Print This Page Email This Page See Most Sent

Note Archives, updated weekly.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints.

Those Democrats who wear their anti-Gore bias on their sleeve also will hope that the deal overshadows the former Vice President's scheduled economic address this morning.

It's not entirely clear, however, what the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue driveway happy talk will mean once the leaders get back to the Hill, as ABCNEWS' Terry Moran reports from the White House.

Terry?

"At the White House, after the president's breakfast with the Big Four congressional leaders, what's newsworthy is what DIDN'T happen. Daschle did not come on board on Iraq — even though Gephardt has closed a deal with the administration on a House version of a resolution, to be introduced today. Daschle resisted the president's entreaties, and even hinted that he would be willing to offer Biden/Lugar and/or the Levin proposal as alternatives to the White House resolution. Off-camera, Daschle said he personally supported the Biden/Lugar proposal."

"White House officials are, as usual, exasperated with Daschle. They claim he is using the Iraq debate to shore up his party's effort to retain control of the Senate, trying to fashion a watered-down resolution that as many Democrats up for re-election can vote for. But is there any resolution that would authorize the president to go to war that Johnson, Harkin, Wellstone, etc could vote for?"

ABC's Terry Moran, at the White House, thank you.

In other political news, if the election were held today, leading strategists in both parties believe that Republicans would have control of both houses of Congress after November.

But the election is not today, and that means Democrats have just shy of five weeks to change that situation and make this a "typical" midterm election.

Our guess, however, is that today's events — including the three-ring circus at 10:00 am — are unlikely to get them closer to that goal.

Alison Mitchell uses the august front page of the New York Times to big-picture the Senate situation with haunting accuracy, and with analysis that mostly applies to the House situation as well right now: "After two years of dedicated combat between the parties, neither is predicting a large breakthrough next month. Republican and Democratic leaders say it is possible for one side to pick up several seats in the midterm elections. But the more likely outcome, they say, will be a one-seat edge that reflects a nation every bit as divided as it was after the 2000 election." LINK

"Yet for all the nervousness on both sides, Democrats have in recent weeks become particularly jittery. Party leaders had counted on the shaky economy and the issue of corporate responsibility to give them a lift. But they now complain that Iraq has made it more complicated to press hard on domestic issues that could best help their candidates."

Is the Democratic Party the party of Al Gore? The party of Bill Clinton? The party of the Baghdad Three? The party of Dick Gephardt and/or Tom Daschle? The party of the New Jersey Democrats?

Democrats don't agree on what the answer to that is, or what the answer to that should be, and that puts them at a real disadvantage in terms of a national atmosphere off of which their candidates can push.

While the Republicans are spending more money than God on television, direct mail (coming soon to a ZIP code-identified mailbox near you), crafty radio ads, and absentee ballot programs of vast sophistication, all under the leadership of the wartime President Bush, the Democrats are trying to live down and erase that famous Will Rogers quote ("I belong to no organized political party — I'm a Democrat"), and again, as we've said repeatedly, their Cold War-era image of a party too weak on national security to be trusted on, or even listened to, about the economy.

Democrats claim that GOP efforts to attack them on obstruction in the Senate, confirmation of judges, and opposing President Bush generally won't work, and that voters will go to the polls with the economy on their minds, but the Republican message machine and ad traffic suggests they believe otherwise.

But it is the one-two punch on national security that really threatens Democratic efforts — not just by hindering their attempt to change the subject to the economy, but it also by potentially damaging their candidates who are seen as suspect on security issues.

While Washington Republicans are doing everything they can to avoid being caught "politicizing" the war, there is no denying that some choice presidential and vice-presidential remarks over the last few weeks have created an environment for GOP candidates on the stump, and in campaign and party committee ads, to (not in so many words, yet) cast Democrats as "pussies."

And the White House is cleverly using the end-game legislative agenda to stoke all its themes, as the New York Times code breaks on the terrorism insurance bill: "Mr. Bush's push for the measure reflects a no-lose political strategy. If Congress reaches an agreement on the measure, he can rightly claim credit for it. If it fails, he can blame Congressional Democrats, and in particular the Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, for the failure." LINK

"White House officials say Mr. Bush is planning to make a speech about the issue later this week before representatives from labor, real estate and financial services."

The GOP business base really wants this bill, and the president gets to beat up the Democrats on both national security AND the economy in one fell swoop.

While Democratic strategists are cautiously optimistic that enough rank-and-file will follow the Gephardt lead, vote for the resolution, and try to take the issue off the table, Michael Kelly, still coming down from his vitriolic Gore rant, opines: "Next week, most likely, Congress will pass some sort of resolution authorizing the current President Bush's war with Iraq. This time, a majority of Democrats will support the war. But the party, at its leadership level, has already gone and done the same old hurt to itself." LINK

"This is not a little cabal of contributors to the Nation telling the world that the American president is not to be believed and that he wishes to send Americans off to fight and possibly die in Iraq because war is good for his party. These are men in the leadership ranks of the Democratic Party. This is the party's mainstream."

The Baghdad Three parade began this morning, with Rep. Jim McDermott on "The Early Show." The trio currently are scheduled to hold a news conference at 10:00 am — right when Al Gore is set to begin his speech on the economy.

Nine days after he parachuted into the Iraq debate with his harsh critique of the president in San Francisco, Gore is expected to deliver an equally strong, Eastern Time condemnation of Bush on the economy at the Brookings Institution at 10:00 am.

There's a daily segment on CNN just after 6:00 am, when the anchor cross-talks by phone with the Washington deputy bureau chief about what the day holds in store for Washington.

Introducing Al Gore's major address on the economy, the two had a major chuckle (the less charitable might call it a "guffaw") over the former Vice President.

"And there's going to be another Al Gore sighting today!" one of them exclaimed, as if Gore were Big Bird scheduled to testify before some congressional committee on PBS funding.

Surely Gore's speech will be substantive, and surely he and his party have a good case to make on the economy, but it still seems to many that Gore is too flawed a messenger. Republicans simply are not afraid of Gore being center-stage delivering a message, assuming it breaks through at all.

Again, Democrats unambiguously have a strong case to make in terms of the fiscal health of the country, and Gore himself has a pretty clear "I told you so" argument to make on the tax cut, the deficit, the lockbox, etc.

But Gore will have to rise above two problems: 1) the image he has among the Chattering Class, through which his remarks will be filtered; and 2) a likely unwillingness to take on what the Bob Rubins of the world believe is the root cause of the country's current economic problems: the Bush tax cut.

Once again, the Gore operation (with or without Rob Reiner this time) did almost no backgrounding of the speech and its substance, choosing to rely solely on the power of Gore's message, in the speech and in possible Q&A afterwards. (Please, Mr. Vice President, stop by the press risers and see your former journalistic colleagues if you have a sec.)

Gore's speech does make the "official" Democratic National Committee daybook, but the party is still divided over him, and over this speech, to say the least.

One Democrat long involved in the political wars tells The Note: "The message has been sent to [Gore's] handlers loud and clear about how any last minute … conversion to talking about rolling back the tax break will potentially saddle Gore even more with the blame for loss in the midterm elections — if he wasn't already owning that for his little Iraq burst last week."

"It is noted that one could say 'what took him so long to have this discussion?'"

"We need to nationalize this election but we don't need to nationalize it with the face of Al Gore leading it — because Republican v. Democrats on the economy we win. Bush v. Gore we lose BIG TIME."

On the other hand, a Democrat more sympathetic to Gore tells The Note: "His speech is well timed and will focus attention on the Republicans mismanagement of the economy at a critical point in the midterm campaigns. It is good for him to be out hitting back at Republicans on a consistent basis. First Iraq, then civil rights and now the economy."

"Others can argue at the margins about whether this hurts/helps him/candidate X on a particular day but you cannot deny that his speech last week dramatically impacted the politics of the Iraq debate and I expect today's speech will have the same impact. At the very least, the impact of these speeches show he is a significant force for both Bush and his Democratic competitors to deal with."

Those two opinions perfectly encapsulate the yin-yang thinking on Gore and this speech. But an unidentified Washington Post staff writer casts some doubt even on the shared assumption that the economic issues are good for the party out of power:

"The Democrats' problems are commonly attributed to the ongoing clamor over Iraq. But Democratic and Republican pollsters say their difficulties may lie more with the nature of the economy's two-year slump and residual economic confidence the voters have maintained after the longest economic expansion in the nation's history," the byline-challenged scribe says. LINK

"Democrats are still trying to capitalize. Gore's address today, along with a news conference by House Democrats on the same subject, follows economic speeches by House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) yesterday and by Daschle late last month."

"The one economic issue that has touched a nerve appears to be corporate malfeasance, pollsters say, but Democrats over the summer were so effective in castigating corporate chief executives that voters are now much more apt to blame CEOs for the nation's economic problems than the GOP … "

It is not counterintuitive for Donald Lambro to say one day that Democrats' efforts to turn voters' focus to the economy may not be working, then turn around a day or so later and lead: "Investors will soon be getting their third-quarter financial statements showing a sharp drop in retirement wealth, and some Republican Party strategists fear they could lose House and Senate races in November if stocks decline further this month." LINK

And Lambro tees up Larry Lindsey's attempt "to redirect investor anger" by saying that Senate Democrats, in blocking the rest of Bush's economic agenda, are to blame for the markets' decline. "'Investors should ask themselves, "Will continued gridlock help your portfolio?"' Mr. Lindsey said in an interview."

Now for New Jersey.

In former Senator Frank Lautenberg, Democrats almost certainly ended up with their best possible (double entendre intended) candidate, even if it means Torricelli having to accept his worst nightmare.

Lautenberg boasts statewide name ID; money (there are conflicting reports on whether or not he'll use his own, but he does have a decent ability to raise it); experience in running statewide; and no taint from a previous loss.

Just as key: he has been vetted and there's little chance that he will suddenly explode or get investigated by the state's press corps. He's also pro-choice and pro-environment and all the things Democrats could want in a Jersey candidate.

"GOP leaders acknowledged that a marquee name such as Lautenberg, who served three Senate terms, could dim the chances of Forrester, who until recently was a relative unknown. 'Forrester is a lousy candidate, and it's a Democratic state,' one GOP source said. 'He had one issue — Torricelli — and it's gone now.'" LINK

So the Big Question remains: can Democrats find a way to get him on the ballot?

The New Jersey Supreme Court will hear arguments today starting at 10:00 am. We don't know how quickly they will rule, or how.

Yes, six of seven justices were appointed by Republicans. But a majority are Democrats (four of them, with two Republicans and one independent). Why? Briefly, the state has a tradition of governors often picking justices of the opposite party, so as to provide ideological balance and the appearance of shielding the high court from political developments.

The assumption is that the losing side in this case will try to go to federal court, and the assumption also is that the Democrats, beyond that, will at least consider playing other cards if they lose in court.

Beyond trying the federal route, they appear to have three options: 1) Torricelli resigns and they test the law that way (although opinion is still divided over whether they could pull that off); 2) Lautenberg runs as a write-in candidate; and 3) Torricelli stays on the ballot and runs, pledging to resign if he wins so that Governor McGreevey can appoint Lautenberg — which conjures up the ludicrous image of the two of them having to campaign together.

A blast-from-the-past reminder, from Roll Call on March 4, 1999: "The Senate's most bitter feud reignited last week as New Jersey's Senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Torricelli, fought with each other during a closed-door Democratic retreat at the Library of Congress. The incident began when Lautenberg stood up to attack Torricelli for favorable comments the junior lawmaker made about New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R) following Lautenberg's retirement announcement. Lautenberg claimed the statement by Torricelli, who serves as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, may threaten the party's hold on the Senate seat. The fracas ended with Torricelli cursing at Lautenberg and verbally threatening his senior colleague … "

How much they hate each other cannot be underestimated, so the Lautenberg pick is making this into a real test of Torricelli's commitment to doing this for the good of the party.

Ron Brownstein calls this last option the "Carnahan option." "But many say that approach would be much more difficult in New Jersey than Missouri because voters would still have to cast a ballot for Torricelli--whose crumbling support precipitated the entire crisis." LINK

Meanwhile, the Democratic Senate campaign committee ads attacking Republican Doug Forrester continue to run, though they may come down sooner than they were scheduled to.

This is all totally messy and unseemly and some Washington Democrats are embarrassed by yesterday's chaos (New Jersey Democrats aren't the type to get embarrassed by anything … ), but there's a winnable Senate seat at stake that they're not going to walk away from just to avoid turning the state into a political and legal carnival.

We like this quote in Brownstein's story: "'This was the best possible decision arrived at in the most awkward possible way,' said one top Democratic operative."

USA Today 's Welch writes, tapping into that checks-and-balances argument: "With ramifications reaching far beyond one state's border, the fight over the New Jersey ballot was increasingly being seen as critical to Democrats' hopes of keeping their only handle on federal power and only check on President Bush." LINK

More minor but still Noteworthy questions to be answered: are there any congressional rules about Torricelli's sizable pension that might be contributing to his unwillingness to resign? And would Lautenberg get any seniority if he wins?

The New Jersey papers today focus on, not surprisingly, the Torch/Lautenberg feud, some upset county chairs who feel as though they weren't sufficiently consulted, and other very Jersey matters.

There's almost no coverage of the Frank "I am not henpecked" Pallone and his decision (per many sources) to turn the slot after belated consultations with his spouse.

The Trenton Times says: "New Jersey Democratic leaders last night chose Lautenberg as their standard bearer on the insistence of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, the same Tom Daschle who last week came to Trenton to lead an emotional rally aimed at rekindling Torricelli's sinking re-election campaign. The choice was, said one Democrat, 'Lautenberg or nothing.'" LINK

"Several key Democrats said Torricelli, in negotiations that led to his withdrawal from the Senate race on Monday, demanded that Lautenberg not be considered as a possible candidate."

The paper said Lautenberg "has indicated he is willing to pay for much of his campaign," but Roll Call reported yesterday that Lautenberg said he won't.

The paper also dramatically raises the prospect that Torch "wages a guerrilla war now against the Lautenberg campaign." But, ouch, "one top level Democrat declared yesterday that Torricelli is now 'no longer relevant to the Democratic Party. He's going to learn that very quickly.'"

"After Pallone dropped out, Torricelli was eventually persuaded to let his war chest be used to help Lautenberg," the Bergen Record says. LINK

The New York Post also has this: "'I'm not in a gloating mode,' Lautenberg said. A source said Torricelli told New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey Sunday that he'd quit only if Lautenberg were kept out. 'I don't do this if Lautenberg is the choice,' Torricelli said, but he lacked the clout to enforce it, according to the source.'"

Former President Bill Clinton has arrived in the English resort town of Blackpool to address the Labour Party's annual conference. Clinton is expected to offer unconditional support for buddy Tony Blair on the issue of Iraq and the need for the return of UN weapons inspectors.

In his piece written for the conference magazine, Clinton said he was happy that Blair, who once stood shoulder to shoulder with him, is doing the same with President Bush.

Today, Vice President Cheney will headline an open-press (!!) fundraiser-slash-retirement party for Dick Armey and JC Watts at the Washington Hilton. Reception at 5:00 p.m., dinner at 6:00 p.m.. One Cheney source says the Veep doesn't intend to make news at this, just some nice things about Armey and Watts and give his "usual" speech — but that means he could indeed make news, or, at least, provide a sound bite on war matters of the day.

New Jersey Senate

Governor McGreevey has two public events today; this morning, he's in East Brunswick for a Black Issues Convention, and he attends an Anti-Defamation League dinner in Livingstone in the evening.

At this writing, we don't know what Mr. Lautenberg plans to do today.

The Wall Street Journal for some reason says: "Lawyers said that if Mr. Torricelli were to resign within 30 days of the election, under state law his successor wouldn't face voters until next year."

All of this was, of course, all anyone talked about at the Democratic Senate campaign committee's $10 million fundraiser last night, the AP reports. LINK

"With no hint Torricelli would drop out, [the DSCC] had bought television time to promote him for the next two weeks."

The Boston Globe tick-tock says: "At 4 p.m. yesterday, New Jersey's governor, Democrat James McGreevey, announced that US Representative Frank Pallone, 50, would take Torricelli's place on the ballot. At 5 p.m., Pallone announced he was withdrawing from consideration for unexplained reasons. At 9 p.m., Lautenberg formally announced that he would replace Torricelli." LINK

Thousands of ballots already have been printed, and hundreds already mailed out to soldiers overseas. Some counties wouldn't be in bad shape, though, if they had to stop the presses.. LINK

The Bergen Record spoke with GOP nominee Doug Forrester: "One day after Torricelli dropped out of the U.S. Senate race, Forrester began rehearsing a new intro. 'I think it's going to be, "Hello, I'm the one who will be the successful fighter for New Jersey,"' Forrester said during a phone interview from his car. Forrester's opener will be followed up with lines about bolstering homeland security, protecting pensions and Social Security, cleaning up toxic waste sites, and bringing home more federal dollars, he said. 'New Jersey deserves better,' Forrester said as if practicing his closing line." LINK

The Hotline's Todd declares that "The biggest problem Republicans have in winning the New Jersey Senate seat was, is and will be businessman Douglas Forrester (R)," and suggests that they get themselves a new candidate, too. "[I]f Democrats can dump their nominee for a more electable candidate, then why can't the GOP?"

Professor William Mayer of Northeastern makes a very solid argument on the New York Times op-ed page against replacing Torricelli on the ballot, arguing that candidates who are allowed to be subbed in at the last minute are given an advantage over those whom voters and the press have had longer to scrutinize. LINK

On Slate, Mickey Kaus, makes pretty much the opposite argument, with a greater emphasis on FUN! than the civic-minded Mayer. LINK

A "tearful" David Chang once again called for Torricelli's imprisonment. LINK

It's easy to forget (unless you, for some reason, read US News regularly) that Michael Barone is really, truly, and still one of the best writers about politics in America.

Barone must-reads his way onto the Wall Street Journal editorial page today with a piece about the Torch, whom he identifies as "a good source."

The thesis of the piece is that Torricelli's career was all about fundraising (even most of his Democratic friends and former staffers would pretty much agree), and even if you don't agree with his slant, it's provocative and worth reading.

But we do wonder how Michael knows that "It's expensive to date women like Bianca Jagger or Patricia Duff," unless he's done some serious extrapolating off of the New York Post clip file.

Walter Shapiro latches onto this Torricelli line: "'I have witnessed friends build families and businesses, sometimes fortunes, and I never had any regret.' No regrets? The claim was scarcely credible as Torricelli bowed out of elective politics under the unbearable weight of his ethical burdens. But even if true, the remark suggests that Torricelli is a man who constantly kept score, weighing his life against that of friends who prospered in business and accumulated fortunes. Financial envy seemingly helped fuel the fires that burned within the freshman senator nicknamed 'The Torch.'" LINK

The Wall Street Journal on A4 argues counter-CW and with some success that the congressional ethics panels actually DO have an effect when they condemn a colleague.

The economy

The Wall Street Journal thinks the economic recovery is "stalled," but what does that have to do with the war against terror?

The New York Times takes the latest look at what war would do to oil prices. LINK

Iraq Politics

"House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) continued to work more closely with Bush on the Iraq question than has Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.)," the Washington Post reports. "Gephardt sent his own draft language to Bush early yesterday." LINK

"Senior aides said a deal may be struck between the White House, House Republican leaders and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who has been far more hawkish about Iraq than other leading Democrats," says the Los Angeles Times . "That would make for easy House passage of the resolution but leave open the prospect of a more contentious debate in the Senate." LINK

The Washington Post 's Broder writes, "The rationale for that war [with Iraq] is as flexible as the president's ever-changing justifications for his tax cut — sharing the surplus, stimulating the economy or just reducing the price of success … And … , when Democrats including Al Gore and Edward M. Kennedy suggested that a war with Iraq might cost us allies and energy for the war against terrorism, the administration discovered and publicized links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." LINK

The Washington Post 's lead editorial leads: "One striking feature of the criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy is the absence of suggested alternatives." LINK

Legislative Agenda

One of the craziest things about Washington is how little members of the House and Senate from both parties think of the other body.

In terms of politics and legislative effort, these people act as if we live in a unicameral world, and proceed to expend a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears seemingly without Schoolhouse Rock-level knowledge about what it takes to get a bill to become a law.

Typical is this bit from a New York Times story about the passage in the House of a bill to curb gambling on the Internet: "Representative James A. Leach, Republican of Iowa, the author of the bill, said that Internet gambling is effectively already illegal under federal law and some state laws, but that no particular mechanism for enforcement exists … ." LINK .

"Mr. Leach said he did not know whether the Senate would undertake the bill or something similar."

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary

Today brings the chock-full-o'-wannabes fundraiser in DC for New Hampshire Democratic nominee Mark Fernald. The hosts: Daschle, Gephardt, Gore, Dean, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, and Bradley. At 12 noon at the Democratic Club on Capitol Hill.

Politics

There's so much good stuff (writing, reporting, analysis) in Maureen Dowd's column, which is mostly about Senator Clinton, that we won't try to summarize or excerpt here. Just consider it a must read that you, well, must read. LINK

Four (four!) New York Times corrections on politics and government today, with the names Bonior, Bush, Pelosi, Biden, Lugar, Leach, and Bradley just some of those caught in the web. LINK

Known around the New York Times Washington bureau with affection and no apparent irony as "the two Adams," Nagourney and Clymer have a major league piece on the two major parties' aggressive efforts to get local television stations to pull the opposition's ads off the air through charges of inaccuracies. LINK

The Wall Street Journal 's John Harwood takes a solid look at why state budget problems are hurting the fortunes of governors and, sometimes, their partymates who are trying to succeed them.

"Republican senators are charging Democrats with playing politics in the weeks leading up to the elections in November by holding a one-sided hearing tomorrow on President Bush's Social Security commission," the Washington Times reports. "In a letter sent Monday to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, the five senators accused him of stacking tomorrow's hearing with five opponents of the president's options for reforming Social Security and inviting only two advocates for it. Worse still, none of the advocates was a member of Mr. Bush's commission … Yesterday, a spokesman in Mr. Kyl's office said, Mr. Baucus relented and decided to allow a commission member to testify." LINK

"The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League said yesterday that it will spend most of its $3 million election-year budget on protecting the Democratic majority in the Senate, backing candidates in nine key races … The nine Senate races are in Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas. She said NARAL will support the Democratic candidate chosen to replace Senator Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.), who abandoned his re-election bid." LINK

Georgia

Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes "is filling the airwaves with ads showing him with President Bush and Georgia's popular Democratic Senator Zell Miller, while major national Republican donors seem to be ignoring the [Sonny] Perdue campaign, which is starving for cash." LINK

Georgia state law required that military ballots to be sent out by September 20, but a squished schedule caused by primary run-offs delayed that date, and the state is scrambling to finish the job before the Department of Justice intervenes. LINK

Massachusetts

Another wide-ranging debate in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race last night, but the Globe decided that the standout topic was over "the title of best manager." LINK

Republican nominee Mitt Romney "also seemed to gain ground in an area that most analysts have previously given [Democrat Shannon] O'Brien the advantage — relating to average people's problems. He talked movingly about his wife Ann's battle with multiple sclerosis. His comments came when the two were asked what difficult experiences in their lives helped shape their character … O'Brien, by contrast, could not name any personal adversity she had faced, saying she was grateful for her life and felt blessed."

And the Globe also truth-squads the candidates' statements. LINK

The Herald saw a clearer winner: "Democratic gubernatorial nominee Shannon P. O'Brien mocked GOP opponent Mitt Romney's understanding of the issues — even openly laughing at his responses — during an often blustery televised debate last night. The second faceoff between the two rivals — the first on major statewide TV stations — found O'Brien on the offensive again, with Romney mostly reluctant to fire back." LINK

O'Brien also bragged about "helping Bill Clinton get elected president."

California

The Chronicle profiles Green Party gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo. LINK

The San Jose Mercury News finds liberal "stalwarts" mighty pleased by the legislation Gov. Gray Davis has signed into law. LINK

Not that that is why Davis signed these bill, but it comes as Garry South & Co. of the Davis High Command are surely turning their attention to how to make sure the base gets out.

Colorado

Ballot measure spending in Colorado is into the several million dollar range. LINK

The Rocky Mountain News truth-squads "partial privatization" votes by Senator Wayne Allard (R) in 1991 and 1993 and finds the term fitting and proper. LINK

Florida

While Gov. Jeb Bush (R) talked family with his sister-in-law in Tampa, attorney Bill McBride (D) talked money with businessmen in Orlando. LINK

McBride aides believe last Friday's debate moderator was biased in favor of Bush. LINK

Hawaii

"State officials have decided to hold a special election next month to fill the late Rep. Patsy Mink's seat for just five weeks, saying it is required by the U.S. Constitution," the AP reports. "The order Monday by the state's chief elections officer, Dwayne Yoshina, could mean three successive elections in two months for the 2nd District seat — Nov. 5 with Mink on the ballot, Nov. 30 to fill the rest of her term, and, if Mink wins the first vote, Jan. 4 for the next term."

Missouri

Jo Mannies has another good ad watch. LINK

New Hampshire

Rep. John Sununu (R) and Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) are sparring over off-shore tax havens in the Senate race. LINK

The gubernatorial candidates debated last night. LINK

Texas

"A heated governor's race grew even nastier Tuesday with Gov. Rick Perry's release of government documents indicating that a savings and loan once owned by Democratic rival Tony Sanchez ran afoul of regulatory restrictions shortly before it failed," the Houston Chronicle reports. LINK

New York

Another news cycle won by the tough Pataki camp: the New York Post has discovered a third instance of comptroller H. Carl McCall (D) allegedly mixing state and family business. LINK

The New York Times ed board takes McCall to task for his lack of forthcomingness on the letters flap. LINK

And the Daily News reports that the UFT, New York's biggest teacher's union, will endorse Pataki. LINK

North Carolina

"The Senate campaigns of Republican Elizabeth Dole and Democrat Erskine Bowles are expected to get together this week, perhaps as early as today, to work out details for several debates," says the Raleigh News & Observer's Christensen. "Both campaigns have agreed to one televised debate at Guilford College on Oct. 19." LINK

South Carolina

The State offers a color-laden profile of Republican Senate nominee Lindsey Graham. LINK

Graham supports the president's nomination of South Carolina judge Dennis Shedd to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals; Democratic nominee Alex Sanders has not stated his position. Shedd's nomination is opposed by labor, African-American and women's groups. LINK

Bush Administration Strategy/Personality

Nothing disappoints us more than when the Wall Street Journal editorial board overlooks its principles for political purposes. Today's piece on free trade and steel mostly holds its fire agains the Bush Administration, presumably so they can be on the team as election day approaches.