The Manhattan Institute’s Mark Riebling writes in with his thoughts on Negroponte/NDI:

“The appointment of John Negroponte as our first Director of National Intelligence is unlikely to improve our spy system. In fact, if he rides herd on the Pentagon, our new spy ‘czar’ may only make matters worse.”

“I cautiously supported the ‘czar’ concept for counterintelligence in my 1994 book Wedge: The Secret War Between the CIA and FBI. But the creation of a new true U.S. domestic intelligence agency, along the lines of Britain's MI-5, is currently a more urgently needed bureaucratic measure.”

“Bureaucratic solutions are, in any case, only interim fixes. They can ameliorate the symptoms of our intelligence problems, but they can't address the causes.”

“These causes are not institutional so much as they are cultural and philosophical. Some of these problems will only worsen, if Negroponte consolidates civilian control over military intelligence.”

“The critical battle here will be not for control of our satellites and other high-tech collection platforms -- our ‘eyes and ears.’ The key battle will be for control of our analyses and estimates -- i.e., our national-security ‘mind.’"

“As Samuel Huntington and Robert D. Kaplan have observed, the military mind is inherently more conservative than the civilian one. It is more rooted in history, and less prone to liberal-Utopian delusions. For those very reasons, the analyses of the Defense Intelligence Agency -- especially on enemy capabilities and intent -- have often proved more accurate than those of the CIA.”

“Coordination of military and civilian intelligence is important. But not in every way, and not at any cost. We must protect the military's role as a kind of devil's advocate in our intelligence cycle. If ‘coordination’ means merely that Negroponte rationalizes budgets, and imposes national rather than institutional collection-priorities, that's good. But if coordination undercuts Pentagon autonomy -- and if military intelligence analyses are thereby brought more ‘in line’ with those of civilian agencies -- the nation will be made be less safe.”

The Cato Institue has published a rebuttal to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s Social Security calculator. The calculator is meant to show unflattering numbers concerning Social Security reform. From the Cato “daily debunker”:

“The Reid Social Security calculator's shortcomings are easy to understand from the footnotes accompanying it. In that calculator, using the slower-growing price index rather than the wage index used under present law results in a direct reduction in future benefits relative to their level under present law.”

“The Reid calculator acknowledges that the President's proposals do not necessarily include a shift from wage-to price-indexing. It acknowledges that the President has not made any specific proposals to reduce Social Security's outstanding fiscal imbalance. It is well known that the President has called for open debate regarding such measures. Yet, the calculator proceeds to show estimates based on a particular method of reducing the fiscal imbalance--a shift from wage- to price-indexing--thereby incorrectly ascribing this feature to be a part of the President's proposals.”

You can take a look at Cato's own Social Security calculator here.

While signing the class-action lawsuit reform bill just a few moments ago, President Bush declared, "And this will be the first of many bipartisan successes in the year 2005."

Slate’s Fred Kaplan continues with what I mentioned yesterday would likely be the left’s response to Negroponte’s selection – that it took two months and therefore somehow lacks legitimacy. Kaplan:

“It took more than two months for President Bush to find a willing candidate for this post. Reportedly three people turned him down. One of them was Robert Gates, who had been his father's CIA director. The fact that he even considered Gates was pretty fair evidence that Bush sees the NID as a purely advisory slot, to be filled by a loyal, respected fellow who has no access to real power.”

However, Kaplan follows this up with some more positive insights into Negroponte’s prospects for reform. They are not necessarily new thoughts, but coming from Kaplan, and more specifically, Slate, they are still nice to hear:

“Yet now Bush has gone and picked someone who might actually turn the NID into at least a force of influence, if not quite a powerhouse. For the past six months, Negroponte has been ambassador to Iraq. By some accounts, and some measures, he's done a remarkable job, transforming Baghdad's ‘green zone’ from the den of corruption and cronyism—which marked Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority—into a highly professional U.S. Embassy … Negroponte is no milquetoast, content to shuffle paper on a meaningless advisory board. He's, for better or worse, an energetic, hands-on operator who's not shy about knocking heads. As part of the deal to take the job, it's not inconceivable that he demanded some de facto authority—and that Bush gave him some.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid paid a visit to Jim Lehrer and the “News Hour” on PBS last night. During their chat, Reid dropped a few interesting comments, including acknowledging that Social Security has been a “good program for Democrats.” Here’s the full quote:

Lehrer: “So you think the president is really motivated by a desire to get rid of Social Security?” Reid: “Well, I'm a great fan of public broadcasting. I listen to public radio every morning and try to watch you as much as I can. Last week on public radio, you had a couple of Republican operatives, one of which was Grover Norquist, talking about their effort to get rid of Social Security. It's been a successful program for the Democratic Party, and they're committed to getting rid of it.”

Now, this next comment is less revealing than it is desperate. There has been a fair share of grumbling about the president’s failure to place a specific Social Security plan on the table. But it’s not getting in the way of Reid’s strategy. Lehrer: “So you're going to do everything you can to keep the president's plan from being enacted into law?” Reid: “Oh, we certainly will.”

More Lehrer: “So you're going to define your job or define success in your job is in stopping the president from doing things rather than enacting things that you think should be enacted? Reid: “Of course, that's one of the things that I think is successful.”

So, when he’s not putting us to sleep, Reid’s asleep at the wheel of opposition party politics. Not that we’re craving success for Reid, but can’t he shoot higher than being a watered down Daschle?

A sampling of how the Social Security debate is playing across the country this morning:

The Denver Post weighs in with support of raising the income cap for Social Security taxes: “President Bush, on record as opposed to raising the current Social Security tax rate, has signaled that he may be open to raising the cap on earnings subject to that tax. That's a path we've endorsed all along”

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert aren’t having any of that talk. When asked if raising caps would help get a reform bill passed, DeLay said, “No. Because we're not going to do that." Appearing on Fox News yesterday DeLay added, “This Republican House didn't come here to raise taxes. We can solve this problem without raising taxes." DeLay continued on CNN, “To everybody that makes over $90,000 a year, it's a tax increase.” Indeed. With both Hastert and DeLay now on the record as opposed to lifting caps, this should raise hopes that President Bush’s cap talk will prove to just be talk.

However, MSNBC notes that back in the Senate, Lindsey Graham has his own “donut hole” approach to raising caps:

“Graham touted the idea of a 'donut hole' in the Social Security tax. Graham hasn’t worked out exact numbers yet. But as a purely hypothetical example, the Social Security tax would apply to the first $90,000 of income, the next several thousands of dollars of income would be exempt, but then the tax would resume on all income above $300,000."

"The 'donut hole' would let upper-middle class Americans off the hook, yet would force higher-income people to help pay the cost of transitioning to private accounts.”

Needless to say, Bush’s caps comment is getting a lot of play in the MSM media today, with outlets such as ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, and the above mentioned piling on.

Comments from Pennsylvania readers have been flowing in since yesterday’s posts. There has been a consistent theme here of folks who felt betrayed by Senator Santorum’s support for Arlen Specter last year. Will PA conservatives sit home as punishment for Santorum’s support for Specter over Pat Toomey? Personally, I’ve never believed in punishing an otherwise strong politician over one mistake – unless it is truly critical. However, there is a growing sense of wisdom from those who were critical of the WH decision to go with Specter. I realize that’s old hat to many of you readers, so on to the comments. Some highlights:

“The Christian Right, of which I am a charter member, has been known to cut off its nose to spite its face. I made phone calls for Pat Toomey and often spoke to base Republicans furious with Santorum over his support for Specter. 49% of the Republicans in Pennsylvania voted for Pat Toomey, and Santorum needs nearly 95% of them to win reelection; I hate to say this, but I personally think he's not going to get it.”

“I would not be surprised to see a conservative 'pay-back' movement to keep the GOP honest. Sometimes I get the feeling that the GOP and the Administration is taking conservatives for granted. A sacrificial electoral victim such as Santorum might change that.”

“There are more than a few conservatives in this state that are still p***ed off over Sen. Santorum’s support for Sen. Specter in the Republican primary in ’04. They are just looking for a reason for payback. That may come in the form of not voting, or could even translate to voting for Casey … I’m not one of those people who will cut their nose off to spite their face, but I’m telling you they are out there and gunning for big game.”

The new Harris Interactive poll shows a substantial increase in the public’s awareness and concern regarding Social Security. In the 2/8-2/13 survey of 1,012 adults, Social Security has shot to the very top of public concerns facing the White House. The last time Harris polled publicly on Social Security, it measured a mere 3 percent on the public radar. In today’s survey – 36 percent.

This poll presents strong evidence of the president’s power of persuasion. Arguably more than any issue so far in his presidency, Bush truly must to sell an idea to a wary public. This runs opposed to other issues such as tax cuts or garnering support for the war in Iraq, which while painted as contentious issues at the time, had stronger cores of support going in. While nearly all polls continue to show heavy resistance to true Social Security reform, the president no doubt is making inroads. Should he continue his pledge to discuss the problems facing Social Security “over and over and over again” President Bush may be savoring the rewards of victory sooner than later.

In descending order, the following issues were measured in level of concern in the Harris poll: the war in Iraq (30%), health care (13%), employment/jobs (11%), and the economy (11%).

A helpful reader passes along this quote from Karl Rove at today's CPAC conference: "If  you're in a state that doesn't have a complicated election picture next year -- you know, you might have a little time on your hands in 2006 come Election Day to be doing something good for the country -- my recommendation is make your reservation right now for a Motel 6 or Holiday Inn in someplace in Pennsylvania to be helping this good guy get reelected, because he's going to be a target, and he is a good man and we need to have back in the United States Senate."

After the Quinnipiac poll yesterday showing Pennsylvania state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. defeating Senator Rick Santorum in a potential 2006 match-up, I put in a call to the senator’s office. Here is his official response on the polling results: “With the 2006 election still 21 months away it is much too early to focus on polling results. My commitment right now is to continue to serve the people of Pennsylvania as their U.S. Senator.”

The senator’s statement is absolutely correct. After all, the same polling results showed Santorum with high approval ratings and a majority of respondents expressing their opinion that he be returned to office for another term. Nonetheless, Casey presents Santorum’s most formidable challenge. For a Democrat, Casey has some atypical views that give him added credibility to stand with Senator Santorum. However, if voters are going to vote their social conscience, why not go with the real thing as opposed to a generic knockoff?

AEI scholar/Middle East Quarterly editor Michael Rubin follows up with more Negroponte insight. Rubin tells me of Negroponte’s time in Iraq, “Navigating the Iraqi political field is a mine field. Paul Bremer stepped on mines everyday. Negroponte showed he could navigate around mines. Bremer promoted himself. Negroponte stayed more in the background, which for the job in Iraq seems to have been the better approach.”

Former CIA Director James Woolsey adds, "He's an experienced guy in national security with a great reputation - fine pick, I think."

Just spoke with a former official who served in the Iraqi Embassy with John Negroponte. Regarding Ambassador Negroponte’s record, this official tells me, “He hopped into the embassy in Baghdad and displayed very good managerial skills, which is quite something considering the environment there.” On Negroponte as DNI: “He seems to have the respect of all the agencies, which is exactly what this person will need going into the job.”

The president’s approval rating stands at 50 percent, up from 47 percent in September of last year. Conversely, his negative rating dropped to 45 from 48 in the same period.

Respondents stated their preference that President Bush direct his focus on domestic issues over foreign policy by a margin of 50 to 27 percent.

Results on Social Security reform were less promising. A majority states their opposition to personal accounts by a margin of 51 to 40 percent. However, 39 percent of those opposed say their position is open to change.

Finally, 51 percent of those polled on the Iraqi elections say the results will prove legitimate, with 38 against. That’s a near complete flip from January, when the numbers were 39 for and 50 against.

Appearing on Fox News Channel, former congressman/9-11 Commissioner/DNC Chair candidate Tim Roemer hashes out what is likely to be the Negroponte critique of the day: “It didn’t take two months to nominate Condoleezza Rice, it didn’t take two months to find Alberto Gonzales. Was it because they went through a host of people before they found Ambassador Negroponte?”

It’s a slap that does initially convey mild resonance. But upon digestion, let’s think about this critique. First, Roemer is comparing long-standing government positions to one newly created in response to the largest terrorist attacks on American soil. Second, does his critique insinuate that it would have been wiser to expediate a nominee for the sake of having one rather than to take the time to search for the best choice?

From President Bush’s announcement of Iraqi Ambassador John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, “John will lead a unified intelligence community.”

Bush noted Negroponte will have the authority to collect and share intelligence, as well as to set the standard for intelligence personnel, will set the budget for intelligence agencies and direct how those budgets are spent.

More Bush: “The director of the CIA will report to John.”

NSA Dir. Michael Hayden will be Negroponte’s deputy

Negroponte, to Bush on his nomination: “Providing timely and accurate intelligence to you … is a critical national task … Critical to the prevention of international terrorism and critical to our homeland security.”

Negroponte will have to be confirmed by the Senate. There is nothing to indicate he will have real trouble getting confirmed. However, as ambassador to Iraq, it’s safe to assume the usual suspects will try to make his confirmation as dramatic as possible. More so than with Condoleezza Rice or Alberto Gonzales, any attempts to stall Negroponte’s confirmation would almost surely result in a backlash against obstructionists in the Senate.

MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell asked the president about raising the cap on payroll taxes to pay for Social Security. While giving a long winded answer about working with Congress and talking to the American people about the problems facing Social Security, Bush failed to answer her question. Not good.

Sources say at 10am this morning, President Bush will be making his announcement for Director of National Intelligence

A new Quinnipiac poll shows Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) topping state Sen. Jeff Piccola (52%-28%), former Lt. Governor William Scranton (50%-35%), and ex-Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann (50%-34%) in the 2006 race for governor. Obviously, not the kind of numbers we want to see. However, they do reflect the growing sentiment that Swann would be a strong opponent to take on Rendell. It’s going to take a strong campaign from any good conservative to give Rendell a run for his money--and someone with the force of personality like Swann may be just what the GOP needs. Besides, Rendell may have competing ambitions of his own.

The AP reported late yesterday that President Bush "may raise taxes for Social Security." No, it wasn't a typo. The article states that Bush won't rule out raising taxes on those making more than $90,000 to help pay for the costs of keeping Social Security solvent. When asked specifically if he would rule out raising taxes, the president responded, "The one thing I'm not open-minded about is raising the payroll tax rate. And all the other issues go on the table." White House spokesman Trent Duffy followed up with, "Just because he said it was an option doesn't mean he embraced it." The San Francisco Chronicle notes this morning that a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed a two-thirds majority of those sampled approved of taxing workers for Social Security on all levels of income.

So, the pressing question now is, is the president planning to raise your taxes to get his Social Security plan passed? First, there are a few points to consider. Because of inflation, the rate at which Social Security taxes cap rises slowly each year. Last year it was $87,000 and this year is scheduled to surpass $90,000. Could the president simply have been making a reference to this point? It should also be noted that President Bush has made it a theme on his Social Security travels to declare that no options, other than a raise in the payroll tax, are off the table. To the critical observer, it's clear this is not a literal statement. As a source with close ties to the White House reminds me, some of the president's most forceful campaign statements last year came in the form of pointing out that the majority of Americans earning more than $100,000 per year are in fact small business owners who have a large percentage of that income invested in expenses such as employee benefits, business upkeep, etc. The president clearly also understands the lesson learned from his father about submitting to Democratic congressional pressure to raise taxes. We should not yet be in full panic mode, but it's not the best news to wake up to, obviously.

Senator Arlen Specter’s office just announced the senator has been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease. From the release:

Senator Specter had experienced persistent fevers and enlarged lymph nodes under his left arm and above his left clavicle. He received testing on February 14th at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. The testing involved biopsy of a lymph node and biopsy of bone marrow. The lymph node was positive for Hodgkin’s disease. The bone marrow biopsy showed no cancer. A follow up PET scan and MRI at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania on February 16th established that Senator Specter has stage IVB Hodgkin’s disease.

Senator Specter is expected to receive ABVD chemotherapy every two weeks over the next 24 to 32 weeks at the Abramson Cancer Center. It is expected that Senator Specter will be able to perform all duties of his office including those related to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.


Senator Specter’s oncologist, John H. Glick, M.D., said: "Senator Specter has an excellent chance of being completely cured of his Hodgkin’s disease. Senator Specter’s Hodgkin’s disease has a five-year survival rate of 70%. He is in superb physical condition, particularly in light of his daily squash regimen."


Senator Specter said: "I have beaten a brain tumor, bypass heart surgery and many tough political opponents; and I’m going to beat this too. I have a lot more work to do for Pennsylvania and America."

Free Enterprise Fund President Stephen Moore (and NRO-er) tells me in response to Greenspan’s Social Security comments today: “Alan Greenspan just stated the facts today. Entitlement spending is a ticking demographic timebomb, and we are running out of time. In just a few years baby boomers will begin retiring, placing an enormous strain on the working population and undermining economic growth. Now is the time to enforce fiscal discipline and transform entitlement programs based on principles of competition and personal choice.”

Four days into his DNC chairmanship, Dean is calling for the resignation of GOP state party chair Stephen Manarik. On Monday, Manarik commented on Dean’s ascension by noting, “The Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean.” New York City lawyer Stewart was convicted last week of helping terrorists by smuggling messages from imprisoned client, radical Egyptian sheik, to his terrorist collaborators.

The MSM is already responding to Alan Greenspan’s Social Security comments today. CNN’s “Inside Politics” host Judy Woodruff led her program’s piece with “Greenspan urges caution” on moving forward with “privatizing Social Security.”

And the Washington Post’s headlines its piece “Greenspan urges fiscal discipline.” Greenspan’s comments are Social Security are not addressed for several paragraphs. Now, if Greenspan were critical of the president’s plan in his remarks, do you think it would be played the same way?

Greenspan’s comments, for the record: “If you are going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way.”

Some newsclips, passed along: Howard Dean, during a 2/11/05 meeting with the Democratic Black Caucus: “You Think The Republican National Committee Could Get This Many People Of Color In A Single Room? Only If They Had The Hotel Staff In Here.”

Dean, on the 2/21/03 “Crossfire”: “White Folks In The South Who Drive Pick-Up Trucks With Confederate Flag Decals In The Back Ought To Be Voting With Us, And Not Them…”

CNN reported that in 2004, President Bush increased his percentage of the African American vote to 11 percent, a 2 percent increase from 2000. Bush also increased his percentage amongst African Americans in Georgia by 5 percent, in Florida by 6 percent, a 7 percent increase in Ohio, by 7 percent in California, and 2 percent in Michigan.

Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele and former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts have issued a statement calling for Howard Dean to apologize over remarks he made while addressing the Democratic Black Caucus last Friday.

First, the offending statement: “You Think The Republican National Committee Could Get This Many People Of Color In A Single Room? Only If They Had The Hotel Staff In Here.”

From the Steele/Watts release:

We are simply outraged over recent racially insensitive remarks made by Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Howard Dean. In his comments to the Democratic Black Caucus, Dean equates African-Americans who support Republicans to 'hired help.' This kind of backward thinking reminds us of a horrible time in history when blacks were only seen as servants.

Democrats wonder why they are losing electoral ground among African-Americans and other minorities. They need to look no further than the comments of their newly elected leader.

We are demanding that Howard Dean apologize for his racially, insensitive and intolerable remarks.

Richard Clarke's desperate game of "I told you so" is back in play. Only now, fattened on the hype of hindsight in liberal circles, Clarke has turned his attention to foresight. Unfortunately, many in the elite media are more than happy to assist. The New York Times Sunday Magazine has provided Clarke with a perch entitled, "The Security Adviser," and Clarke recently penned "Ten Years Later ... the second wave of al-Qaeda attacks hit America," for The Atlantic Monthly.

In his Atlantic piece, Clarke makes a series of dire assertions: After President Bush "ignored" al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen, followed by a "token" military effort in Afghanistan and the "ill-fated invasion and occupation" of Iraq. The resulting administration policies left America in a downward spiral "in terms of economic strength, national security, and civil liberties."

Then come the predictions: 2005 terrorist attacks on casinos in Las Vegas, Florida, California, Texas, and Jersey; government detaining of ethnic minorities reminiscent of World War II; attacks on major U.S. shopping malls and hundreds of deaths the same year as a result of the "failure" to renew the ban on assault weapons; attacks on subways in Atlanta, Boston, Baltimore and Philadelphia resulting in the withdrawal of 40,000 troops from Iraq to become transit security agents; double-digit unemployment and inflation; SA-14 and SA-16 missile attacks on Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles; a coup on the House of Saud, creating a new nation, "Islamiyah"; and finally, Internet attacks that close the stock market, commodities market, shut down major hospitals and disable nuclear power plants.

Clarke concludes that these future events could have been avoided if not for the "arrogant tactics" of U.S. policy. He prescribes a foreign policy more closely aligned with that of former president Jimmy Carter, engaging the Islamic world in a "true battle of ideas."

The honest methods of an investigator involve eliminating false theories and evidence. The remaining hypothesis, even if seemingly intangible, becomes the most reliable. In Clarke's case, he is doing just the opposite. By refusing to eliminate possibilities he is failing to take the steps required for true critical analysis. Imagine if a military sharpshooter were targeting a terrorist agent in a crowded, public marketplace. Rather than relying on his precision weapon and years of combat training, he instead fires a shotgun blindly into the crowd.

If any of Clarke's predictions prove correct, he will claim "I told you so" and the press will go into frenzy mode. Of course, for all the points on which he will certainly prove incorrect, who in the mainstream press will hold him accountable?

Apparently, John Kerry generously offered to meet with President Bush regarding Iraq policy before the president’s European trip. Needless to say, the White House did not offer an official response. Kerry spokesman David Wade: “There are many areas where genuine bipartisanship would make a difference in leading our country forward, whether in national security or children's health care.” Of course, that “genuine bipartisanship” was mixed with Kerry’s comment on Monday that “we would be far better off today” had the WH enacted his foreign-policy proposals.

In response to yesterday’s Washington Post story, a judiciary spokesman for Senator Arlen Specter tells me that William Myers will indeed be scheduled for a hearing either Tuesday, March 1st, or Thursday the 3rd. Seems like a good sign that the senator is planning to move quickly with nominees. In spite of the best efforts of the Post, Myers still seems a decent bet to get this year’s selection of nominees started.

A New York Times poll of 1,822 adults shows more bad news for New York Governor George Pataki. If his potential reelection bid were voted on today, current Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, would defeat Pataki soundly, 49 to 34 percent. Those aren’t promising numbers for any politician, let alone one with presidential ambitions.

In looking for something positive, one could note the 2006 election is still on the horizon as opposed to on Pataki’s doorstep. The thought being that once New Yorkers seriously contemplate Pataki’s stewardship, they will choose to keep him in office. However, additional findings show voters already think Pataki is doing a decent job, but they still want him replaced. He has a net positive approval rating (43 to 41 percent) but it’s his lowest since 1995. In contrast, his October, 2002 approval rating touched the stratosphere at 62 percent. In addition, there have already been additional 2005 polls showing Pataki losing to Spitzer and/or Senator Hillary Clinton.

Like Clinton, Pataki could choose to not seek reelection and move forward into the 2008 presidential primary. However, with his moderate to liberal views on many issues, Pataki would most likely need to leave office as something of a juggernaut in order to have the required momentum to carry him through what will almost certainly be a crowded Republican field. In the meantime, he still seems to be running. As N.Y. state GOP chair Stephen Minarik said, “We’re not exactly in the hunt for another candidate.”

John Kerry has signaled his support for President Bush’s $81.9B Iraq/Afghanistan/tsunami funding request. And just to “clarify,” Kerry spoke of his previous vote against military funding: “Mine was the right vote at the time and I wouldn't change it if we went back to that point in time because it was the right vote.”

Whether it’s concerning his Vietnam record or funding for U.S. troops, Kerry has settled on his response to questions concerning his campaign’s setbacks. Think of it as his all-purpose “aloha” response: “Should we have done a better job, could I have done a better job personally in fighting back on defining that? The answer is yeah.” As soon as he figured out how to shape his message beforehand, Kerry might really have a shot at turning his campaign around!

And Newsweek White House correspondent Holly Bailey passes along this highlight question from today’s White House press briefing: “The President has spoken repeatedly about an ‘axis of evil.’ With Syria's suspected increased involvement in terrorist activities, are we now looking at a ‘quadrangle of evil’?”

Roll Call gives an update on the growing effort to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens, such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to run for president:

"On election night 2004, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his supporters attended a party in Beverly Hills to celebrate the passage of several state ballot initiatives he had championed. But the news that came out of the event had less to do with the California Republican's past successes than with his future political prospects.

That shift was in large part the result of a well-timed political accident. Pictures of the Beverly Hills confab captured prominent partygoers, including former Golden State Gov. Pete Wilson (R), wearing buttons that simply read, 'Amend for Arnold.'"

The article goes on to note that the website formed by Schwarzenegger donor Lissa Morgenthaler-Jones has already generated 900 volunteers in all 50 states in its first six months of operation. Aiming for appeal across the political spectrum, the website has since renamed itself "Amend for Arnold and Jen" for Democratic Michigan Governor/ Canadian-born, Jennifer Granholm. Along with a call to action, the website also sells some retro Arnold t-shirts and coffee mugs.

Not mentioned in the article is that Schwarzenegger will be paying a visit to Washington this week. An appearance with President Bush is rumored to be in the mix. Also, California's Republican delegation has already endorsed Schwarzenegger's reelection, a full 16 months ahead of calendar.

Conservatives should not underestimate Howard Dean.

Howard Dean's ascension to head of the Democratic National Committee has been surrounded by much talk and a little celebration. For many conservatives, Dean's political resurrection is viewed as the gift that keeps on giving. One of the most liberal members of last year's Democratic presidential field is now heading a party that itself acknowledges its electoral weakness on social and national security issues. Dean's leadership will now have a guiding influence on the success or failure of the Democratic party.

For now, Dean is showing deference to his party's elected leadership. Congressional Minority leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi insist that Dean reflect policy, not dictate it. Still, he is more interesting than his Democratic counterparts. With no Democrats heading a branch of government, Dean is likely to be the first choice when the media comes calling for an interview.

Until his Iowa caucus meltdown, Dean had a decade of electoral victories. He was reelected governor a number of times, though with declining returns. As previously noted, he had some general level of success during his tenure. To be successful as DNC Chair, Dean will have to resonate with the liberal base while maintaining the large donor apparatus Terry McAuliffe made his calling card. Most importantly, Democrats will have to win elections.

To his credit, Dean seems to understand how the Republican party has been successful in its voter outreach efforts. For decades, liberals have taken pride in their ability to canvas large swaths of the country with paid campaign workers. For at least a decade now, that strategy has not been working. By targeting party loyalists and ideological allies, conservatives have generated a higher return on their outreach investments. If Dean can successfully motivate the liberal grassroots he will allow aspiring party moderates like New York Senator Hillary Clinton greater leverage to reach out to independent voters.

Howard Dean is intelligent enough to have learned from the many blunders of his presidential campaign's demise. No longer in the heated moment of a passionate campaign, he is far less likely to suffer an emotional outburst. Because of his experiences with the press, Dean may even be savvy enough to view the mainstream media with caution. For the next several months, Dean will be the beneficiary of low expectations. He is taking over a party that has lost three consecutive elections. Many are watching to see when and if Dean has his next meltdown. By simply maintaining a degree of balanced temperament, the press is likely to build his reputation back up.

When I was covering the Democratic National Convention in Boston this summer, I had the chance to see Dean speak. The event was a lavish party thrown for members of the California delegation. Nancy Pelosi was first to speak. After Pelosi encouraged her constituents to party and enjoy the moment, Dean took the stage on a more forceful note. He began reading a laundry list of grievances against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Upon reaching the end of the list, Dean said something surprising. Instead of delivering a sermon on liberal virtues, Dean uttered the following statement, "We Democrats need to be a lot more like Tom DeLay." Needless to say, the crowd did not respond enthusiastically to Dean's battle cry. But it's a strategy that if sincerely practiced should put dismissive Dean critics on notice.

Welcome. I'm Eric Pfeiffer and I'll be your Buzz guy.

This page is now home to a daily feature that aims to provide readers with a fresh look at news and analysis from inside Washington.

First, a little background on me: For the past three years I wrote for "The Hotline," a daily political briefing published by the National Journal. While at "The Hotline," I contributed articles regularly to NRO, The Weekly Standard, the Americas Future Foundation, and others. Early risers can also find me occasionally offering weekly political analysis with ABC News Now.

My main focus here is to provide readers with a fresh angle on political news: the story behind the story you get on the evening news, the counter-story to the conventional wisdom of the day, etc. The Beltway Buzz will be a filter for anyone who wants to be in the know. And it will break some news, too.

And we're on the Internet, so feedback is easy to provide and is encouraged. My e-mail is efeiffer@nationalreview.com--so you know where to find me.

We're constantly thinking of new ways to make NRO bigger and better. With that general goal in mind, today National Review Online introduces a new feature: "Beltway Buzz," which promises to be required reading for anyone looking for Washington, D.C.-focused news and analysis.

We're delighted to have Eric Pfeiffer, formerly of National Journal's sweet daily political candy, "The Hotline," on board to be your daily Beltway buzzer. Welcome, Eric and welcome new Beltway Buzz bookmarkers. Enjoy.
--Kathryn Jean Lopez, Editor, National Review Online