Of his compromise proposal, Frist said, “This would provide more than enough time for every senator to speak on a nominee while guaranteeing that nominee the courtesy of a vote,”

In rejecting Frist’s offer, Reid called it, “a big wet kiss to the far right.”

As is likely obvious to Beltway Buzz readers, I am far from an expert on judicial matter. But in terms of the coverage the Reid and Frist proposals have received this week, the stories indicate the Frist proposal was more broad and sincere. Of course, neither side honestly expected their proposals to be accepted by either party. But in addition to offering more concessions in his proposal, Frist does represent the majority party who has increased that majority over the past two elections.

One detail often excluded in Democrat arguments in favor of the judicial filibuster is that Republicans controlled the Senate for most of Clinton’s presidency when his nominees were blocked by committee procedures.

Bill Frist proposed a counter-offer to Harry Reid’s “compromise” proposal earlier this week on judicial nominations.

First’s proposal was more direct, offering to allow the continued filibustering of lower-court nominees, if Democrats allow appeals court and Supreme Court nominations to receive floor votes. First also said he would allow for up to 100 hours of debate on appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Frist even agreed to procedural changes that would allow nominees to reach a floor vote. This has been the closest to evidence in an argument the Democrats have offered so far – that Republicans killed some of Clinton’s judicial nominees through committee procedures.

Reid immediately rejected the offer.

Tom DeLay called the budget, “the best since the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997.”

President Bush added at his news conference last night, “I’m grateful for that. It shows we are making progress.”

George V. Voinovich, Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee were the three Republican Senators to vote against the budget. Joe Lieberman was absent for the vote on the Democrat side.

The House and Senate last night passed their budget compromise. The plan barely passed the House, 214 to 211 and made it through the Senate 52 to 47.

In short, the budget compromise allows for drilling in ANWR, new tax cuts and the first entitlement program reductions since 1997.

Nearly a third of the budget savings will come from Medicare, and there are $106 billion in new tax cuts over five years, with $70 billion blocked from any possible Senate Democrat filibuster.

President Bush is speaking in Falls Church, Virginia right now to younger workers about the need for Social Security reform.

Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham had this to say about the president’s news conference last night:

“The president did make a long step forward tonight in the solvency debate, in the sense that he said we would reschedule benefits. Joe's [Biden] right in this regard - you can't tax your way into solvency. You can't grow your way into solvency, through accounts like the president suggested. You have to reschedule benefits. What he suggested tonight brings about 70 percent of solvency. But it's not all the way there. There's more to do. The president made a huge step forward. In the Republican world, we have to understand where the president's at and get on board with the ideas that benefits are on the table.”

Just a friendly reminder for those in the DC area tonight. National Review is hosting a happy hour at the Dubliner, located near Union Station (520 N. Capitol St., NW).

All your favorite NRO performers, and yours truly, will be hanging out from 6-8pm. Stop by and say hello if you can.

While President Bush’s Social Security remarks are stealing the newspaper headlines this morning, the general assumption is that more Americans are concerned about rising gas prices.

Those who watched the press conference know the president split his opening remarks between these two subjects. He also addressed issues including John Bolton, Iraq and the judicial filibuster.

On Bolton, the president said, “John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm a little too blunt. John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations. It seemed like to me it makes sense to put somebody who's capable, smart, served our country for 20 years, been confirmed by the United States Senate four times, and who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the ambassador to the U.N.”

“See, the U.N. needs reform. If you're interested in reforming the U.N., like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and who is not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations.”

The Washington Post has the details behind President Bush’s progressive indexing proposal.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei write that last night’s presidential news conference was “a bid to restore momentum to his flagging proposal to restructure Social Security -- and to his presidency.”

“The president's gamble was presented modestly last night, as a plan to help the working poor.”

“The president has taken another one of the bold strokes that worked so well for him in his first term … The outcome of Bush's bet will have an impact far beyond Social Security. If he succeeds, he will regain control of a national agenda that has slipped from his grasp in recent months. If he fails, he risks early admission into the lame-duck status that eventually afflicts all second-term presidents.”

The immediate reaction from TV pundits last night was that President Bush was not able to shift the debate on Social Security during last night’s news conference.

However, as many of these same pundits predicted, today’s papers are dominated by Bush’s remarks on Social Security. Both the effort he is making and the details provided can only help the reform effort.

President Bush released a statement late last night on the budget compromise reached between the House and Senate:

“This is a responsible budget that reins in spending to limits not seen in years. I appreciate the Members of Congress in the House and the Senate who worked hard to produce this agreement and who support its passage. It is not the government’s money that gets spent in Washington, D.C.; it is the people’s money -- and taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not spent at all.”

But Move On believes they alone have already won the left’s fight against an end to judicial filibusters. This week, MoveOn hosted hundreds of protests around the country and brought in Al Gore to deliver a “stirring” speech in Washington:

“It was the culmination of 10 days of intense action to save our courts – and it was a huge success. Two weeks ago, it seemed virtually certain that we would wake up today to find Bill Frist and the radical Republicans pulling the trigger on their ‘nuclear’ scheme to stack the courts. Instead, today Frist is scrambling for more time and grasping for more votes, while national polls show two thirds of the country solidly against him.”

Reader Alex writes in about the New York Times' coverage of the House reversal on ethics committee rule changes:

“There has been lots of gloating all around on the Democratic side, but they need to be careful what they wish for. I think this signals the first salvo in what will be yet another ethics war in Washington similar to the one in the late 80s-early 90s. Since Democrats appear to have received many of the same perks that Delay has received, this was probably the first step before the Republicans take aim at Pelosi and Reid.”

Colorado Democrat Senator Ken Salazar now says he “misspoke” when he called Focus on the Family the “anti-Christ.”

Salazar told a Colorado Springs TV station, “From my point of view, they are the anti-Christ of the world.” But just to be clear, Salazar “only” meant to call Focus on the Family “un-Christian” for their views on ending the judicial filibuster.

Focus President James Dobson responded, “His response in an effort to change the subject is to attack us personally. There's been no such rhetoric from here.”

As has been widely reported, President Bush will host a news conference tonight. The news conference will take place at 8:30pm EST.

The president will discuss gas prices and the need for Social Security reform during a 10-12 minute opening statement before taking questions from reporters.

Condoleezza Rice added additional support for Bolton’s nomination and United Nations reforms, saying, “We need at the United Nations a strong voice, and everyone knows that the U.N. needs reform.”

Scott McClellan was also asked yesterday if Democrats opposing Bolton’s nomination were also opposed to United Nations reform. McClellan responded, “That's what this issue boils down to.”

Foreign Relations Committee Chair Richard Lugar is now publicly expressing his belief that John Bolton will receive a confirmation vote from the committee, “We will have a vote that I believe will be favorable, and the committee will report the nomination to the floor,” Lugar said.

Meanwhile, the White House yesterday shifted the debate on Bolton to the United Nations itself. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters, “A vote for John Bolton is a vote for reform at the United Nations. A vote against him is a vote for the status quo at the United Nations."

USA Today looks at where Tom DeLay and the ethics committee go from here.

The New York Times chronicles the process that led to overturning House ethics committee rules yesterday, allowing an investigation of Tom DeLay and other House members to process.

However, much of the article is spent mocking House Speaker Dennis Hastert, describing the move as a “a rare retreat,” “a significant political embarrassment,” and when assessing the GOP leadership, declaring, “they surrendered to the Democrats.”

The Washington Post’s Jeffrey Birnbaum leads today’s DeLay coverage by stating, “Now that it's clear that his controversial private-paid trips abroad will be put under a microscope in Congress, Tom DeLay is in serious danger of being declared in violation of House ethics rules, legal experts say.”

However, the fact remains DeLay is not in any real danger unless it is proved he was aware of any possible rule violations before they took place. As congressional ethics expert Kenneth Gross said, “The rules are written in a way that indicate that if a member of Congress is misled about who's paying for things, that is a credible defense.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that Mitch McConnell offered a “procedural change in return for an end to judicial filibusters” as a counter to Reid’s compromise offer to the GOP yesterday:

“McConnell acknowledged that Republicans had stalled many of President Clinton's nominees during the committee vetting process. He offered to change committee procedures in return for an end to judicial filibusters.”

However:

“Democrats quickly denounced McConnell's proposal.“

The Daly Thoughts blog has a ton of info on yesterday’s Washington Post/ABC News poll. Worth checking out.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that the White House may block any deals on maintaining judicial filibusters. While Bill Frist is holding meetings with Democrats including Harry Reid on avoiding a showdown over the filibuster, the White House wants to avoid any potential filibuster over a potential Supreme Court nominee.

Is George Voinovich coming around? The Ohio senator who held up the Bolton confirmation vote has shown signs in the past week that he’s edging more towards supporting the White House nominee.

And yesterday, Voinovich announced that he would vote with Bill Frist to end filibusters on judicial nominees. Voinovich added, “I'm hoping that they come up with a compromise so we don't need to deal with this issue.”

USA Today adds the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will also submit about 20 questions to Bolton himself. The questions include requests for emails and telephone logs with individuals said to have had past confrontations with Bolton.

While the Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducts interviews of Bolton critics, the White House is organizing a show of support from Republican senators. A head count would show that a majority of senators support the Bolton nomination and that Democrat objections are simply stalling the inevitable.

The New York Times reports that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will interview as many as two-dozen individuals over the next two weeks in conjunction with John Bolton’s nomination. Democrats say Republican committee members have approved of the interview choices.

All of the interviews will be conducted in private, some by telephone. Those scheduled for interviews include a deputy CIA director and assistant secretary of state such as John McLaughlin, John Wolf and Thomas Hubbard.

Republicans on the House ethics committee have agreed to rescind a rule change that Democrats have cited in their refusal to convene with the committee. Reversing the rule change allows one party to bring an ethics charge against another member without bipartisan support.

Dennis Hastert is expected to ask the House for a vote on the rule rollback this week. The Hastert rollback package will also reverse a second rule change that throws out ethics complaints if the committee remains deadlocks for 45 days.

Meanwhile, President Bush offered strong support for Tom DeLay yesterday while appearing in Galveston, Texas. Bush said of DeLay, “I appreciate the leadership of Congressman Tom DeLay in working on important issues that matter to the country.”

DeLay appeared with Bush at a talk about Social Security with about 1,000 people who gave DeLay a standing ovation. DeLay also traveled with Bush aboard Air Force One.

USA Today reports all five Republicans on the House ethics committee have received financial contributions from groups linked to Tom DeLay. However, ethics committee member Melissa Hart notes, “That's just normal,” for a Majority Leader to have contributed to the re-election campaigns of members.

Buried in the coverage of yesterday’s Finance committee hearing is word that Democrats will not even allow the Social Security solvency issue to be addressed unless, “Mr. Bush personally promised that investment accounts would not become part of the legislation at a later stage.”

As Ron Wyden said, "To make progress, the White House must make clear that no private accounts will be involved."

Also, the never lacking in arrogance Charles Rangel met with President Bush last week to “urge” him to give up on personal accounts. Bush answered, "Congressman, I am the president. And private accounts are not coming off the table even if it's the last day I spend in the presidency."

The Washington Post leads their Social Security coverage with the hopeful headline, “GOP May Be Splintering on Social Security.”

Their evidence: Craig Thomas is worried about adding debt and Olympia Snowe is afraid of voter backlash. Thomas has a valid concern that will be addressed in committee before any bill is crafted. To call it a crack is an exaggeration. If fiscally conservative senators were not concerned about increasing the federal debt that would be bigger news. And Olympia Snowe breaking with party ranks equates to something far from surprise.

The Post then notes that Charles Grassley plans to move forward in committee on a reform plan, even if the bill “only” gets out of committee with GOP support. In two weeks, Republicans will meet to work out a plan they think can pick-up some Democrat support.

The more the American public sees of events like this, the more it’s going to help President Bush and Social Security reform proponents.

Democrat lawmakers who gathered on the Hill yesterday shouted their best scare lines then performed one of the more awkward “dances” caught on film. One can only hope their ability to move in step to the rhythmic stylings of Tom Petty is reflective of their ability to stand in opposition to reform.

As Charles Grassley said of the protest show, “Those of you that are bad-mouthing every other suggestion out there, suggest your own plans."

Reader Fisher writes in to say:

“I have to note that all civil service employees that joined the government from 1984 on pay into Social Security/Social Security Disability/Medicare at the full rate (those joining earlier didn't into Social Security though some later converted in and all are required to pay into Medicare.) Contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (and to the separate Federal pension plan) are over and above the Social Security taxes (an add-on instead of a carveout in current terminology.) So there's no extra burden on the rest of the working population (though it's not clear there would be anyway since noncontributors don't draw benefits and there's a fairly stiff penalty for those wanting to draw benefits from a few pre-government years of SS contributions.)”

Reader William writes in to ask:

“I can't help but be offended by the fact that for every government employee who is allowed to opt out of the social security nightmare the burden of solvency is increased on the rest of us ordinary citizens. In a small way isn't this just an additional tax burden on everyone else? Or am I stretching it?”

Could be wrong here, but I don’t think William is stretching it at all. It’s a great benefit for those five million public employees who are allowed to invest in personal accounts. But for those of us left without a choice, the burden is increased while the options are limited.

A new study released by the non-partisan Political Money Line shows members of Congress took more than $16 million in paid trips over the past five years.

Despite being the minority party, Democrats took the majority of trips, 3,025, compared with 2,375 for Republicans.

Out of members of Congress, Tom DeLay paced 28th on the list of top spenders. The top trip taker was Republican James Sensenbrenner. Those who finished higher on the list than DeLay include Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, Paul Sarbanes and Harold Ford Jr. Ford took the most trips of any member of Congress, though his 63 trips were mostly domestic.

Rasmussen Reports has some polling data that runs counter to the Washington Post/ABC News poll from this morning. In their polling, Rasmussen found that only 31 percent of Americans are following the battle over judicial filibusters “very closely.”

Meanwhile, when asked if the Senate rules should be changed to give every White House nominee a vote, 56 percent say “yes” and 26 percent say “no.”

Today, President Bush met with public employees in Galveston, Texas who invest in personal accounts outside of the Social Security system. All full-time employees in Galveston make use of the personal account system, and forty-nine percent of all state and local public employees are exempt from Social Security. Employees in Galveston elected in the early 80’s to opt out of the Social Security system.

Bill Frist is standing firm against Harry Reid’s offer to hold a vote on a fraction of blocked Bush judicial nominees in return for allowing judicial filibusters of other nominees to continue. Frist said he is sticking with the principle that all nominees deserve an up or down vote on the Senate floor, “Are we going to step back from that principle? The answer to that is no.”

The Hill reports that in 1983 while serving in the House, Harry Reid sponsored a bill that allowed members of Congress to opt out of the Social Security system.

Karl Rove, who is playing an increasingly large role in media affairs, sat down for an hour-long interview with USA Today. Rove rejected the so-called compromise offered by Harry Reid over judicial nominations. Rove said, “We believe that every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote. The process is not well served by these political games.”

Rove also offered his strong support for John Bolton, someone he has known for more than 30 years. Rove stated that critics of Bolton are using his as a target for the White House’s efforts to seek United Nations reform. “I'm absolutely confident he'll be confirmed,” Rove said.

Finally, Rove said of Tom DeLay, “He's going to continue to be an effective and strong leader." Rove added that if the ethics committee would review his case, it would "be quickly resolved" and clear his name.

Democrat reader Tom writes in on the Washington Post/ABC numbers to say:

“You’re doing a great job cause you’re starting to even get under my skin. Doesn’t matter how many people were sampled, the ratio is still the same and the numbers pass the margin of error.”

“7-10 indies, 8-10 dems and 5-10 GOP think the idea is flat out dumb and the only number that would affect would be the final support/against ratio. The breakdown percentages remain the same.”

Tom probably has a point there to some degree. However, if an appropriate number of Republican were sampled, the numbers might have been less stark. In addition, as I stated earlier, word choice is everything in polls like this. The Post/ABC would do readers a greater service by asking both versions of the question and comparing results.

The New York Times leads their story on John Bolton today under the guise that he provided misleading intelligence information on Syria’s pursuit of unconventional weapons.

However, it’s another case of Bolton pursuing avenues of critical thought and later aligning himself with majority opinion. Or, according to the Times, when Bolton discussed Syria publicly, his words “hewed to the limits on which the C.I.A. and other agencies had insisted.”

In an email to supporters titled “Do you know anyone in Virginia?” MoveOn writes:

“In just 2 days, a few radical Republican leaders will move to break the rules of the Senate, seize absolute power over judicial appointments, and stack the courts with extreme judges. Whether they succeed could depend on Senator John Warner from Virginia. If you know any Virginia residents, can you ask them to call Senator Warner?”

In case supporters are not particularly up on the issue of judicial filibusters, MoveOn has prepared a text for them to read when calling Warner’s office:

“Hello. I live in Virginia, and I would like to urge Senator Warner to oppose the "nuclear option" to eliminate the right to filibuster judicial nominations. I believe in fair judges, and checks and balances. Thank you very much.”

The Ankle Biting Pundits blog takes down today’s Washington Post/ABC News poll, noting the sampling was 35% Democrat - 32% Independent - 28% Republican and 5% "Other":

“Interesting numbers given that the 2004 elections, party ID was evenly split at 37% each. That means overall, Republicans were undersampled (in terms of people who actually vote) by 9%”

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll says that by a margin of almost 2-1, respondents are opposed to Senate rule changes that would end judicial filibusters.

However, what the Post doesn’t show is that this sort of poll is heavily skewed by word choice. The Post/ABC version relied on language that puts rule changes in a more drastic and negative light. Proponents of ending the filibuster have used language in polls asking if the president’s judicial nominees should received a vote in the Senate, which also receives substantial support comparable to the Post/ABC numbers.

In a new Strategic Vision poll of Florida voters, Jeb Bush led the potential field of GOP White House 2008 candidates with 26 percent, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 24 percent, John McCain at 18 and Bill Frist at 7 percent.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton led the field with 30 percent, followed by Al Gore with 19, John Kerry with 18 and John Edwards with 4 percent.

In possible 2006 Senate match-ups, Democrat Bill Nelson led Katherine Harris 48 to 41 percent. However, Nelson trails Charlie Crist 46 to 45 percent and Tom Gallagher 46 to 44 percent.

Harry Reid will offer a compromise plan to avoid a possible end to a filibuster on judicial nominees. His proposal would allow votes on two of three Michigan appeals court nominees and “potentially” one of four candidates “drawing the deepest opposition.” The GOP would have to agree to drop any rule changes that prevented filibusters. Reid said, "There is a way to avoid the nuclear shutdown, and I'm working with my colleagues to put that plan in place,”

In addition, the New York Times says Democrats have abandoned any planned to end Senate business should an end to filibusters be approved. However, Bill Frist is not expected to accept Reid’s offer.

When he’s not thinking of new ways to insult conservative voters, Howard Dean is busy finding out why they voted for George Bush over John Kerry last year.

Dean ordered surveys of Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New Mexico and Nevada, which were all won by Bush except Wisconsin. What the survey found was that “47 percent of voters and 51 percent of white women in the eight states -- said their voting decisions are influenced as much or more by their religious faith as by traditional political issues. Not surprisingly, they went heavily for Bush” over Kerry “with 66 percent backing the president.”

The Washington Post notes that since becoming DNC Chair, Howard Dean has become increasingly comfortable insulting Republicans and conservative voters:

“Dean has suggested that they are ‘evil.’ That they are ‘corrupt.’ He called them ‘brain-dead’ during a stop in Toronto -- and while the Terri Schiavo case was still in the news. He has tagged Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) as a ‘liar.’ Last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he mimicked a ‘drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh’ at an event there.”

As RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said, “It's odd that Howard Dean says he wants to earn the respect of those who live in the red states, but chooses to not only attack their views but attack them personally.”

I’ve been checking in with Hill sources today to register their take on yesterday’s Washington Post story concerning Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and the National Center for Public Policy Research. The general take is mild. As one source put it:

“My understanding is that the National Center still paid for it. And if Abramoff did break a House rule by paying for the trip even though he was later reimbursed by the National Center, what are the odds DeLay’s office was aware of this technicality?”

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger writes in Sunday’s Washington Post on the Bolton controversy:

“The real reasons Bolton's opponents want to derail his nomination are his oft-repeated criticism of the United Nations and other international organizations, his rejection of the arguments of those who ignore or excuse the inexcusable (i.e., the election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission) and his willingness to express himself with the bark off. As to the charge that Bolton has been tough on subordinates, I can say only that in more than a decade of association with him in the State Department I never saw or heard anything to support such a charge. Nor do I see anything wrong with challenging intelligence analysts on their findings. They can, as recent history demonstrates, make mistakes. And they must be prepared to defend their findings under intense questioning.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will not be the end of John Bolton. Sources have told me that if Bolton does not have the support to make it out of committee, a vote will not be held. President Bush would then make Bolton U.S. ambassador to the United Nations through recess appointment.

Such a move would be a disappointment for Bush foreign policy supporters, though it would not be a critical failure. It would also spare Bolton and the White House the extended negative news coverage that a full Senate vote promises. However, one question my sources have not answered is will the Foreign Relations Committee hold a vote that results in a tie and sends Bolton to the floor but without a recommendation?

UPDATE: Sloppy wording there, but no excuses. The question I intended to ask was would the White House support a vote that sent Bolton to the Senate floor without recommendation if their alternative was a deadlocked vote on a Bolton recommendation. Thanks to the many Beltway Buzz readers who wrote in with clarification.

Over the past week, a number of sources of told the Beltway Buzz that White House lobbying on behalf of John Bolton was little to none. While George Voinovich shocked everyone and disappointed Bolton supporters with his actions last week, effective White House pressure on him and other Republican senators could have avoided the embarrassment.

However, according to all accounts, the White House is now picking up the pace to round-up GOP support on the Foreign Relations Committee. Though even as Voinovich appears to be coming back on board, Bob Novak says, “All that can be promised is that their efforts on Bolton's behalf will be tougher and better organized than they have been so far. That should not be difficult because they could hardly be worse.”

A former legal adviser to USAID sent a letter to Barbara Boxer last Friday accusing John Bolton of yelling at her more than 20 years ago. According to Lynne Finney, Bolton “screamed that I was fired” when Finney refused to lobby for increased sales of infant formula to the developing world.

However, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said, "no one at USAID at the time has any recollection" of such an incident. "People who are opposed to the nomination are using vague memories and personal charges to attack what is substantively a strong nomination.”

The New York Times leads their piece on John Bolton today noting that Arlen Specter, while appearing on the Sunday talk show circuit, wouldn’t say that Bolton’s nomination is assured. Specter does not serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Washington Post takes a look at the Democrats’ surprising success at obstructing Republican-led initiatives in Congress this year:

“They have stymied President Bush's Social Security plan and held fast against judicial nominees they consider unqualified. To protest a GOP rule change, they have kept the House ethics committee from meeting. And they have slowed -- and possibly derailed -- Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton to become ambassador to the United Nations.”

Of course, what the Post doesn’t note is that none of this would be happening without GOP defectors.

USA Today writes as President Bush nears the end of his 60 day campaign to promote Social Security reform, he ‘appears to be further from achieving his signature goal of transforming Social Security” than when the tour began.

USA Today notes that while some Republican senators remain divided on personal accounts, conservatives in the House like John Shadegg and Mike Pence want “a showdown” on accounts.

GOP pollster Whit Ayres says it's "very premature to say this idea is dead and that it's not going to be resurrected.” And on Bush, “He is frequently underestimated, and I think he's being underestimated on this one.”

The Houston Chronicle looks at how the voter make-up of DeLay’s hometown district is changing. In short, it doesn’t seem to threaten DeLay and still leans heavily Republican, but it’s changing.

The New York Times adds detail to the DeLay/Abramoff trip story. They note the woman who normally handled financial arrangements for the National Center was eight months pregnant and had temporarily turned duties over to Abramoff’s firm. From a National Center attorney:

“Jack Abramoff was at the time of the trip to the U.K. a member of the board of the National Center, and Congressman DeLay and his staff understood that in connection with the U.K. trip, Mr. Abramoff was acting in his capacity as a member of the board. The National Center is a well-respected organization that has a strong reputation for integrity.”

The Washington Post reports that controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid for Tom DeLay’s airfare expenses on his American Express card during a 2000 trip organized by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

During the Scotland trip, DeLay’s expenses for “food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip.”

Even though Abramoff served on the National Center board of directors at the time, it is against House rules for a paid lobbyist to pick up expenses more than $50 for a member of Congress, even if later reimbursed by a non-profit organization like the National Center.

The National Center maintains that they paid for the trip and DeLay’s office maintains they did not know Abramoff or Buckham paid for the expenses.