2003 Note Archives, updated weekly.

Click here for The ABCNEWS Political Unit's exclusive major futures calendar and today's daybook.

E-mail us: Tips, Compliments, Complaints and Questions.

Who we are ... And What We're About.

NEWS SUMMARY ——————————————————————————

But, sometimes, frankly, our worship goes too far.

On this Earth Day, which should mean a lay-up of a Note lead on how the issue of the environment might play out in the 2004 election, we are instead leading with a breathless, less-than-it-seems-but-too-big-to-ignore New York Times front-pager.

The story, by Mr. Adam Nagourney and Mr. Richard W. Stevenson, seems to suggest that maybe it just might be breaking possible new ground to reveal to the world the president's plans for re-election.

The boys skillfully piece together some things on which most Note readers have already collected string:

1. The White House chose a late 2004 convention week so as to maximize its money advantage and segue from the president's acceptance speech into 9/11 memorializing.

2. The White House plans to try to maximize the president's advantages on national security issues.

3. The White House hopes to run early TV ads and do other meta campaigning to keep the president out of the messy business of politics as long as possible.

The story is a bit fuzzy on the last point, at times seeming to suggest that the president won't actually be doing any campaigning until the summer of 2004, but at other times seeming to suggest that he will in fact campaign sooner rather than later.

For Invisible Primary aficionados, the best stuff comes at the end, regarding the Two Johns of the Democratic field, but you'll have to wait for that dessert while we deal with the newsiest stuff at the top.

The New York Times lays down stone tablets containing these solemn words:

"The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2." LINK

"The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks … ."

Note Note: the admission of linkage is both controversial and news.

And something on which Democrats are bound to jump, even though national security is surely a legitimate presidential campaign issue.

"Even though Mr. Bush will not begin his formal campaign until after the convention, his political team is preparing to begin broadcasting television advertisements as early as next spring. By that point, the White House expects the Democratic candidate to be settled, but battered and sapped of money from the primaries, and thus unable to counter a Republican advertising assault … ."

"The strategy of starting so late and building the campaign around the events in New York is not without risks. Mr. Bush's advisers said they were wary of being portrayed as exploiting the trauma of Sept. 11, a perception that might be particularly difficult to rebut as Mr. Bush shuttles between political events at Madison Square Garden and memorial services at ground zero."

"In addition, Mr. Bush's advisers said they remained worried by the economy's persistent weakness, an issue that could trump national security if the threat from terrorism appeared to recede … ."

In addition, need we point out that there is a flip side to the political advantage of saying that the country is going to be on a war-time footing all the way through November, 2004?

Namely that it could keep the economy from getting better, as businesses continue to hold off making investment decisions in an uncertain climate.

Now for your gossipy sweets:

The Times men describe John Kerry as "the Democrat that many of Mr. Bush's advisers see as the most likely to win the nomination … ."

"In assessing Mr. Bush's potential opponents, Mr. Bush's advisers said Mr. Kerry could be presented as ideologically and culturally out of step, both because of his liberal positions on some issues as well as his Boston lineage and what some Bush advisers described as his haughty air."

"Marc Racicot, the Republican national chairman, said recently that Mr. Kerry 'is going to have a hard time translating out of New England.' Another Bush adviser said of Mr. Kerry, 'He looks French.'"

We look forward to hearing from Note readers about that.

What, precisely, does it mean in the context of Senator Kerry to look "French"? "Unpatriotic"? "Arrogant"? "Slim"?

"Several said that another leading Democratic contender, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, could be the one Democrat who could compete with Mr. Bush in the South. But they argued that Mr. Edwards was open to attack both for his close ties with trial lawyers and for his lack of experience in government."

"Mr. Racicot said Mr. Edwards could be portrayed as 'slick and shallow,' while another Bush associate described Mr. Edwards as the Breck Girl of politics, a reference to the shiny-hair model for a popular shampoo in the 1960's."

For young Note readers who don't have a clue what this Breck stuff is about: LINK

Jennifer Palmieri, spokesperson for the Edwards campaign says sagely: "Don't misunderestimate the Breck girl … ."

A fully awake Palmieri, also tells The Note, "Just because the Bush staff has correctly diagnosed its problem (do not repeat the sins of the father) doesn't mean they know how to solve it."

Here's the New York Times thumbnails of the diverse group of white men (ranging in age from 34 to Grandpa Rove at 52) who are planning the re-elect. LINK

Don't miss the hard copy, with the missing camera-shy Matthew Dowd, who was apparently absent on class picture day.

Finally: we buy Rove as "iron-willed," but he doesn't seem "hard-nosed" to us, and if we had a complaint about Jack Oliver it's that he doesn't talk fast ENOUGH.

One thing completely missing from the entire New York Times story and sidebar is, well, policy substance.

Beyond mentioning that national-security-versus-the-economy is a political calculation for the White House, and allowing some Bush advisers to mock two of the candidates (while building them up, implicitly and counter-intuitively, as players), the story doesn't really address the real lives of real Americans, and how a Democrat COULD ride an issues wave right into the White House.

Which leads us back to the fact that today is Earth Day.

You could be forgiven if you didn't know, what with the event getting almost no attention even in a war-weary media.

Forgive US, then, for behaving as if we were a tree about to be chopped down.

That's because every time we write about the environmental movement's (lack of) political muscle, we get defensive, impassioned, and often quite angry responses from activists who have devoted their lives to the cause.

So let's lay out the case.

On the one hand, the movement is exquisitely well-financed. Environmental think tanks and social welfare lobbying groups are a favored charity of well-to-do liberal Democrats. The enviros spend more and more each year, and they are positioned to raise and spend a lot more in the Post McCain-Feingold world.

Nearly every Democrat who is running for president fancies himself (no "her" on this one) the leading environmentalist in the field, and has strategists who see "the green piece" as a major part of a winning general election coalition in many key states.

On the other hand, though the movement's constituent elements have goals that usually coincide, their message is often fractured. The Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Conservation voters don't speak with one voice.

Their political tactics and priorities differ, often profoundly. The NRDC, for example, has been fighting diesel fuel emissions for years, and their overwhelming joy at the recent Administration decision to cap them wasn't shared by other enviro groups who didn't have the same investment in that issue.

And the movement can often overreach and be its own worst enemy on Capitol Hill and in the fight for public opinion. The enviro's crusade against CAFE standards might have been halted, in part, by the barely hidden anti-consumer, anti-driver sentiments that many environmentalists expressed.

On the one hand, many voters identify with environmental issues.

On the other hand, it's hard to pinpoint a race where the environmental vote has made THE difference. And while voters express concern about ecological degradation, it's not a top priority. Enviro voters aren't usually single-issue voters.

On the one hand, environmentalist groups have the ear of the Democratic party elite. (Question: how many times has Senator Edwards and other hopefuls met with DC-based green lobbies? Answer: lots).

On the other hand, that elite often takes them for granted. In other words, while candidates talk about the environment, bow at the altar of conservation and government protection, and go to Earth Day events, they often don't do the hard work of political organizing.

Some leading environmentalists believe that this coming presidential election will be make or break for the movement.

That's because there's never been a president, in their eyes, who has so single-handedly dismantled the apparatus that protects the eco-system. Never before been a president who core Democrats so viscerally distrust on this basket of issues.

If the enviros aren't able to leverage a victory or gain influence now, when will these unique circumstances ever present themselves?

So they'll try.

Take the League of Conservation Voters. They plan to devote at least 75% percent of their significant resources to influencing the Democratic presidential nomination fight and to defeating Bush — and they plan to be involved early on.

They'll work to turn out enviro voters by trying to link environmental concerns to what one leading environmental lobby strategist called "pocketbook issues." The LCV hasn't endorsed presidential nomination hopefuls in the past. If the arena is favorable, they might do so this cycle.

Who might they endorse?

The candidate best positioned right now to take advantage of enviro money and influence is probably Senator John Kerry, an ardent, avowed and auspicious environmental liberal.

He's one of four or five or seven Democratic hopefuls who regularly mention the environment in their stump speeches. Kerry was among the first to speak of the "false choice," as he calls it, between environmental protection and economic growth, taking a page from the clever way that candidate Bill Clinton dealt with the issue.

Congressman Dick Gephardt, whose environmental record has gotten better and better from the perspective of these groups, also explicitly links environmental policy to economic growth.

Witness his aggressive Earth Day statement: "I believe in a new way. As president, I'll launch an aggressive new Apollo Project — to work with industry to achieve true energy independence within ten years. We'll set aggressive yet achievable goals, make the necessary investments to develop renewable energy, make energy-efficient products cheaper and more widely available through incentives to businesses and consumers, and we will create more jobs in the process."

Senator Edwards talks about clean skies in his stump speeches, and barely a week goes by without a press release from the Lieberman folks about the environment.

Senator Graham has an eight year record as Florida's governor, and lists among his priorities Everglades preservation and access to clean, reliable sources of water.

Governor Howard Dean posted an Earth Day message on his web site. An excerpt:

"As an outdoorsman, I have experienced the incredible power of the natural world. I am horrified by what the Bush Administration is doing to our land, our air, and our water. The United States must play a leading role in combating climate change and the ongoing loss of the world's diversity and natural heritage."

But any of the candidates, environmentalists believe, offer to Democrats a stark choice between Bush and --well — the future. See Tom Toles's anti-Bush Earth Day cartoon in the Washington Post . LINK

It won't be terribly easy, at least according to one poll:

"One entrenched idea is beginning to weaken: The public does not consider President Bush the archenemy of the environment, according to a Gallup poll released yesterday," the Washington Times glows. LINK

"'The environmental movement and sympathetic politicians have painted the administration as anti-environmental. Given the administration's refusal to reverse course, there was reason to expect that its opponents would generate a backlash against its environmental policies similar to the one that hit the early Reagan administration,' noted Gallup environmental analyst Riley Dunlap."

But there's 'little evidence of a comparable backlash … despite intense efforts by environmentalists and political supporters,' he continued."

We don't doubt that enviros will dispute the poll, and we know that their internal polling suggests the opposite. But at the very least, conflicting data represent the nature of the challenge the movement faces.

Back to Earth Day.

Last year, the president wielded an ax in the snow; this year, he has no public events scheduled. So, into the breach come the Democrats.

The Boston Globe 's Glen Johnson reports that Senator Kerry plans to spend Earth Day "calling for a renewed federal commitment to what advocates call environmental justice, arguing that polluters have unfairly targeted poor and minority communities because they lack the political strength to fight back." LINK

Johnson writes that Kerry will speak at the Vine Street Community Center in Roxbury, then on to the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests in Concord, New Hampshire.

Johnson's draft of the planned speech reads: "'Environmental justice means action to repair the environment in all communities wherever they may be. It means an end to playing favorites when it comes to Americans' health and their very lives … All Americans, regardless of their color or income, deserve clean air, pure water, land that is safe to live on, food that is safe to eat."'

Kerry's speech will not only be pro-environment, but anti-Bush:

'Under President Bush, America's environment has become endangered, imperiled, and weaker,'" Johnson quotes from Kerry's speech.

Senator Lieberman will join New York Public Interest Research Group activists at a power plant in Westchester County, New York.

Senator Edwards will spend Earth Day at UCLA in Los Angeles, attending a celebration with students there. Per an aide, Edwards "will talk about his new proposal to encourage use of farm waste and other bio waste in the develop.m.ent of ethanol and other alternative fuels."

The Raleigh News Observer writes it up. LINK

He also has an op-ed piece in the Union Leader talking about Earth Day today in which he writes "a day when thousands gather outside to celebrate conservation, it's disappointing to find the Bush administration working behind closed doors to weaken our clean air laws and directly threaten New Hampshire."

The piece is not available online, and The Note thinks that might be the Union Leader's way of telling us to go outside to celebrate Earth Day. We also wonder how it got placed there.

Senator Bob Graham will chat about the Everglades at a press conference in Tallahassee, Florida.

The big DC Earth Day event is a news conference at the Willard Hotel today, where the leading environmentalist groups will band together and, we're told, unload on President Bush.

The Sierra Club has mobilized its volunteers to put up more than 14,000 yard signs across the country, urging public officials to "do better."

The founder of Earth Day, former Senator Gaylord Nelson, will speak at the National Press Club.

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg makes a special Earth Day announcement with the EPA's Christie Whitman at City Hall.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton will tour a Wildlife Habitat Preserve in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao will hold a press availability with auto company executives on alternative sources of fuel.

And Administrator Whitman plays Ask-The-White House, online, at , in the evening.

But what all most Note readers will remember about the summary are those "French" and "Breck" lines.

Big Casino budget politics

The Wall Street Journal editorial board goes to the head of the class with their analysis of Secretary Snow's interview published yesterday by the paper's news department.

Although a "Treasury spokesman who was in the interview tells" the ed board that "he recalls Mr. Snow saying" nothing about giving up on the top marginal rate cut, and although the walk-back statement put out by the Department later in the day yesterday tried to put the genie back in the bottle, the keepers of the free market flame are NOT amused:

"Whatever the degree of Mr. Snow's PR blunder, the big political point here is that the Beltway tax bazaar is now open. In the wake of Senate GOP leader Bill Frist's agreement to chop the tax cut, everyone thinks Mr. Bush can be had. Republicans are negotiating with themselves over the smaller pie, while Democrats chortle, pay no price for their opposition and sharpen their knives to run against a lousy economy in 2004. The White House had better work quickly to repair the damage, or before he knows it Mr. Bush won't have any pro-growth elements left in his tax cut."

The Journal says that if something must be thrown from the sled, make it the immediate repeal of the dividend double taxation, in part because "while an economic boon, the double tax repeal won't help the economy as much right away as the marginal-rate cuts," and somewhere the DNC research department is re-writing that line.

The New York Times Elisabeth Bumiller describes the administration's challenge brilliantly: "the political and mathematical quandary of how to reduce a $726 billion tax-cut plan to $550 billion and probably less." LINK

And she breaks what we think counts as news: " … White House officials said the final deal would probably be closer to $350 billion."

Going forward, Ms. B. writs, beyond scaling back the double tax on dividends, "Another savings option, Republicans said, would be to delay income tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers, who under Mr. Bush's proposal would face a top individual tax rate this year of 35 percent, down from 38.6 percent. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said he was willing to consider a delay in the rate cut, but administration officials immediately backpedaled on that. Economic advisers said the White House was adamant on not acquiescing to critics who say the top rate cuts are a giveaway to the rich and should be eliminated or reduced."

The Washington Post 's Jonathan Weisman comes back from war duty for a long soak in the Big Casino Bellagio hot tub: "A smaller, phased-in tax cut may appeal to some moderate Republicans, and even some Democrats, who are primarily worried about the ballooning budget deficit, administration officials said. But even administration allies said that scaling back the proposal also would undercut the White House's contention that the plan would stimulate the flagging economy." LINK

"'It certainly undermines the magnitude of the stimulus,' a Republican business lobbyist said … "

"But Republican opponents of the Bush tax plan said yesterday that they have not changed their minds. If anything, the most fundamental reason to oppose the tax cut — the budget deficit — appears to be getting considerably worse. Initial tax receipt tallies for the pivotal month of April indicate a deficit for the year that will be $20 billion to $30 billion higher than anticipated when the White House projected a deficit of $304 billion for 2003, said G. William Hoagland, a senior budget analyst for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)."

"'That's bad,' he said."

"And that does not count the $79 billion emergency spending bill passed to fund the war and its aftermath. For the first six months of the fiscal year, the government ran a deficit of $248 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, suggesting that the dire forecasts of a $500 billion deficit this year may not have been so outlandish."

Alan Murray's Wall Street Journal column makes no mention of Ziad Ojakli, but it does contain yet another version of budget deal events:

"Only five people were present on the night the deal was cut: Sens. Frist, Grassley, Snowe, Voinovich and Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles of Oklahoma. House leaders didn't learn about the deal until the following day, when Mr. Grassley announced on the Senate floor that he had promised he wouldn't return from a House-Senate conference with a tax cut bigger than $350 billion. He said he informed the White House, but officials there contend they also were blindsided."

"Mr. Frist's staff now says he only agreed to a $350 billion cap for the bill that passed the Senate, and not for the compromise bill written in a House-Senate conference. He says he now favors winning 'the biggest tax cut possible' in negotiations between the chambers … ."

"One way out would be to circumvent a House-Senate conference altogether. The House could simply take the Senate's $350 billion tax-cut bill, add $100 billion or so to it, and send it back to the Senate as an amendment without ever going to conference — and thus without breaking Mr. Grassley's promise. But that still would require Republicans in the Senate to come up with 51 votes."

"Congressional staffers also are scrambling to find 'offsets' — that is, tax increases — that would enable them to have a tax-cut bill that nets only $350 billion but includes a gross cut closer to $400 billion or $450 billion. One option being considered: Closing loopholes in the current gasoline tax."

The New York Daily News' Ken Bazinet has "Team Bush" blinking on the tax cut package, with high marks from success in Iraq not affecting economic policy, and with a unified Democratic opposition. LINK

Bazinet writes "The administration is facing unified Democratic opposition and a handful of GOP holdouts in the Senate who say the sluggish economy can't handle a big tax cut," and offers this dismal quote: "'I wouldn't be surprised if the president at the end of the day takes whatever he can get and declares it a victory,' said a senior GOP congressional source."

Bazinet cites Secretary Snow's comments in yesterday's Wall Street Journal and adds "White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush still 'remains committed to a jobs and growth package of at least $550 billion in tax relief,' but suggested there's wiggle room."

"'There are many ways to achieve these important priorities for encouraging job creation and economic growth, and we will continue to work with Congress to determine the best way,' McClellan said."

Bazinet also quotes Senator Olympia Snowe's reaction to the Club for Growth ad criticizing Snowe and Senator Voinovich's opposition, French flags awave.

"Snowe called the attack ads 'disheartening.'"

"'I certainly resent the fact that anyone would question my patriotism,' she said."

Frank Clines of the New York Times goes to Augusta, Maine and determines that changing Senator Snowe's mind is going to be really tough, or, maybe, impossible. LINK

Across the page, Paul Krugman wonders where the figure 1. 4 million new jobs came from, and whether it is true. LINK

Copley News Service provided some vague curtain raising details for The Canton Repository on President Bush's upcoming Ohio trip, which we learned this morning has a Canton stop and a Lima stop. LINK

Legislative Agenda

Jill Zuckman of the Chicago Tribune, playing the role of peace broker, tries to map out the road to reconciliation for squabbling Republicans on Capitol Hill. LINK

Zuckman takes a look at how the differing personalities of Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist may have an effect on how the Republicans can put this debate behind them.

"Although Republicans control Congress, whether they can send Bush the legislation he wants may depend on Frist, Hastert and the rest of the GOP finding a way to overcome the rift and move on. If they cannot, it may cause them problems in the 2004 election." "Reconciliation won't be easy."

Advances in stem-cell technology, coupled with scientists' inability to make progress with Bush administration-backed rules on embryo research, have advocates re-asking the White House to relax restrictions on cell harvesting. LINK

Earth Day

p> The Note remembers asking New York Times editor Richard Berke who would assume environmental politics reporting once Kit Seelye left for her semester at Harvard. Ever the buttoned-lip Timesperson, Berke demurred.

But from what we gather, bureau newcomer Jennifer 8. Lee has stepped up to the plate. Today, she analyzes the allegedly hit-me-with-one hand, rub-me-with-another ethos of the Environmental Protection Agency.

"The agency's 'friend today, foe tomorrow' relationship with the Northeastern States stems from a personality split within the agency itself. On one hand, its top officials have criticized the laws as being cumbersome and a disincentive for polluting power plants to modernize. On the other hand, those officials have vowed to enforce vigorously the laws that exist." LINK

The Washington Times praises "citizen-stewards" of the environment. LINK

In Iowa, Big Hog news: "State environmental regulators on Monday approved Iowa's first limits on potentially health-threatening air pollution from large animal confinements or other sources." LINK

ABC 2004: The May 3 South Carolina Democratic presidential candidate debate

The Los Angeles Times ed board, writing about the upcoming debate, commits two of The Note's least favorite journalistic moves. LINK

First, it argues, nearly simultaneously, that the campaign is beginning too soon, and yet doesn't give the voters enough time to get to know the candidates.

Second, it decries, nearly simultaneously, the superficiality of our politico-media culture, and yet contributes to that very problem.

Shame on you, Los Angeles Times ed board who should know better.

But thanks for reminding everyone about the event!!

ABC 2004: CREEP:

Charlie Cook looks at the Post -war Bush bounce in his must-read National Journal column.

USA Today 's Richard Benedetto Notes that Democrats underestimate Bush often, and at their peril. LINK

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary:

The Des Moines Register 's Beamount previews this Saturday's vote of the Michigan State Democratic Central Committee, which is expected to vote down a proposal to hold an early caucus, choosing instead a much-more-favorable-to-the-party February 7 date. LINK

Click here for a calendar update: LINK

GEPHARDT

In her comprehensive but concise look-ahead to tomorrow's health care speech, the USA Today 's Jill Lawrence notes the all-important venue. "Gephardt, who is trying to win the AFL-CIO's endorsement, will deliver his speech to Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union in New York City. The union represents an array of health care and service workers, from doctors to janitors." LINK

Tom Oliphant has a column in which he praises Representative Gephardt for having a serious idea about the serious issue of health care. LINK

"The Missouri Democrat's big idea is about health care, but it is really about the economy. As he put it recently, health care is far more than a mess that leaves more than 40 million people without insurance. It is also an enormous drain on business cash, leading to dropped coverage, ruinously higher premiums and co-payments, depressed wages, and slower growth."

Oliphant separates Gephardt from the pack: "No Democrat in decent standing avoids pledging to work for universal insurance coverage. And Gephardt is out front about the specific ways to achieve it (in essence by building on the existing mix of private and public mechanisms as opposed to creating some new system from scratch). He is even more out front about the enormous cost as well as the potential economic benefits from jettisoning the irrational status quo — sharply lower business costs, higher wages, and a better chance to control health costs without limiting coverage."

Oliphant also gives milder props to Howard Dean:

"The only candidate close to Gephardt in this is the former governor of Vermont. Howard Dean talks generally of repealing the 2001 tax cuts, though not with Gephardt's specificity or comprehensiveness, He also needs to move faster beyond his identification with opposition to the Iraq war, which Gephardt supported. However, Dean is there on health care coverage off his experience in a state that now has insurance for nearly all kids and 92 percent of adults. Dean also emphasizes a refundable tax credit for business and investment in the other private and public programs. He also advocates a federal-state deal on health care responsibility — young people to the age of 23 are for states to cover; drug costs and acute care for the elderly are for the national government."

The Keene Sentinel's Monday lead editorial praised Congressman Gephardt for "the guts to say out loud and in declarative sentences" that he would repeal some of the president's tax-cuts for the wealthy if elected. LINK

NEW HAMPSHIRE

That great "AP" interview with former Governor Shaheen that we heavily excepted here yesterday?

Turns out, although the AP version didn't make this crystalline clear, the interview was actually conducted by the enterprising Jennifer Skalka of the Concord Monitor, whose bosses really SHOULD commit some resources to updating the paper's website over the weekends, so we don't make mistakes like we did.

Read the whole glorious original here: LINK

LIEBERMAN

The AP's Katharine Webster reports that Senator Joe Lieberman, speaking at a breakfast for business leaders in Bedford, New Hampshire, seems ready to move to domestic issues now that the war in Iraq is winding down. LINK

Get ready to hear this line again and again:

"'President Bush may be the first president with an MBA, but he has compiled the worst business record in 50 years,' Lieberman told business leaders yesterday at a 'Politics and Eggs' breakfast."

Having remained staunchly hawkish on the war, Lieberman is now presenting himself as a tough fighter for the economy:

"Lieberman, who said he is the most 'probusiness' of the Democratic presidential contenders, said tax credits for businesses and investors would be better under his leadership."

No, it's definitely not "kegs and eggs," but the Union Leader's Hunter McGee might fool you with a lead paragraph about the breakfast that includes these three words: politics, eggs, and chugging. LINK

Lieberman "spoke at the forum organized by the New England Council and held at C.R. Sparks. Business leaders from around New England gathered for the event that has become a frequent stop on the presidential campaign trail."

PolitcsNH.com's James Pindell reports that Senator Lieberman brought two main themes with him when he campaigned in the Granite State on Sunday and Monday: the economy and foreign policy. (The Note would like to tell you more about all of the good info in Mr. Pindell's column, but the link wasn't linking so well when we tried to check it out.) LINK

HART

With a Monday headline of "Run Gary, run," the Concord Monitor editorial board appears to be trying to (subtly) help the former and perhaps future candidate to make up his mind. LINK

"In an age of bumper stickers and 30-second spots, Hart is a forest candidate. He knows prescription drug benefits and the capital-gains tax are important, but he'd rather shape and sell a larger vision for the country."

GRAHAM

Staff news, courtesy of the Orlando Sentinel's Mark Silva: "Graham has ready hands in Florida. His oldest daughter, Gwen Logan, plans to move her family from Tallahassee to Miami so she can campaign full time. In her official role as 'D.O.C.,' Daughter of the Candidate, she plans to campaign from Iowa to New Hampshire." LINK

"Her husband, lawyer and lobbyist Mark Logan, will serve as director of Graham's campaign within Florida."

SHARPTON

Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing in the Village Voice, elaborates upon why Democrats take Reverend Al Sharpton's candidacy seriously. "His handlers have already zeroed in on the primary in South Carolina, where 40 percent of all Democratic voters are black. The February contest is one of the first, offering Sharpton the chance to look good early. One of two African Americans in the race, he could easily finish second there, or — and this is what gives Dems the dry heaves — actually win." LINK

The Augusta Chronicle's Mike Wynn heard Reverend Sharpton tell the Tabernacle Baptist Church on Monday that the "only thing that would be equal to the Rumble in the Jungle would be a debate between George Bush and Al Sharpton." LINK

Politics:

In an interview with the Associated Press about the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on a Texas sodomy law, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum compared consensual gay sex to polygamy, incest, adultery, and bigamy.

Here's what he said: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." LINK

"Santorum spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright said yesterday that Santorum had no problem with gay relationships. 'Senator Santorum was specifically speaking about the right to privacy within the context of the Supreme Court case,' she said, explaining that he did not want to elevate gay sex to the level of a constitutional right."

Gay rights groups urged Republican leaders on Monday to consider removing the Pennsylvania lawmaker from the GOP Senate leadership, the Associated Press reports. LINK

David Smith, the Human Rights Campaign's senior strategist, attempts to invoke the imbroglio of Trent Lott in the Washington Post : "For the second time in a matter of months, we see a senior Republican leader in the Senate disparaging an entire group of Americans." LINK

The press, sympathetic, followed suit: nearly every article we saw brings up the Lott comparison itself, without, say, mentioning Democrats like Senator Robert Byrd or Representative Jim Moran who've made comments others deemed to be outrageous.

Question: can a politician assert that gay sex ought not be "elevated" to the protection of a constitutional right without being considered homophobic?

On the other hand: can a politician talk about gay sex and constitutional rights without invoking, say, the specter of incest?

Republican leaders at the White House and on the Hill are trying to avoid engaging on this one. It probably won't work.

Incidentally, the Family Research Council has been on a tear of late because Republican National Committee chairman Marc Racicot met recently with the HRC.

Yesterday, group president Ken Connor wrote this in his daily update to members: "[HRC} is a key player on the political Left, a radical organization working to advance an extremist agenda at odds with the Republican Party platform and the views of the overwhelming number of rank-and-file pro-family Republicans."

"Pro-family conservatives were understandably unsettled by the news of the Racicot-HRC meeting."

Keep watching this story … .

At least one more year for Chief Justice William Rehnquist? LINK

The State's Lauren Markoe reports that former Senator Strom Thurmond will make his first public appearance since returning to his home state when he takes a 30 minute flight to attend Strom Thurmond Family Day on, what else, the private jet of a Hooters Air executive. LINK

There's some story on A4 of the Wall Street Journal about smarty-pants Tom Scully, and Pete Teeley, and it has something to do with some drug dispute, but The Note was too muddle-headed to divine what, if any, political significance it has.

Webby Awards update:

Not since Bill Clinton tied his fate to the tender mercies and intellectual vagaries of a certain Yale professor has one political candidate so entrusted an academic to deliver a victory.

With one month and one day to go in the People's Voice Webby Awards, The Note is now relying on the good work of Northern Kentucky University's Dr. Baranowski, and his loyal followers. LINK

Heaven help us if we have made the wrong choice.

Oh, and don't forget to vote, and to post a comment, with Sam Adams optional. LINK

Bush Administration Strategy/Personality:

The Washington Post 's Milbank finds the administration sometimes, uhm, unresponsive, and he reminds us to read our Presidential Studies quarterly. LINK

The Washington Post 's John F. Kelly has a report on the White House Easter Egg Roll, with SLOTUS Lynne Cheney blowing the whistle to begin the festivities, military families with tidy children on the guest list, EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman reading "Will You Be My Friend?" and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card reading "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie." LINK