Yesterday, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage offered his endorsement of John Bolton for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Armitage’s former boss Colin Powell has held private conversations with Chuck Hagel and other Republicans to express his reservations about Bolton’s nomination. Armitage told the Associated Press, “John Bolton is eminently qualified. He's one of the smartest guys in Washington.”

Meanwhile, Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are hoping to interview former Powell aide Larry Wilkerson, who has been a public critic of Bolton. Democrats were supposed to complete their investigation of Bolton today, in advance of next Thursday’s scheduled vote on his already twice-delayed nomination. However, ranking SFRC Democrat Joe Biden is threatening to hold up the vote again.

Marist College has some new polling data on possible 2008 presidential race match-ups:

Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton leads the Democratic field with 40 percent support. John Kerry comes in second, with 18 percent, followed by John Edwards with 16 percent.

Rudy Giuliani leads the GOP pack with 27 percent of polled Republicans backing him. John McCain places second with 20 percent and Jeb Bush taking in 10 percent. Marist says their data shows Giuliani’s approval numbers steadily climbing since the Bernard Kerik scandal last December. 71 percent of Republicans would at least like to see him run.

However, Marist has some interesting party match-up numbers. Though more Republicans support Giuliani, John McCain plays stronger with the general electorate. McCain comes out ahead of both Clinton and Kerry in possible electoral showdowns. However, the Democrat who fares best against the Republicans is John Edwards.

Edwards comes out 3 points ahead of Giuliani and 3 behind McCain. Clinton would loses to both Giuliani and McCain.

Marist polled 1,007 voters. 838 of the respondents are registered voters, including 376 Democrats and 352 Republicans.

I guess this is cosmic retribution for giving John Kerry a hard time all day. If you followed the entertainment industry’s involvement with the Kerry campaign last year, you might remember an annoying music outfit called the Black Eyed Peas touring the country in support of Kerry’s campaign.

Well, because of my Internet problems today, I’ve sought refuge in an Apple store with a free wireless connection. I’m purchasing a pair of new headphones today, so I felt the exchange of goods was fair. But Apple has a different barter in place for making use of their wireless connection. You are seated in front of a projector screen that in between seminars on making the most of your laptop (which are actually quite interesting and helpful) you are treated to a repeating pair of commercials featuring the bands U2 and Black Eyed Peas.

So, over the past seven hours, I have been treated to the musical stylings of “Let’s get it started” accompanied by video testimonials from members of the Black Eyed Peas at least three dozen times. My eardrums are sitting next to me right now, arms akimbo, saying, “I hate you.”

For my liberal readers, enjoy.

More feedback from Beltway Buzz readers on the McCain/Kerry story from earlier today:

“McCain is not giving advice...he's hitting Kerry first. This statement is more of a head's up to the strong support McCain has in New Hampshire. How do you get in the news? Easy...attack Kerry on what he's weakest on.”

“Looking back to 2004, Kerry basically offered McCain the VP slot. So, when 2008 comes around, what's Kerry going to say about McCain? Answer, nothing. If McCain is the nominee, which is a good bet, can he compete in Mass.? I think, yes. Assume McCain is on the ticket with say Rudy. Rudy is the kind of guy that can get votes in Mass. Could you imagine the Rudy tour of every firehouse and police station in Boston? There was a poll right after the election that had Hillary way ahead of Kerry, among Mass. voters, for 2008. I think McCain is using the unpopularity of Kerry to begin to plant the seeds of doubt among Mass. voters.”

“2008 could really be a Reagan type landslide for the Republicans if they don't screw it up.”

Columnist Charles Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post today on President Bush’s progressive indexing proposal:

“Democrats objected that [personal accounts] did nothing about the really important issue, namely solvency. So Bush offered five solvency alternatives in his State of the Union address (four first proposed by Democrats) and welcomed any other ideas. The Democrats answered: 'You go first.' On April 28 the president did go first, proposing a remarkably progressive reduction in the rate of growth of benefits. … This is about as fair and progressive a plan as you can find.”

Bill Thomas continues his march towards Social Security telling Democrats to stop insisting personal accounts be taken off the table before a compromised can be negotiated. Thomas said, “You can't rule out anything or you're never going to be able to make law. The minute you start ruling out stuff at the beginning of the process it means you've already narrowed your options and it's hard enough to make law in this environment.”

In more Kerry news, the junior senator from Massachusetts is now offering some criticism for state Democrats. State Democrats are expected to offer a platform that endorsed same-sex marriage. Kerry responded by saying, “I think it's a mistake. I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state.”

Massachusetts state Democratic Chair Philip Johnston said, "I have great affection and respect for John, but I disagree on this issue It is important that the state Democratic Party support civil rights. We need to take a stand."

Reader Kevin writes in to say on John McCain’s advice for John Kerry:

“Eric,

I probably wouldn't take a leak on John Kerry if he was dying of thirst and certainly wouldn't vote for him in 2008 or any other year, but I'll stick up for him in this case. He oughta tell Saint McCain to mind his own massively over inflated ego and butt out.”

John McCain is offering some advice to John Kerry – back off. McCain said Kerry is spending too much time working on a potential 2008 run, rather than focusing on the Senate. McCain said, “It's pretty obvious, the way he's acting, he'd like to try it again. I'd advise him to be the best senator he could be and put those ambitions aside for a while.''

McCain added he doesn’t think Kerry would have a lot of luck running again, “I think it would be difficult for John, for the same reason it's hard for all candidates who don't succeed.”

McCain noted he “absolutely” want to be president himself someday, but “will focus on the Senate” and “wait a couple years” to decide if he will run for the White House in 2008.

Several media outlets are reporting this morning that the economy added 274,000 in April. Worker payrolls have grown by nearly 3.5 million since May 2003, with job growth for 23 straight months.

Though Biden has threatened to delay Bolton’s confirmation vote yet again, a spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Richard Lugar says he expects the process to end today as scheduled. Andy Fisher said, “We meet every day with Biden's staff. It would appear that we are near the end of the discovery process.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee may again attempt to delay a vote on the nomination of John Bolton.

Joe Biden has sought additional documents on Bolton’s record and said he might delay next Thursday’s vote with a “lack of cooperation” if he doesn’t get them. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had set a self-imposed deadline of today for document gathering after already twice-delaying Bolton’s confirmation vote.

Buzz readers: Sorry for the slow start this morning. Having some Internet issues. But looks like it’s under control for now.

Reader John writes in to note on MoveOn’s criticism of Pat Robertson, “Of course, MoveOn doesn't think terrorism is a terribly signification threat to the United States either. So their complaint about Robertson rings a little hollow.”

And several other readers have written in to note Robertson’s positive comments on This Week regarding Rudy Giuliani.

The National Journal’s Hotline has published the numbers of its new poll conducted with Westhill of 800 registered voters. In the poll, President Bush has a 48 percent approval rating, with 44 percent disapproving.

The GOP receives a 68 percent approval rating for its handling of Social Security, with 21 percent disapproving. Most striking, Democrats receive 5 percent approval for their handling, with a full 93 percent disapproving. However, the Democrats sill edge Bush/GOP on who they trust more to handle the issue, 38 to 35 percent.

In a possible 2004 White House rematch, President Bush still bests John Kerry 45 to 43 percent. Bush would also beat Al gore 47 to 42 percent.

UPDATE: Some of the data I received yesterday on this poll was incorrect and therefore published incorrectly on the Buzz. The approval rating Bush receives on Social Security actually comes from GOP voters. Conversely, the 5 percent approval and 93 percent disapproving was how Democrats felt about Bush's handling of the issue.

The Washington Post reports that Bill Frist, Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay, amongst other congressional leaders, have enjoyed hundreds of free corporate flights over the past five years. The flights paid for by corporate interests are allowed under congressional rules.

Last Sunday Pat Robertson was criticized for comments made to ABC’s This Week, in which he argued that the fight of President Bush’s judicial nominees was a bigger threat to democracy than the terrorist attacks of 9/11. While no one in the conservative movement doubts the significance of the judicial nominee battle, Robertson’s view is simply that – his own opinion.

However, MoveOn has sent a letter to supporters attempting to connect Robertson’s comments to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. In the letter, MoveOn writes:

“That's why we are launching a national petition demanding that Bill Frist and Tom DeLay publicly reject Robertson's statement. If they do, it will send a clear signal that this type of dangerous incitement against officers of the law is not welcome in our democracy. And if they don't, it will send an equally clear signal about how far they are willing to go.”

In attacking Robertson’s logic, MoveOn shows the weakness of their argument. Pat Robertson is a not an elected official. He may have a substantial following, but for Frist and DeLay to demand public accountability from Robertson would border on abuse of power and walk firmly into the camp of wasted time. MoveOn knows this, but it won’t stop them from skewing reality.

Reader Kyle writes in to the Beltway Buzz on Chuck Hagel’s comment yesterday to the Lincoln Journal Star. As has been widely speculated, Hagel is leaning towards a White House run in 2008. Hagel told the Star, “I hope to be in position to have the option of entertaining the possibility of running for president.”

Kyle responded:

“Two comments about his statement to the Lincoln Journal Star: 1. At last--someone who makes Kerry sound decisive 2. Any wonder why no one can get a straight answer from him on filibusters or Bolton?”

As Friday’s deadline approaches for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to review allegations against John Bolton, committee chair Richard Lugar has partially denied a request by Joe Biden to extend the scope of inquiry into possible disputes between Bolton and colleagues over Syria’s weapons programs.

The Associated Press reports that productivity rose by 2.6 percent in the first three months of 2005. The rise in productivity is the best quarterly showing in nine months. The previous increase was 2.1 percent.

Gary Andres writes in the Washington Times, “With the completion of the administration's '60 Stops in 60 Days' advocating strengthening Social Security, the debate pivots, shifting from convincing voters about the problem to persuading lawmakers to craft solutions. Despite persistent media doubts, the fog shrouding the lawmaking end zone will begin to lift, revealing why naysayers are wrong.”

In another example of opinion writing disguised as reporting, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank writes today that Tom DeLay, “sneaks around the Capitol like a fugitive these days,” because he doesn't entertain every press inquiry.

It also doesn’t take long for Milbank to insult DeLay’s former career in pest control. You see, most Washington journalists never had to dirty their hands in blue collar labor to make a living, so it shocks, just shocks, them that a powerful member of Congress once did something so unfashionable.

When asked about possible ethics committee rule changes to clarify House travel rules, DeLay said, “I think most members have done things on what they understand to be on the up and up. They may not understand the rules, which are confusing, but I don't know of any member that has intentionally tried to break the House rules or circumvent them."

A new Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary Clinton defeating George Pataki in a possible 2006 Senate race 60 to 32 percent. Clinton would also best Bill Weld 63 to 26 percent. However, registered voters also said by a 60 to 30 percent margin that if she runs for reelection in 2006, she should promise to serve another full six-year Senate term. They also said by a 51 to 41 percent margin that Clinton should not seek the White House in 2008.

Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert yesterday said he House ethics committee should clarify rules on travel regulations to prevent future questions of the nature surrounding DeLay and several Democrat lawmakers.

The Los Angeles Times and several other outlets are reporting two Republican members of the House ethics committee, Lamar Smith and Tom Cole, recused themselves from any possible ethics investigation of Tom DeLay because they had previously contributed to his defense fund. Smith has given $10k to DeLay’s defense fund, while Cole has given $5k.

The Labor Department has officially warned the AFL-CIO that their use of union-run pension funds to oppose Social Security reform may be breaking the law.

The two possible violations include using the managed worker funds to advocate a political position and the AFL-CIO’s threat to Wall Street firms of removing pension investment capital if they support Social Security reform. From the letter to the AFL-CIO:

“A fiduciary may never increase a plan's expenses, sacrifice the security of promised benefits, or reduce the return on plan assets, in order to promote its views on Social Security or any other broad policy issue.”

The Washington Post describes President Bush’s Social Security reform push as “fading fast” but says House Ways and Means Chair Bill Thomas has come to the rescue:

“The California Republican saved President Bush's tax cut in 2003, has never lost a vote on the floor and, despite resistance among other House GOP leaders, is poised once again to try to revive the president's proposal to add personal investment accounts to Social Security.”

Several news outlets are reporting Dennis Hastert and the GOP House leadership were caught off guard by Thomas’ move. But as lobbyist Dan Danner said, “Thomas does seem to get all sides mad. But at the end of the day, he gets something through. He delivers."

A Beltway Buzz reader writes in on Bush’s Social Security talk in Mississippi yesterday, noting:

“What I found interesting about the Bush trip to Mississippi was that he visited a Nissan plant. Really hits Democrats on three fronts...Social Security, free trade and unions.”

Bill Frist has sent a letter to supporters announcing the new web site Fair Votes For Judges. The site is part of Frist’s VOLPAC political action committee. In the letter Frist says:

“If you believe, as I do, that Senators should do their Constitutional duty and give President Bush's judicial nominees fair up-or-down votes, I ask that you visit the website and use the information provided to call Democratic Senators and ask them to end judicial obstruction now.”

The Arizona Republic writes speculation is growing that Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist is “finally ready to retire” when the Court’s term ends next month. The Republic says Karl Rove is upping the pressure to end judicial filibusters anticipating a summer battle over appointing a new court member and chief justice.

The Wall Street Journal adds its voice to the growing chorus asking for a Democrat plan after President Bush’s progressive indexing proposal. And in addition to the asset provided by offering his plan, Bush now has in Bill Thomas, “an energized champion in the House with a track record for getting things done.”

The WSJ says, “Using the political cover provided by Mr. Bush's embrace of ‘progressive indexing,’ the House tax chairman may start by proposing somewhat smaller benefits reductions using the same general approach.”

While appearing in New Hampshire yesterday, Senator Chuck Hagel told the Lincoln Journal Star, “I hope to be in position to have the option of entertaining the possibility of running for president.”

Hagel says he will make a decision on running for the White House until after the 2006 elections.

A major announcement on Social Security that has received little coverage came from House Ways and Means Chair Bill Thomas. Thomas announced after President Bush’s press conference last week that he would schedule hearings on Social Security reform this month and deliver legislation to the panel by June.

The Christian Science Monitor’s coverage of Social Security opens, “President Bush has accomplished at least one task: He's ensured that the political battle over the big retirement program is fully joined at last.”

Nearly every major mainstream media outlet has concluded Democrats must now enter the Social Security debate. Last week, President Bush received positive headlines on Social Security, as news outlets around the country acknowledged his efforts to address the solvency issue.

As to the next stage of the debate, the CSM says:

“Now it's up to Congress to begin the arduous task of actually drafting legislation. And amid the welter of editorials, issue alerts, and policy reports, one thing seems clear, say some analysts — there is no easy way out.”

Visiting with 2,200 autoworkers at a Nissan plan in Canton, Mississippi yesterday to discuss Social Security, President Bush made it clear he will not be deterred in efforts to promote reform. On members of Congress shying away from contributing ideas to the debate, Bush said, “Our leaders must choose: Do nothing and guarantee a massive tax hike, or a 30% benefit cut ... or act now.”

One more excerpt from today’s Post piece on Bolton. The relevant argument against Bolton has always been that he attempted to distort intelligence to alter the course of U.S. foreign policy from a path it would naturally follow based on factual evidence. However, as the Post notes:

“Democratic aides say Bolton's failure to win support for his efforts to reassign lower-level officials demonstrates his lack of judgment. They say his actions may have had a chilling effect on the behavior of analysts and other aides, though they have not found evidence of that.”

And with that, you have what remains of the Democrat’s opposition to John Bolton.

The Washington Post’s teaser for today’s article on John Bolton says, “Senate staff interviews show John R. Bolton as a hard-charging official with strong opinions and little interest in accommodating views significantly different from his own, according to transcripts.”

But the article itself leads, “Senate Staff Interviews Show More Nuanced Image of Bolton”

No doubt to the disappointment of Bolton critics, the Washington Post finds that, “while the investigation of Bolton's performance in President Bush's first term has turned up numerous examples of fierce policy disputes between the senior political appointee and lower-level career officials, no additional direct evidence of abusive behavior toward subordinates has emerged.”

All the recent polling data shows that despite media predictions to the contrary, President Bush’s 60-day tour to promote Social Security reform did have a positive impact on the public’s attitude towards personal accounts.

Combining the Fox News, CBS News, ABC News/WP, Time and Gallup polls show that overall support for personal accounts has risen from 46 to 49 percent. The before and after polling support breaks down as follows:

Before 60-Day Tour:

FOX News 44%
CBS News 45%
ABC News/WP 53%
Time by SRBI 42%

Overall Average 46%

After 60-Day Tour:

FOX News 60%
CBS News 45%
ABC News/WP 45%
Gallup 44%

Overall Average 49%

A little background info on the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll I cited earlier today. The poll questioned 1,006 adults, with party ID breakdown along the following lines:

Republicans 33.8%
Independents 34.5%
Democrats 30.9%

These are based on the weighted numbers within the sample.

Yesterday I wrote on the Washington Post’s take on the first 100 days of President Bush’s second term. And today, I offered an alternate take on the media’s dire forecasts.

In today’s Roll Call (subscription required), Republican pollster Dave Winston offers his own take on the Post’s coverage. Yesterday, the Post asked if bold actions taken by President Bush would lead to congressional losses for Republicans in 2006. Their point of comparison is the fallout Bill Clinton experienced in 1994. However, Winston writes on the differences with Bush, “No chameleon tactics for this president. Among other things, he promised to fix Social Security, reform the tort system and modernize the nation’s bankruptcy laws. Two out of three ain’t bad for 100 days.”

More:

“Republicans offered up a cohesive, cogent set of ideas — a little thing called the ‘Contract with America’ — that captured the imaginations of voters disillusioned with Clinton’s ideological transformation. Gingrich took advantage of Clinton’s missteps, certainly, but his strategy to win was grounded in ideas.”

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has some positive things to say about President Bush’s reform proposals in his piece today entitled, “Social Security Day by Day.” Cohen writes:

“It just so happens that I think George Bush is doing something interesting with Social Security. The program does need to be fixed or recalibrated or something, and he has had the guts to take it on. Moreover, I kind of like the idea of personal investment accounts if funding them does not weaken the overall program or add to the nation's incredible debt. After all, there is something to be said for expanding the number of American worker-capitalists and having a nest egg an heir could inherit, or one that would not be eliminated by death. The idea is not all that radical, after all. It's being done in other countries -- Australia, Sweden, Chile, Britain.”

In an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, Robert Pozen, the man behind President Bush’s progressive indexing proposal for Social Security, writes:

“Critics of progressive indexing have alleged that it will erode political support for the system among high-wage earners because their benefits would grow more slowly than under the current schedule. Yet these same critics are the ones urging substantial increases in payroll taxes for high earners. Will the political support of high earners be more likely to erode if they face a large hike in their payroll taxes for the rest of their working careers, or if they receive less than the current schedule of Social Security benefits when they retire in 20 or 30 years? The answer is obvious.”

The Daily Howler blog’s Bob Somerby adds to the liberal on liberal angst over Social Security:

“When it comes to Social Security, the world-class bungling by Major Dems continued on yesterday’s programs.”

Somerby is making reference to the Sunday show appearances by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senators Chris Dodd and Pay Leahy. While attempting to defend the status quo of the system, Democrats couldn’t make up their mind on what statistics they should be promoting or deflating. More Somerby:

“No one who actually cares about outcomes goes on TV so unprepared. And no major party which cares about outcomes makes so little attempt to coordinate its message about the simplest factual matters.”

Over at the American Prospect blog Tapped, Sam Rosenfeld writes that the real problem with his fellow liberals on Social Security is acknowledging there is a problem with the system in the first place, “such an approach has tended to prevent the principled case for doing nothing on the solvency issue from penetrating even most liberal circles.” More: “It's about time that a left caucus in Congress starts openly touting the do-nothing position on Social Security solvency as well as private accounts, and it's time that liberal commentators start doing a more forceful job convincing other liberals about this.”

The new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll numbers are out which give President Bush a 48 percent approval rating, with 49 percent disapproving.

Republicans in Congress receive a 42 percent approval rating, with 50 percent disapproving. Democrats get 40 percent approval, with 52 percent disapproving. When asked which Social Security plan Congress should pass, a Republican plan leads a Democrat plan 27 to 22 percent. By a 55 to 41 margin, voters also feel President Bush is trying to “ensure the future” of Social Security, as opposed to “dismantling” it. Finally, by a 47 to 42 percent margin, voters believe Democrats are “trying to abuse” the filibuster.

I have a new article up on the main site today. It’s a look at the first 100 days of President Bush’s second term. In short, things are going a lot better than some would have you believe.

As the House ethics committee meets today, Tom DeLay says he welcomes an investigation into his record in order to clear his name. However, even as DeLay welcomes the opportunity to refute his critics, the controversy surrounding House ethics is “also threatening to engulf other members of Congress, as opposition researchers for both parties plunge into member disclosure forms in search of lapses. The looming ethics war could write a new chapter in an long-running story of money, power, and boundary lines in Washington.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Franc tells the Christian Science Monitor, “We're in an ethics war that's the congressional equivalent of mutually assured destruction. There will be a retaliation of equal or greater force."

Progress for America announced it would spend $3.3 million in advertisements supporting President Bush’s judicial nominations and GOP efforts to confirm them in the Senate. The first wave of ads will focus on Priscilla Owen and Janice Brown. The ads will air in Alaska, Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota and Rhode Island this week, and then go national after Congress returns from recess.

Some more details on the trips Democrat lawmakers took that were sponsored by lobbyist Jack Abramoff:

The trips took place between 1996 and 1997 and included two aides to Tom DeLay in addition to House Democrat members Jim Clyburn and Bennie Thompson. Abramoff has asked the North Marianas Islands to reimburse him for payment of the trips, which totaled about $10,000 in total expenses for Clyburn and Thompson. While filing their paperwork in ’97, Clyburn and Thompson cited a private, non-profit group as paying for the trips. Both the offices of DeLay and Clyburn said they believed the trips had been paid for by a non-profit, not by Abramoff, or his firm Preston Gates.

The Associated Press reports that controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid for the travel expenses of two Democratic congressmen. House Democrats Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi took trips to the Northern Mariana Islands that were paid for by Abramoff.

Clyburn’s office said they were not aware Abramoff paid for the trip, while Thompson’s office did not respond to phone calls.

In a piece entitled, “DeLay’s ‘Salute’: A Wave Goodbye?” The Washington Post notes that on May 12th, the American Conservative Union will host a dinner in Tom DeLay’s honor. The Post argues, “you know you're in trouble in Washington when this happens.”

However, the Columbia State acknowledges in the past, "circling wagons was often the prelude to the fall, but now it might be a sign of strength." The strength of support showed by DeLay supporters and colleagues helps to build the perception that he is a victim of negative press and partisan attacks. It also helps defeat the false perception that fellow Republicans are trying to push him out the door.

At today’s White House press briefing, Scott McClellan was asked if the White House is exerting enough pressure on George Voinovich and other Senators to support John Bolton. McClellan responded:

"We've stayed in close contact with members of the Senate committee that is moving forward on his nomination. And we will continue to do so … The State Department has provided some updates. I've provided some updates recently. Secretary Card noted yesterday that he had been in touch with Senator Voinovich. We will remain in contact with the senators as needed, to address any outstanding issues that may be on their minds.”

“But the bottom line is, I think, that John Bolton has addressed these issues through his testimony and through his written responses. And it's time to move forward on his nomination so that he can get in place and go about the important work of reform at the United Nations. And that's what we continue to emphasize.”

Roll Call’s (subscription required) Kate Ackley reports “The controversy over lobbyist-funded Congressional travel has brushed yet another Member.”

Democrat House member Norm Dicks took a five-day trip to Miami in February that was listed as being paid for by the Spectrum Group, a defense lobbying firm. If that were the case, the trip would be a violation of House Rules.

Ackley adds, “The upshot is that Dicks, who sits on the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense and the Homeland Security panel, has decided to pick up the $985 tab.”

Ethics lawyer and lobbyist Brett Kappel of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease tells Roll Call that Dicks has "now done what he's required to do, which is to find out whether the trip was paid for inappropriately. Once you've made that determination, the best you can do to mitigate the violation is pay for the trip yourself. Under the circumstances, he's tried to do the right thing."

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert writes about his experience with Aidan Delgado, a military conscientious objector making some bold accusations against his former colleagues.

Delgado accuses members of the armed services of using racism as a shatter point guiding them into the liberation of Iraq. Worse, once there he claims:

“Guys in my unit, particularly the younger guys, would drive by in their Humvee and shatter bottles over the heads of Iraqi civilians passing by. They'd keep a bunch of empty Coke bottles in the Humvee to break over people's heads.”

However, over at the Corner, Rich Lowry, Michael Rubin, and Jonah Goldberg are pointing out some problems with Delgado’s accusation.

And in an exchange between George Stephanopoulos and Nancy Pelosi on yesterday’s This Week, Stephanopoulos says: "If you compare it to doing nothing, the benefits under - if you do nothing - are actually lower than under the President's plan and so far the Democrats have not offered anything."

Pelosi responded: "It's not a question of doing nothing. Democrats are - have a vision to save Social Security first."

Stephanopoulos: "But nobody has seen it."

In an editorial on Social Security, USA Today writes:

“Bush's willingness to begin addressing that unpleasant reality puts pressure on Democrats to do the same. They have refused to negotiate until Bush gives up on private accounts, but eventually they'll have to do more than complain. They don't want Bush's dessert course because it's politically unpalatable. And they don't want the spinach because the taste is too bitter. So what do they want? What dish do they intend to contribute to this political potluck? Bush's gamble sets the table for a serious discussion on shoring up Social Security. The question is, will anyone come to dinner?"

Free Enterprise Fund President Stephen Moore writes in today’s New York Post that President Bush “for the first time put meat on the bones” of his Social Security reform push by promoting progressive indexing retiree benefits.

Moore endorses the plan, noting that Bush offered an “olive branch” to Democrats and that even though the plan has some conservatives unhappy, “his reform package is still a winner for all Americans.”

As I noted with pollster John Zogby earlier, Moore sees the Social Security battle as one that will benefit Bush and Republicans politically:

“Bush deserves praise for being the first president in modern history to have the political courage to try to avert a tsunami of red ink in Social Security over the next 50 years. That is what the voters will ultimately remember about this political tug of war. The president and reform-minded Republicans may not win this first battle, but they are winning the war.”

How will progressive indexing play with Americans in higher income brackets? House Ways and Means Committee Chair Bill Thomas says, “I know some rich people, and if you ask them whether they would rather have a tax increase or their benefits cut, they'll immediately say, 'Cut the benefits,'”

If those who would least benefit by its enactment accept the proposal, the debate narrows drastically in President Bush’s favor. Those protesting Social Security reform will be left with a counter-argument stating the government’s role is to manage the lives of all retires as opposed to just those in need.

The Los Angeles Times says John Snow is spending too much time promoting Social Security reform and not enough time working on the nation’s other economic concerns.

Finally, Newsweek opens its 100-day second term assessment of the Bush presidency by asking:

“Gas prices, Social Security, Tom DeLay. What else can go wrong for Bush?”

While touching on Social Security and gas prices, Newsweek spends the majority of their piece looking back at how the White House failed to effectively lobby George Voinovich on supporting the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Does White House lobbyist Candi Wolff carry weight on Capitol Hill? Newsweek says that Wolff “may be too far outside the loop of power. It takes a call from the Committee That Runs the World—Karl Rove and Cheney—to lobby Congress effectively.”

White House Chief of Staff Andy Card made the Sunday show rounds yesterday, calling for compromise on the president’s agenda.

First appearing on Fox News Sunday, Card said, “We'd like to see more cooperation from the Democrats. We have some serious problems in this country that must be addressed. We'd like to see the Democrats be part of the solution rather than just carp about the problem.”

Later that morning on Meet the Press, Card was asked about the Democrat response to Bush’s Social Security reform initiative and said, “It's time for them to acknowledge the problem and offer to do something about it. Because the status quo is not acceptable.”

USA Today gives their own take on the first 100 days in Bush’s second term and sees how the Social Security fight compares to some hard fought victories in Bush’s first term:

“As with Iraq, so with Social Security, the president has made clear that he is pressing ahead in his goal of dramatic change.”

While Democrats and some in the media openly speculate how much the reform push will hurt Bush and Republicans in 2006, pollster John Zogby counters:

“He doesn't have anything to lose. But oddly enough, he still could emerge a winner on this by compromise, by being the guy who moved the dime on the issue.”

The Washington Post looks at President Bush’s first 100 days in office and asks:

“The main question facing Bush and his party is whether they misread the November elections. With the president's poll numbers down, and the Republican majority ensnared in ethical controversy, things look much less like a once-a-generation realignment.”

However, beyond the challenges of Social Security and judicial nominations, the Post gives the Bush administration’s early second term a much higher assessment:

“Bush in his first 100 days has enacted far-reaching proposals to restructure the nation's laws on bankruptcy and class-action lawsuits.”

“Judged by conventional standards, such legislative victories would signal a second-term president performing at full throttle. But Bush signaled from the moment of his reelection that he was not contemplating a conventional second term.”