The Hotline's Chuck Todd postulates this week on the real possibility of a September 2004 Republican National Convention: "delaying the inevitable as long as possible certainly gives [Republicans] an even bigger potential edge" money-wise. Why? Well, "Bush raised approximately $62 million in '00 just from the 61,972 folks who gave him the maximum contribution allowed under the law ($1,000). It's fairly safe to assume that in '04, at least 61,972 will max out with $2,000 contributions" under McCain-Feingold.

"So just for his primary campaign, Bush will have a warchest of some $125 million, and that's an extremely conservative estimate."

"So let's assume that Republicans do hold their convention the week of Sept. 6. That means," according to federal campaign finance laws regarding public funding of conventions, etc., that "the bloated Bush primary committee funds could be used to pay for campaign expenses (ads, staff, etc.) all the way until, say, Thursday, Sept. 9, the day Bush would likely receive the nomination."

"That in turn means that Bush's $73 million in federal funds would have to last him less than eight weeks — from Sept. 10, 2004, to Election Day (Nov. 2, 2004)."

"The DNC has already set July 19-23 as the week of its convention. By the rules set by the FEC, the Democratic nominee would receive a $73 million check on July 23rd. Here's the comparison statistically:
-- Bush would have 54 days to spend his $73 million, or $1.35 million a day.
-- The Democratic nominee would have 103 days to spend the same amount, or $709,000 a day."

As Knight-Ridder's Thomma suggests today , "Pushing the Republican convention into September could give Bush a tactical advantage by … giving Democrats less time to respond to his convention message. It also would showcase him and his party in a season when the public might actually pay attention, unlike midsummer when people are more focused on vacations. The only risk is it would leave Bush less time to catch up if he were trailing his opponent after the Democratic convention."

We would add: what would a September convention do to a) the debate schedule; and b) the president's ability to "use" the 9/11 anniversary to his party's advantage?

Mark McKinnon, "President Bush's chief media adviser from the 2000 campaign," let it out yesterday that he and his wife gave $14,000 "to the Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas and two other Texas Democrats running for statewide office this fall" — all Democrats McKinnon worked with before joining the Bush campaign.

"[W]ith the White House focused intently on recapturing control of the Senate in this fall's midterm elections, McKinnon's decision to make such a public show of support for Democrat Ron Kirk over Republican John Cornyn caused an immediate reaction at the White House and prompted McKinnon to call White House senior adviser Karl Rove and apologize."

"McKinnon said he had apologized to Rove yesterday and would attempt to talk to the president or write him a note of apology."

"One key Republican official said Rove was angered not only by the contributions but also by McKinnon's recent favorable comments about the gubernatorial campaign of Democrat Tony Sanchez and by his statements suggesting that White House officials should not be surprised by his actions."

Of course, sources say Rove new about the Kirk contribution weeks ago.

Will this story, ripped from the pages of the New York Times , become a political issue? "The Bush administration is planning to reinterpret the nation's education law to encourage the creation of single-sex public schools, which had been largely denied federal financing under 30 years of Republican and Democratic administrations. The schools had also been open to discrimination lawsuits under the statute's current interpretation." >

What about this one, from the The Wall Street Journal ? "The Bush administration is seeking to relax rules dictating that hospitals accepting Medicare provide emergency care to patients even at nonemergency facilities."

The Los Angeles Times takes you on a written tour of the ultra-techie homeland security office, located on Nebraska Avenue near NBC News.

*We boldly predict she will giggle at least once while on the Hill.