This year’s budget contains some of the same education proposals Gingrich discussed at his AEI event earlier today. Along with the merits of Gingrich’s proposal, it also would bring in non-unionized officials into the classroom. The program is called the Adjunct Teacher Corp, and here’s its description from the budget:

Adjunct Teacher Corps Initiative
2004 2005 2006 Request

B.A. in millions -- $40.0
This new initiative would create an Adjunct Teacher Corps that would draw on the skills of well-qualified individuals outside of the public education system to meet specialized teaching needs in secondary schools. Instead of the usual focus on certification or licensure of such individuals, the initiative would concentrate on helping schools find experienced professionals who would be able to provide real-world applications for some of the abstract mathematical concepts being taught in the classroom and, in some cases, provide individuals to teach temporarily in hard-to-fill positions.

Funds would be used to make competitive grants to partnerships of school districts and appropriate public or private organizations to create opportunities for professionals to teach specific high-school courses in the core academic subjects, particularly in mathematics and the sciences. Adjunct teachers might teach one or more courses on the school site on a part-time basis, teach full-time in secondary schools while on leave from their jobs, or teach courses that would be available on-line or through other distance learning arrangements.

A popular story in Washington this week has been Arnold Schwarzenegger’s rumored loss of popularity. However, a new Field Poll survey shows 56 percent of Californians want to see Arnold Schwarzenegger re-elected, with only 30 percent “not at all” inclined to vote for him. The poll was conducted 2/8-2/17, surveying 800 registered California voters.

The poll reveals actor/director Rob Reiner pulling top support as the choice amongst Democrats to challenge Schwarzenegger. However, Schwarzenegger tops 50 percent against any potential candidate, including Reiner. Arnold beats Reiner 52-36 percent in a possible match-up. Schwarzenegger also receives a 62 percent approval rating in the survey.

Even if he is not able to seek the White House, he is the heir to the Bush money machine – no other Republican has shown a comparable ability to fundraise. He is expected to have raised $150 million by the end of next year.

Schwarzenegger’s first legacy opportunity lies in his redistricting plan. A second Field Poll shows 49 percent for Schwarzenegger’s model. If Schwarzenegger can succeed on re-districting he could leave a historic imprint on California politics.

Speaking at an American Enterprise Institute press conference this morning, Newt Gingrich offered some creative ideas on future education funding.

One such idea Gingrich presented is paying highly qualified experts in science and mathematics to teach in high-intensity time blocks allowing them to still pursue their private professions.

For example, if a high-school teacher could instruct five one hour blocks per week or one five hour block per week, you might have more qualified individuals willing to teach. Even more so if there were greater financial incentives for truly qualified instructors.

This would be preferable to “teachers hanging out in teacher lounges,” or “coaching Friday night football,” as Gingrich put it. This would not necessarily require additional education funding, but rather a restructuring of how current education funds are spent.

Gingrich also presented the idea of paying students for success in the sciences. “We have millions in fundraising for Friday football every year, but funding for the sciences, that’s weird,” Gingrich said.

He noted that there is little incentive for young students today to choose studying the hard sciences over more lucrative and immediately gratifying fields. Low-income students are often left to pursue athletics rather than academics, as a result of both cultural and financial pressures. When those dreams are not realized, millions of youth are left with few career options. If more education funding were direct to the students, this could change. “That way, students wouldn’t have to wait 22 years to get a paycheck, it could be every other Friday.”

As previously mentioned, the Senate/House rankings in last week’s National Journal named Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas as the most-conservative senator in 2004. I asked Senator Thomas what he thought about the ranking and received the following response:

“In Washington, we often frame things in terms of ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ ideologies. We serve the public better when our focus is on the issues and not the ideologies. While I support a robust economic agenda for the 109th Congress for a broad economic impact on our nation and the state of Wyoming, that plan stems from my relationship with my constituents. The folks in my state have conservative values and my job is to find a sensible way to balance those values with the many issues facing America today. Part of that plan includes tax reductions for working families and creating incentives to get folks back to work -- with a particular emphasis on controlling and reducing the national debt. If trying to protect our nation's economic security makes me conservative, so be it. But the important thing to remember is that we're here to protect people's quality of life -- it's the heart of our public service.”

This morning there is great economic news – the economy grew at a 3.8 percent annual rate in the final quarter of 2004, stronger than the previous estimate of 3.1 percent. For all of last year, the economy expanded by 4.4 percent, the highest in five years.

When the economic news is less than perfect, you can count on the mainstream media splashing the news on their front pages. Even when the news is good, if it’s less than the highest of estimates, these same papers will give more attention to the numbers being “less than previous estimates” rather than focusing on the actual numbers.

So, how are the major papers playing the news this morning? The Washington Post leads with, “U.S. trade deficit swells along with debt.” The New York Times runs the Associated Press report on the story, but relegates it to the business section. The Los Angeles Times has nothing yet on the news. USA Today gives the story top billing on its homepage.

Howard Dean might also want to make note of this. RNC Chair Ken Mehlman last night delivered the keynote address to members of the National Black Chamber of Commerce in Trenton, New Jersey.

In addressing the crowd, Mehlman noted, “I am here today because the party of Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass is not complete without more African-American support and participation.”

National Black Chamber of Commerce President Harry Alford had this to say, “We’re very excited as we begin 2005 that the chairman of the Republican National Committee is reaching out to our organization.”

Mehlman also commented on how President Bush’s initiative on education, small business incentives and Social Security are benefiting minorities.

Mehlman added, “I can’t speak for the party that has taken you for granted, but I can tell you as the national chairman of the GOP, we intend to compete hard for your support and to earn it. Give us a chance and we’ll give you a choice in politics, so that both parties are listening and learning and earning your support.”

As part of the RNC’s Black History Month “Conversations With the Community,” Mehlman will next speak to students at Howard University.

Howard Dean has begun his regular e-mail correspondence with Democrats that he maintained while first pursuing the presidency and later in his successful pursuit of the DNC Chair. Dean claims that he and his staff have read through thousands of letters to the DNC regarding their concerns surrounding the party. Dean, on his findings:

“One was the honesty I heard about your very practical concerns at the local level -- many wrote about starting a local party organization, or living in a heavily Republican area where it has been hard to get the resources to make a difference.

But we will meet those challenges -- because what stood out even more was the overwhelming energy and excitement at the grassroots of our party. So many Democrats can't wait to get started -- they want to grow our party from the ground up.

And that's exactly what we're going to do.”

Is it a mere coincidence that the two things which “struck” Dean were the exact two points he ran on in his race for DNC Chair? Regardless, Dean’s emphasis on the liberal grassroots will be the focus of his efforts as chair. The strategy seems correct in the sense that this is what has worked for Republicans. The catch is that self-identified liberals are a much smaller percentage of the voting population than self-identified conservatives. Therefore, Dean is making a gamble in believing that he can recruit new voters into becoming politically active and ultimately, voting for Democrats. It may fail miserably. Then again, it might not. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result – we can’t define Dean as crazy. He may just be wrong.

During his press conference yesterday, Arlen Specter claims the Senate may not have enough votes to confirm William Myers. Specter confirms that Myers will pass his committee vote, where the GOP holds a 10-8 advantage, but “when it comes to the floor, as you all know, it is another matter,” Specter said. Specter said he currently counts 58 votes towards the 60 needed to block a filibuster on Myers.

The Washington Post reports on how at the urging of Democratic lawmakers, a 527 group has been formed by liberal associates to fight Social Security Reform. The group calls itself Americans United to Protect Social Security and is locked at the hip with organized labor. The AFSCME has already donated $1 million of the group’s $25 million fundraising goal. The AFL-CIO and Campaign for America’s Future are also major donor-coordinators. The article’s final paragraph notes several pro-reform groups are also organizing to support the president’s plan, including Progress for America, Freedom Works and USA Next.

The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times all devout their lead story to the meeting yesterday between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Puttin. Bush’s comments on democratic rollbacks in Russia were nearly identical to statements he made publicly going into the meeting, Putin made some positive comments regarding democracy, adding that democracy and freedom are Russia’s “final choice.” When Putin was asked what he thought of Bush’s private comments, Putin said, "Some of the ideas that I heard from my partner I respect a lot. Some other ideas, I will not comment on.” His response was much lighter than the text may convey. Right after the comment, Bush laughed and Putin winked at him.

For all the talk of tension leading up to this meeting, there are two points to consider. An evolution of government following a bloodless coup such as what happened with the fall of the Soviet Union takes time. Second, for nearly his entire eight years in office, President Clinton ignored Russia. Some of these symptoms of democratic concern may be rooted in the negligence of American influence through most of the 1990’s. Even if there are bumps in the road, Bush’s hands-on approach to U.S.-Russian relations will deliver many positives in the present and the future. For all the post-inaugural snickering in liberal and even some conservative circles, President Bush is following through on his pledge to promote democracy and freedom.

Almost as if on cue from my first post today, the Washington Post has an enormous feature on Barack Obama. The headline: “The Senator's Humble Beginning - Rising Star Barack Obama Is Resolutely Down to Earth.”

Does anyone honestly believe a freshman senator receiving as much attention as Obama is really either “humble” or “down to earth?”

There is absolutely nothing new in this glamour profile. It’s full of all the same stuff about Obama you’ve heard a thousand times already. Though it does mention Tom Daschle’s defeat. But instead of talking about Thune’s early success, it features a mini interview with Tom Daschle – on how to succeed in the Senate. Yeah.

Washington Post “reporter” Dana Milbank’s rarely concealed editorial bias is no secret to conservatives. So, the fact that he trashed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in his column last week is not surprising.

However, all non-partisan accounts point to a cordial discussion between Rumsfeld and members of the House, including several Democrats.

Here’s an excerpt from Milbank’s piece:

“Two dozen members of the House Armed Services Committee had not yet had their turn to question Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at yesterday's hearings when he decided he had had enough. At 12:54, he announced that at 1 p.m. he would be taking a break and then going to another hearing in the Senate. ‘We're going to have to get out and get lunch and get over there,’ he said. When the questioning continued for four more minutes, Rumsfeld picked up his briefcase and began to pack up his papers. The chairman, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), apologized to his colleagues for a rather ‘unusual’ situation. With the Bush administration asking Congress this month to write checks for half a trillion dollars for the Pentagon, you might think the secretary of defense would set an accommodating posture on Capitol Hill. But, to paraphrase Rumsfeld's remark in December about the Army, you go to budget hearings with the defense secretary you have, not the defense secretary you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

However, the reason Rumsfeld had to leave before 1pm was not due to arrogance. It was because he had a scheduled meeting with the Senate at 1pm and still had to walk over to the chamber.

The BBC’s Katty Kay echoed Milbank’s sentiment on “Meet the Press” this weekend, adding, “look at Donald Rumsfeld this week. If ever we saw Donald Rumsfeld back in fighting form this week and giving everybody up on Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats alike, a hard time, this was it: refusing to answer questions about Iraq, refusing even really to be very courteous up on Capitol Hill.”

In both cases, the reporters offer partisan analysis without substance.

Could his article have been in response to Rumsfeld’s Washington Post critique during his testimony? For the sake of full disclosure, shouldn’t Milbank have mentioned the criticism in his article? More importantly, his editors should have insisted on such transparency.

Milbank’s background is in opinion journalism with the New Republic. It’s common practice for those in the mainstream media to recruit upcoming liberal writers and place them in what passes for unbiased reporting. The New York Times just recently picked up Nicholas Confessore from the hyper-liberal Washington Monthly.

Would the NYT or WP hire someone of the same pedigree from a conservative publication? The evidence, like their impartiality, is lacking.

The Oregonian’s exceptional Dave Reinhard writes in to say he also picked up on Senator Ron Wyden’s quote regarding assisted-suicide that I posted yesterday.

Reinhard on Wyden’s rationale: “As for states' rights and ‘the rights of Oregonians as citizens of a sovereign state,’ we wouldn't be having this debate if Oregon voters had not waded into an area of federal jurisdiction in passing their particular assisted-suicide law. States' rights doesn't mean a state can take over or ignore an established area of federal regulation.”

Reinhard has devoted today’s column to the topic, which you can read here.

Last night I attended a roundtable discussion hosted by the America’s Future Foundation. The topic was “Conservatives and Libertarians: Can This Marriage Be Saved?” featuring a panel of two conservatives and two libertarians. The “pro-marriage” side was led by James Antle of The American Conservative and Jeremy Lott of the Cato Institute. Amy Mitchell of The American Spectator and Nick Gillespie of Reason argued in favor of a split.

There was some decent discussion, and much blather.

Though I disagreed with several of his points, Gillespie clearly was the most comfortable on stage in delivering his argument. He certainly surpassed the Pabst Blue Ribbon swilling, Death Cab for Cutie loving, hipster circa 2001 image I had going in.

Most disappointing was the stark absence of conservatives in support of the liberation of Iraq. Once again, it was Gillespie who offered the most measured insight. He didn’t support the liberation going in, but was not in denial about the success of elections. However, the onslaught of hissing and cackles whenever Amy Mitchell made some point defending traditional conservative values or the war made me feel like I was back in Eugene, Oregon suffering the trust-fund progressive masses.

The panel seemed stumped when asked to define conservatism. On this point and a few others, some on the panel and a few in the audience made negative remarks about National Review. Surprisingly, it was Gillespie who offered his opinion that NR best defines what it means to be conservative.

AFF is a great place for young conservatives and libertarians to dip their toe into the DC scene. Jerry Brito runs the fantastic Brainwash site, where I was given my first shot at freelance writing in Washington. They also have a fine print quarterly, Doublethink, edited by the Weekly Standard’s David Skinner.

I just hope on future roundtable discussions they will broaden the realm of opinion concerning what it means to be a conservative. Though as I learned in Eugene, when spoiled brats are hissing at you, you’re probably doing something right.

Not sure how much faith we want to put in Quinnipiac’s Florida polling. But they have new numbers out showing Governor Jeb Bush with a 52–39 approval rating. And as a counter to the piece I ran earlier this week on Floridians supporting a White House run by Jeb, Quinnipiac is claiming that by a 67–25 margin voters do not want him to run.

Their Florida polling has been off the mark more than once, but those White House numbers to match-up with what I said was typical for initial home state support of candidates running. In no sense would this be a roadblock for Jeb. It’s really not news in a conventional sense at all. What would really be news is if those earlier numbers showing a majority support for him running at such an early stage were accurate.

In the Quinnipiac poll, Jeb also gets great numbers across the board on the economy (62–35), jobs (54–41) and the environment (52–40). Though he does get a net negative for not cutting taxes enough (51–41).

The Los Angeles Times has its own version of the story I posted last night about Republican lawmakers selling Social Security reform in their home districts. It’s a decent read.

There is still a lot of coverage concerning the last leg of President Bush’s European trip. The Washington Post says Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin will counter talk of tension between our two nations by unveiling a plan to curb the threat of nuclear terrorism. Obviously, problems with Russia’s decaying nuclear reactors are nothing new. We’ve all seen enough bad movies to know that. The Atlantic Monthly has a great profile of Putin for those seeking more insight into his alleged democratic crackdowns.

In more Euro talk, the New York Times claims the WH is now open to offering the Iranian mullahs “incentives” in exchange for ending their nuclear ambitions. In a very condescending piece, Elisabeth Bumiller notes, “Mr. Bush, when asked at the news conference if he thought incentives for Iran would work, sidestepped the question. But he did warmly praise the Europeans for their efforts in the talks.”

John Thune is proving himself a rare first-year senator in many regards. Along with the heightened level of attention he is receiving in GOP circles for defeating former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Thune has started his own PAC, Heartland Values. Not wasting any time, Thune has already signaled at least one Republican senator up for re-election that he plans to help with his PAC’s funds, Jim Talent.

On the left, media darling Barack Obama has also started his own pack. This won’t come as any great shock to BB readers, but consider the gap in coverage between these two men in their respective victories. Obama understandably deserves coverage for his victory as an African-American into the Senate. But he did so beating Alan Keyes. Regardless of his ethnic biography, the media was more focused on the fact that he was essentially the only positive story for Democrats out of last year’s election and they weren’t going to let his success go uncovered – again, and again, and again.

On the other hand, Senator Thune captured a historic victory over Daschle. Regardless of one’s political views, it’s a great story. Nonetheless, he has not received the level of coverage he deserves. Imagine if his victory had played out under the exact same circumstances, but he had a (D) after his name. In the meantime, I’m sure Thune and his supporters can reconcile themselves with winning – both in their great 2004 victory and in helping good candidates like Jim Talent in the future.

Congressman Mike Pence just called into the Beltway Buzz, from the 6th District in Indiana. Pence is making use of the break in session to hold a series of town hall meetings with voters regarding Social Security reform. He has held five this week alone. When asked about the effort to get members of the House out in their local districts discussing reform, Pence said, “We are making an effort to get members out there in town hall meetings and on radio. I think there’s a genuine sense that we tell our story better when we tell it at home. We are urging our members to go home and do that.”

Congressman Pence is no stranger to town hall meetings. He holds about 50 of them each year. He also noted that his office has been receiving a high volume of mail regarding Social Security reform with about a 50/50 split of those in favor of and opposed to reform.

I asked Pence what kind of response he has been getting from citizens at the town hall meetings. “I told the White House I have been surprised by two things. First, in regards to the idea that Social Security is in a fiscal crisis. Nobody’s buying it. But the second thing that has surprised me is that many of these same people are very open to personal accounts.”

Pence stresses this point as evidence that honesty with the voters is the best route to reform. “I think most people underestimate the intellect and patriotism of senior citizens,” he said. Pence notes that the White House has been expecting the opposite reaction from most seniors, “The White House focus has been on the hard lifting of personal accounts. They believe everyone knows there is a fiscal crisis. I’ve found just the opposite.”

This is a prime example of why President Bush is seeking so much congressional feedback and ideas on how to best pursue reform. Pence noted that just about everyone told him he would suffer for not supporting Medicare increases. But that hasn’t happened. So, he has a measured degree of skepticism as well for those who tell him seniors will reject personal accounts out of hand. And this time, he knows the White House is listening, “The White House is genuinely grateful for the enthusiasm of Republican members of Congress on this issue.”

House subcommittee on Social Security Chair Jim McCrery issued the following response to Campaign for America’s Future’s conference call with reporters and their announced attack ad buy:

“As Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, it is my intention to preserve Social Security as the financial safety net for the elderly in our country. But to stick our heads in the sand and proclaim there is no problem with how Social Security is financed is short-sighted and threatens the future of the program and, indeed, our nation. Despite the pitiful attack campaign against me being waged by Campaign for America’s Future, I will not be deterred in my effort to help President Bush do what is right for our country – reform Social Security to make it and our seniors more secure, and our nation more prosperous for everyone.”

And here’s some info on CAF:

According to Political Money Line, the top two individual contributors to CAF were George Soros ($300k) and Steve Bing ($100k).

The founding members of CAF also just happen to be the former president and national director of Americans for Democratic Action, the self-described “nation’s oldest liberal organization.” I recently wrote about those ADA party animals here.

Hope that adds some perspective.

More in the vein of today’s Newsday story on liberals targeting pro-Social Security reform office holders in New York. Today, Campaign for America’s Future Director Ellen Miller held a conference call with reporters outlining how House subcommittee on Social Security Chair Jim McCrery is “an emblem of the increased corruption in Congress” due to his support of reform.

The group will release an ad campaign in McCrery’s “backyard” targeting him for ties to the commercial and banking industries. The ads will begin tomorrow and continue on Sunday with placements in the Shreveport Times and Shreveport Sun. The group is also attempting to raise money for broadcast ads.

Miller, in the conference call:

“Rep. McCrery is compromised as chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee because he’s accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash from the very interests who will benefit the most if the president’s plan to privatize Social Security is passed. McCrery presents a perfect example of the corruption rampant in today’s Congress.”

Who knows if these ads will have any real impact? But it’s worth noting how the other side is planning their attack. Miller’s criticism does illustrate an intellectual inconsistency of the left. They see it as corrupt when a free market politician accepts campaign funds from groups with similar interests. But it is somehow lacking corruption when a liberal politician accepts payola from environmental and socially liberal groups to due their bidding.

Just spoke with Senator George Allen’s office and they offer the following response to the Emerson College poll, testing Governor Mark Warner vs. Allen: “We’ve said all along that any opponent, especially a self-financed multi-millionaire, is going to present a challenge. That’s why we’re gearing up our campaign for 2006. We’re not taking anything for granted.”

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the numbers do seem suspect. As Allen’s office articulated, Governor Warner should by no means be underestimated. But someone who has been as successful as Senator Allen has in his first term and who has garnered such strong support from conservative circles, surely will receive more than 80 percent of the GOP vote, and 14 percent of independent votes. We’re talking about a man here who was already elected Governor and who ran a widely respected campaign as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. There’s a reason he’s getting good White House 2008 buzz. But he will likely have to take on and slay Warner first.

On another note, a reader writes in regarding the poll’s questioning:

“As a VA GOPer, I can attest to the weird poll numbers.”

“Governor Mark Warner is benefiting from a name recognition foul-up. The other Senator in this state is, as you already know, John Warner, the 20+ year GOP veteran. I'm guessing a smattering of Republicans and a lot of less-knowledgeable independents are getting their Warners confused.”

Could this be the case? I’ll try to get in touch with the Emerson College folks for their take.

I’ve been speaking with sources close to the judicial nominee process and have uncovered some information that could possibly be helpful in the case of William Myers. If you remember from one of my earlier posts, The Washington Post reported that Myers is “under investigation” for possible involvement in a bogus Wyoming land deal. The Post went to great lengths to show how this could make Myers’ hearings a problem. He is otherwise considered one of the more likely to succeed judicial nominees.

The source says: “So, here’s the deal: a crooked DOI officer was likely bribed into giving a Wyoming rancher a sweetheart deal on grazing rights in public lands. That crooked interior officer lied to his superiors at interior about the deal, one of whom was Myers. The extent of Myers’ involvement was receipt of the crooked officer’s briefing paper that contained ‘materially false information.’ Myers was never a target of IG’s investigation, and the IG concluded that Myers was a victim of the crooked officer’s lies.”

Now, I got my hands on a memo from the Department of the Interior to Senator Orrin Hatch regarding Myers. The memo is written by Inspector General Earl E. Devaney. It contains the following:

“The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is conducting an investigation into this matter. That investigation is ongoing. To date, however, our investigation has determined that Mr. Myers was not personally involved in the negotiation of the settlement agreement. While we have found evidence that Mr. Myers was the recipient of a briefing paper and at least one e-mail regarding the status of settlement negotiations, this is the limited extent to which we have been able to determine that he was involved. Not insignificantly, our investigation has determined that the briefing paper and e-mail provided to Mr. Myers contained materially false information. Mr. Myers was one of several Departmental officials to whom this materially false information was provided.”

“The OIG is working diligently to complete the Robbins investigation as soon as practicable, hopefully within the next four to six weeks.”

Also, as the Buzz previously reported, Myers’ hearing is scheduled for the beginning of next week, either 3/1 or 3/2.

Add Virginia Senator George Allen to the list of Republicans who may have to secure their own local re-election before pursuing a possible White House run.

An Emerson College poll taken 2/13-2/16 shows Democratic Governor Mark Warner leading Allen in a possible election showdown. The survey of 420 likely voters shows Warner leading 48 to 41 percent, with 11 undecided.

What raises my skepticism most in this poll is the statistic showing Allen receiving only 81 percent of GOP support, with 11 going to Warner and 8 percent undecided. Conversely, 93 percent of Democrat support goes to Warner, with 5 percent supporting Allen and a mere two percent undecided. And the so-called independent sampling shows Warner taking 73 percent of their vote, with only 14 going to Allen, and 14 undecided. I find that hard to believe.

Warner also receives a 71 percent approval rating, with 15 percent disapproving of his job performance.

In the National Journal rankings, Allen receives the following conservative scores: economic (65), social (71) and foreign policy (67).

Allen’s camp is not likely to be in any sort of panic mode. The election is still a ways off. But it’s worth noting that Allen, Rick Santorum and George Pataki all must choose whether or not to face tough re-election campaigns before setting their sights on Pennsylvania Avenue.

From the Washington Post story I linked to below, there is a fun fact worth pointing out. In the agreement reached with NATO to train 1,500 Iraqi forces, France had agreed to commit a single military officer. From the story, "France on Tuesday became the final NATO member to commit to the training effort, following recent commitments by Germany, Greece and Belgium. France pledged one military officer to help in coordination at NATO headquarters,"

The usual suspects focus on Bush’s differences with European leaders this morning. Granted, the second half of the president’s European trip is likely to be less cordial than the first half, with its focus on the future of NATO, Iran and arms sales to China.

I have been contributing a series of articles on U.S.-Chinese relations to the Beijing Review, for anyone interested in having a look.

Domestically, much coverage is being given to Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was accused in a federal court of plotting to assassinate President Bush. Even liberal outlets like the Los Angeles Times have done a good job of focusing on the charges and Ali’s shadowy background before paying credence to his alleged grievances with the U.S. government.

Being a native Oregonian, I have followed the physician assisted suicide debate for years. Today’s Oregonian newspaper devotes its front-page, above-the-fold story to the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the case. On social issues and taxes, most Oregonians tend to have a strong libertarian streak – so I don’t expect the court’s decision to get much positive coverage here. Since the law went into effect, 171 terminally ill patients, with doctor cooperation, have chosen to end their own lives.

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden is quoted in the story as saying, “Some people confuse this question of social values and cultural values with what’s really at question here … whether citizens, on a medical practice, that has been historically left to the states, should have a bunch of people from Washington D.C. push them around.” Wyden’s language makes use of some nice libertarian flourishes, but it’s dishonest language nonetheless. How can any issue have been “historically left to the states” when it is the first and only such law in practice and one which is less than a decade old? Secondly, Wyden’s record on other issues such as taxes, Social Security, Medicare and firearms shows he normally has no problem with Washington deciding what’s best for the people he represents.

Meanwhile, Newsday reports that liberal activists are targeting New York Republicans. The activists want all elected NY officials to sign a pledge opposing Social Security reform before the details of the White House plan are even presented. Congressman Peter King isn’t biting, “I think everything should be on the table," said King. "To rule anything out before the debate begins is the height of irresponsibility. This issue is too important to be determined by applause meters or by giving into pressure groups on either side.”

I'll be on ABC News Now this morning in the 8am hour to discuss the progress made and obstacles still faced during President Bush's European trip.

A few days ago, a friend and I made a trip out to the new Ted's Montana Grill located in Alexandria, Virginia. This is the growing chain of restaurants founded by CNN creator/liberal guru Ted Turner. Now, I don’t need to tell BB readers about Turner’s wacky statements on politics, and well, just about everything under the sun. But the man seems to know good food.

While dining, I tried the beer can chicken, which was quite delicious. As usual, my dining partner made the wiser choice. She had the chicken fried steak dinner special, which was ridiculously tender and rich in flavor.

Anyway, several of the restaurant’s booths are inscribed with quotes from historical luminaries. As luck would have it, we were seated at the one booth with a Turner “quote.” Carved into the wood was the following declaration, “Do something – lead, follow, or get out of the way. – Ted Turner”

Lost in the culinary delights, I had to wait till I returned home to confirm my suspicions regarding the quote’s origins. A quick search reveals the quote actually belongs to one Thomas Paine. Ever heard of him, Ted?

Long story short: Ted Turner, right on food – wrong on everything else. And you can quote me on that.

We’ve already posted Frist’s lifetime rating, but here are his stats for ’04 (77.0) vs. ’03 (86.5). Tom DeLay gets a 93.3 rating, down only a fraction from last year (93.7). House Speaker Dennis Hastert did not vote enough this year to receive a ranking. But his ’03 ranking was 95.8.

For the Democrats, Harry Reid received a 70.7 liberal rating for ’04. This is actually less liberal than his ’03 rating of 77.5 Nancy Pelosi receives a score of 89.5, up from last year’s 85.7 score. Like most liberal members of Congress, she’s still stuck in an 80’s mentality.

The most liberal Republican member of the Senate last year was Lincoln Chafee, with a 52.5 LIBERAL rating. The next four most liberal senators are Olympia Snowe (50.8), John McCain (48.3), Arlen Specter (48.3) and Mike DeWine (48.2).

The most conservative Democrat in 2004 was *surprise* Zell Miller, with a 75.5 composite conservative rating. The four following most conservative Democrats: Ben Nelson (48.8), Max Baucus (42.7), Mary Landrieu (40.2) and John Breaux (39.8).

NJ goes out of their way to mention that Santorum’s declining conservative ranking for 2004 is due primarily to a single vote – voting against the sale of guns without trigger locks – “his only ‘liberal’ vote on a social issue”, dropped his score down 60 percent in this category. Unfortunately, he was not the only prominent GOPer to vote this way. Conversely, liberal darling Russ Feingold voted against extending the assault weapons ban and mandatory seat belt use, which helped to moderate his score somewhat. As NJ points out, Feingold actually had a much more moderate voting record until 2001, when he was first cited as having aspirations for higher office.

The top five most conservative members of each chamber for 2004 rate as follows:

Senate:
Don Nickles 91.5
Craig Thomas 91.5
Wayne Allard 90.8
Jon Kyl 90.8
Michael Enzi 90.3

House:
Mac Collins 97.0
Jack Kingston 97.0
Ed Schrock 97.0
Todd Akin 95.8
Tom Feeney 95.8
(Mike Pence and Trent Franks tie as well)

And the most liberal:

Senate:
Daniel Akaka 94.0
Dick Durbin 93.2
Paul Sarbanes 92.2
Ted Kennedy 91.2
Jack Reed 90.3

House:
Pete Stark 97.3
Raul Grijalva 96.7
George Miller 96.5
John Olver 96.0
John Tierney 96.0

The new Strategic Vision poll should be making noise in conservative circles. SV polled 1,200 registered Florida voters 2/16-2/20 on a variety of issues.

The real news out of this poll is that 57 percent of voters polled said they would like to see Jeb Bush seek the White House in 2008. This is the first poll I’m aware of which shows a currently serving, statewide elected official receiving a majority of support from his constituents to seek higher office. In fact, most politicians, no matter how high their statewide approval ratings, tend to get initial WH support in the 15 percent range.

Additional numbers show President Bush (the current one) with a 56 percent approval rating. He also receives 55 percent approval on his handling of the economy. 57 percent approve of his handling of Iraq. Social Security reform is evenly split at 42 percent. Frankly, this should be considered quite positive. We all know Florida has a very high rate of elderly citizens, who are consistently those most opposed to personal account reform.

Governor Bush has a 62 percent approval rating.

Republican voters asked to name their preference for the 2008 nomination selected Governor Bush with 34 percent. Rudy Giuliani comes in second with 27 percent. McCain is third with 16 percent and Frist follows with 4 percent. Even though it was only little more than a month ago, it’s already feeling like ancient history when Giuliani was leading every 2008 poll.

Democrats put Hillary Clinton first with 30 percent. Interestingly, Al Gore comes in second with 20 percent. Kerry follows at 17 percent, trailed by Edwards, with 5 percent. This should add more fuel to Gore’s fire. Granted, there are enough variables here to make one’s head spin – but just for fun, let’s imagine – another Bush/Clinton showdown, a Gore/Bush “rematch.” Is this nepotism at its worst, or really the best each party has to offer?

Lynn Swann will begin touring Pennsylvania in a build-up to a possible challenge to Ed Rendell. Beltway Buzz has learned he’ll make the following stops in the coming months:

2/24: Westmoreland County
4/14: Montgomery County

4/28: Blair County
5/10: Lancaster County

National Journal’s new Senate and House rankings are out. For those unfamiliar, these are the rankings that became famous during the 2004 presidential campaign for citing John Kerry as the most-liberal member of the U.S. Senate. This year’s rankings are full of interesting, and in some cases, surprising data on members of Congress. Of particular interest are the rankings of those Senate members considering a run for the White House in 2008:

On the GOP side, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback has the highest lifetime conservative voting record, giving him a lifetime average composite conservative score of 82.5. In descending order are Rick Santorum (78.8), George Allen (78.2), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (77.2), John McCain (73.3), Chuck Hagel (71.7) and Lindsey Graham (67.4).

Frist, McCain, Hagel and Graham have all seen their voting records shift away from the right over the past year, with McCain and Hagel making the largest shifts. On social issues, Graham has stayed the most true to his conservative roots, while shifting somewhat on economic and foreign policy issues.

On the left, John Kerry maintains top “honors” amongst Democrats who may seek the White House in 2008. Kerry’s lifetime average composite liberal score comes in at 85.7. In descending order are Hillary Clinton (80.7), Russell Feingold (80.2) Chris Dodd (78.9), Joseph Biden (76.6) and Evan Bayh (61.9).

There is no shortage of buzz worthy information in these results. Why do certain Democrats rate more to the center than others? On what issues did Frist and other White House hopefuls vote against the party? Who are the most conservative and most liberal members of the House and Senate? I’ll provide the answers to all of these questions throughout the day and hopefully get some reactions from members themselves.

On “Meet the Press,” moderator Tim Russert asked Senator John McCain if he thought Senator Hillary Clinton would make a good president. McCain’s response, “I am sure that Senator Clinton would make a good president. I happen to be a Republican and would support, obviously, a Republican nominee, but I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president.” Russert added, “Equal time, Senator Clinton. The gentleman to your left?” Clinton, emitting a series of high-pitched laughs, “Absolutely.” Russert concluded, “We may have a fusion ticket right here.”

On the surface, Russert was just having fun with the two senators who are already making clear intentions to pursue their respective party’s 2008 presidential nomination. But just how far-fetched is the so-called fusion ticket idea? First, let’s assume both candidates initially try for their party’s nomination. If Clinton fails, that’s it. McCain would have no reason to recruit her, as she would only turn off conservative voters and he already has moderates in his corner. However, should McCain fall for a second time in the GOP primaries, who is to say exactly what might happen? John Kerry already all but offered the most exclusive element of the job, dictating foreign policy, to McCain last year – the VP, Pentagon, etc. What would stop Clinton from doing the same? Just a thought.

The new Zogby poll, conducted 2/14-2/17, shows upward movement in various levels of approval for the president and his policies. 23.7 percent rate the president’s job performance as “excellent,” 25.7 percent rate “good,” 18.4 percent rate “fair,” and 31.5 choose “poor.” Granted, the largest single response registered was “poor.” However, if you combine the net positives of “excellent” and “good,” the president receives a net positive rating of 49.4 percent. And surely, some of the “fair” respondents are supporters of the president. Secondly, the Zogby numbers have almost never been kind to Bush. Considering the source, they are positive if not dream numbers. The president’s personal approval numbers continue to be strong, hovering at 56 percent.

Overall support for the war in Iraq remains in the majority at 52.5 percent. And a more substantial majority, 61.2 percent, believes that U.S. efforts will bring a stable democracy to Iraq.

On a related Zogby note, a reader writes in with the following feedback:

“I just finished one poll on Republican 2008 presidential candidates and three things stood out to me. First, no mention of Condoleezza Rice. Second, several questions re: would I consider a candidate who was black, female, homosexual, or pro-choice. Third, and most curious to me, was the demographic question ‘What's your sign’.

Maybe Zogby figures there's something to this astrology stuff.”

Apologies if the Buzz is overly Iraq centered today. But on the eve of President Bush’s summit with European leaders, the EU has agreed to train high-level Iraqi police officers and judges. It’s a move that has been discussed for so long and in such detail that it feels odd discussing as “news.” Nonetheless, news it is.

Even better, and most assuredly news, is this tidbit: “The mission, due to start mid-2005, could be extended to Iraq if security allowed.”

While it is most tempting for conservatives to salivate over Europe’s sweet surrender in light of the president’s re-election victory and successful elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, restraint reflects more admirably on our mission in the Middle East. Little doubt, most if not all of our European friends are getting on the Iraq bandwagon because it is now convenient to due so. No free country wants to be aligned on the wrong side of history. However, I believe the leaders of these countries do deserve a modicum of respect. After all, it may be historically expedient for them to compromise with the coalition, but they still must do so in the face of their voting populations who to this day would act otherwise.

The New Harris Interactive Poll offers some compelling data from voters concerning Iraq. The pollsters tracked 1,012 U.S. adults between 2/8 and 2/13.

• 88 percent of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein would have made weapons of mass destruction if he could have.

• 76 percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein.

• 64 percent believe that history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

• 64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda.

• 61 percent believe that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious threat to U.S. security.

A final point which Harris buries near the bottom of their poll analysis is that “only” 46 percent believe that Saddam Hussein was prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction by the U.N. weapons inspectors.

The results from this poll are not singular. Virtually every poll concerning Iraq shows similar results in the categories mentioned above. This goes to the heart of the left’s Iraq problem. Clearly, 88 percent of the populace does not support the war in Iraq. Let’s say liberation support hovers around 55 percent. That still leaves more than 30 percent of the population, who while not supporting the costs derived from ousting Saddam Hussein, understand the potential threat he possessed. And on a point most often derided by the media and war critics alike, a majority concurs with the liberators on Hussein’s connections to al Qaeda.

At last Thursday’s Pacific University debate with Richard Perle, DNC Chair Howard Dean repeatedly stressed his belief that the disadvantage facing Democrats on national security was solely one of image. These polling results are another point of evidence that counter Dean’s premise.