The Las Vegas Review Journal reports today that Harry Reid arranged for federal grants in 2001 that this week led to the indictment of two Las Vegas pastors:

“Moving to distance Reid from a possible scandal, aide Tessa Hafen said the senator sought the money on behalf of a nonprofit social services agency and not for the churches or persons who have been accused of mishandling the money.” …

“The Rev. Willie Davis, the longtime pastor of Second Baptist Church, and his wife, Emma, were indicted Tuesday on fraud charges with an associate minister, the Rev. McTheron Jones.”

“They are accused of spending $330,000 from federal grants on themselves although the money was intended for halfway houses for prison inmates in Southern Nevada.”

Buzz reader John makes a good point about Tim Kaine’s ability to hurt Mark Warner’s 2008 prospects:

“I'd think Kaine hurts Warner only if he wins. If he loses, as will probably (although not certainly) happen, nobody will remember who he is in 2008.”

Also, I think it has to be noted that Kaine’s past will not necessarily hurt Warner even if Kaine were to win the election. What it will take is liberal actions by Kaine once he’s in office to stir the anger of Virginia voters and conservatives across the nation. But based on Kaine’s earlier statements, to say nothing of his organizational support for statewide tax increases, one has to assume his actions as governor would not reflect well on the centrist image Warner will be attempting to maintain.

UPDATE: Thanks to all the Buzz readers who quickly pointed out my typo. That, of course, was supposed to read Mark Warner, not John. Fixed now...

Echoing from my last post comes the reminder that the highest bar being set for the Republican agenda comes directly from the Republican base. Conservatives has a clear set of priorities and a group of legislators who have promised to act.

On the other side, Democrats decry Republicans as “willing to do almost anything to win elections.” However, ask for their clear agenda and it’s hard to get a straight answer. New York House Democrat Jarrold Nadler told Congressional Quarterly earlier this week, “Democrats should win the next election because we have a vision for dealing with the problems of this country and Republicans do not.”

But just the day before, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer was asked by the same publication to outline the Democrat’s platform. His response:

“We need to provide a positive alternative...,’ Hoyer said. ‘I think that’s what we’re going to be about next year.’ Does that mean Democrats, who were sorely lacking an agenda in the 2004 elections, will have a concrete plan this time around? ‘I think so, I hope so, I believe so,’ Hoyer ruminated.”

I have spoken to a number of Republican lawmakers, officials and well-connected individuals in the private sector this week about the indictment of Tom DeLay. Nearly all have been in agreement that his stepping down as Majority Leader presents new challenges to the GOP conference, but also potentially offers new opportunities as well.

Particularly on the spending front Republicans find themselves in a unique position. They control Congress and the White House but have not satisfied fiscal conservatives’ desire for decreasing the size of government. There was a growing sense of unease with the Republican leadership in this regard that finally reached a boiling point of sorts over the past several weeks. With DeLay stepping aside at least temporarily, Republicans must show the country their agenda can continue to move forward. But times of crisis often reveal unexpected benefits to the prepared group or individual. If the House and Senate can push through a new series of deficit trimming spending cuts they will certainly please a majority of the Republican base. What’s more, they could win back credibility with Reagan Democrats who may have lost affection for the current administration and Congress over spending issues. It may not equate into large electoral gains for Republicans in 2006, but its examples like this and the successful confirmation of John Roberts that could go great lengths to evaporating any creeping surge of Democrat momentum.

The Wall Street Journal writes today that the indictment of Tom DeLay, troubles in Iraq, high energy prices and other hurricane fallout have damaged this year’s GOP congressional agenda. Republican now say their efforts will focus on remedies to these problems rather than tackling issues such as Social Security reform. However:

“Republicans insist they remain hopeful, particularly on the tax front. And whatever their problems, they still control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, which is a huge advantage. They also face a Democratic Party that so far has shown itself to be incapable of taking advantage of Bush soft spots. While House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi vowed yesterday to pound away at what she called the "culture of corruption," it isn't clear her party can capitalize enough on its opponents' missteps to make inroads in the 2006 election.”

Will Kaine Hurt Warner's '08 Chances?

The “Body Politic” blog raises an interesting question today. Will Mark Warner’s association with Tim Kaine hurt his 2008 prospects? The Body Politc focuses on Kaine’s support for gay rights, abortion, property taxes and his opposition to the death penalty and second amendment rights as evidence:

“Kaine has been clinging to Warner’s coattails, but I’m interested in how Kaine’s liberal stances will hurt Warner in the future bid for President. Just take a look at a few of Kaine’s liberal leanings:”

“Kaine told The Washington Post on August 31, 2001 that “civil benefits that are accorded to heterosexual married couples should also be accorded to gay and lesbian couples in long-term relationships.” That sounds to me like Howard Dean’s proud position on gay rights, and I can’t imagine any Presidential candidate wanting to be the next Howard Dean!”

“Kaine supports a moratorium on the death penalty. Not exactly a “New Democrat” ala Bill Clinton, who was a proponent of the death penalty. In a Gallup Poll this year, support for the death penalty was at 74%.”

“Kaine is a Catholic, but told The Washington Post on October 12, 2001 he opposes a 24-hour waiting period to have an abortion. In a Quinnipiac University poll released in March, the voters surveyed supported a 24-hour waiting period 66% to 24%.”

In an editorial entitled “Poor Judgment,” The Los Angeles Times today goes after Senate Democrats who voted against the nomination of John Roberts:

“The good news is that 22 Democratic senators voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as the 17th chief justice of the United States. That's more than anyone would have imagined just a few months ago, when the talk in Washington was all about filibusters and nuclear options. The bad news is that 22 Democratic senators voted against Roberts. That's far more than the handful of Republicans who voted against Bill Clinton's two Supreme Court appointees, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. … Last November, the American people granted President Bush the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, and in his first opportunity to exercise this power he has acted responsibly, choosing a mainstream conservative with unimpeachable credentials.”

As Orrin Hatch explained during the Judiciary Committee hearings, Roberts set such a high example it can only be concluded that Democrats who vote against his nomination could not support the nomination of any Republican to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, yesterday’s vote has proved to be the strongest domestic political victory of his second term for President Bush so far. While the media will certainly turn a critical eye to his next nominee, this is a rare opportunity where the press seems prepared to give Bush added credibility and civility as he chooses Sandra Day O’Conner’s replacement.

I just spoke with Mike Franc of the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Franc tells me that the indictment of Tom DeLay comes at an opportune and critical time for conservatives in Congress and across the nation:

“Context is important. In the weeks leading up to the indictment, the conservative grassroots were growing increasingly agitated on size of government issues. You were seeing from a lot of different groups questions like, 'What’s the difference between the two parties?' And you were hearing these questions both from social and fiscal conservatives. It was starting to smell like 1994 again, only this time it’s the Republicans who are in power.”

“My instinct is that this is an opportunity for the Republican majority to remember what it was that helped them get elected in the first place: a commitment to smaller government. If they handle this correctly, they may actually turn all this peril into a moment of opportunity. There are positive signals coming from both sides of the Capitol – Bill Frist has made a pledge to greater spending reductions, and sent letter to President Bush asking him to come up with list of decisions he wants Congress to act on. Jim Nussle and others in the House have begun to talk about reviving the president’s original congressional proposal to remove $70 billion from the budget in programs, instead of the $30 billion they ended up passing. In addition, there’s been talk about a 2 percent cut in discretionary spending.”

“What you’re seeing is about $115 billion on the table in discretionary spending cuts that could realistically get passed. Now, that may not totally offset the costs of Hurricane Katrina, but it’s certainly a lot better than where things were at a couple of weeks ago. Guys like Mike Pence and Jeff Flake have really been seen as courageous by those in the fiscal conservative movement for the actions they have taken – really putting their careers on the line to stand on principle. The reaction they received as kind-of hunkering heroes sent a wake-up call through the GOP establishment.”

“The conditions are there for the GOP majority to turn lemons into lemonade. However, if they break down over this, and don’t deliver a scaling back of government, there will be repercussions. I think they are in very treacherous waters right now politically.”

“Even social conservatives have had it on some issues. Those in leadership must remind the base why they have voted for a guy with an ‘R’ after his name instead of a ‘D.’ The fiscal side is reasserting itself. And you can be pretty sure, you’re going to start to see a tipping where more social conservatives as well.”

Tom DeLay is on the Sam Malone show right now and will appear on the Mike Gallagher show at 11:45am. He appeared earlier this morning on the Tony Snow Show .

Hedi Armstrong, spokeswoman for Roy Blunt, spoke with the Buzz last night about Blunt’s ascension to temporary House Majority Leader. First, I asked Armstrong how Blunt will handle an ambitious GOP agenda:

“We’re going to move ahead with the same agenda we had before. As was mentioned today, Congressmen Cantor and Dreier will help keep the whip operation moving smoothly by taking on elevated responsibilities.”

“Over the next few days we’ll be speaking more to how specifically we will be able to move the agenda forward.”

Oklahoma House Republican Tom Cole spoke with the Buzz about moving forward after the indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay today.

Congressman Cole tells me, “I thought a very difficult situation was handled very well. Obviously, they had an idea this might happen for some time and were ready to respond.”

“The word that best defines this situation is unfair. And you’re hearing that from a lot of people today. Most Republicans see Leader DeLay as a victim in this. However, we have procedure to follow and I think you saw Speaker Hastert and Mr. DeLay handle this very effectively. He has shown credibility and taken the moral authority by stepping back. It will give him and the conference added credibility by the way he handled a bad situation.”

I asked Cole how the GOP agenda will fare without DeLay at the helm:

“We’re going to get things done. Hopefully we’ll be able to address some things on spending and in particular with immigration. There’s a real sense of unanimity in our party, a team sense. I think Republicans understand that if there is a lot of bickering or infighting this could become a political opportunity for the Democrats.”

To that end, many in the media are using DeLay’s indictment as yet another opportunity to forecast dire prospects for the Republican Party in 2006. I asked Cole if he thinks there’s any truth to that speculation:

“Democrats are very tempted to take the easy way out. They think they lost the House back in ’94 because of scandal. But the banking scandal came about before that. The Democrats lost in ’94 because they couldn’t get anything done, not because of scandal. The hard part of arriving at a majority is reaching consensus within your own party. The only thing they are able to reach cohesion on is negativity.”

It took less than six hours from news breaking of Tom DeLay’s indictment for Democrats to attempt to profit from it. Democratic National Committee Executive Director Tom McMahon just sent a fundraising letter to supporters using the DeLay news as his main pitch. From the letter:

“The indictment is another stark reminder that Republicans have a lucrative money-for-influence machine that will do anything -- including breaking the law -- to funnel corporate and special interest money into their party in huge amounts.”

“Republicans are committed to pushing the legal limits to collect checks from special interests who want to use government for their own narrow purposes. Democrats are committed to funding our party with contributions from ordinary Americans so that when we take power, the government will represent the people.”

Tom DeLay just held a brief press conference, telling reporters, “The Democrats can play this politics of personal destruction all they want, it’s not going to have an effect on the conference at all.”

DeLay added, "I will help move the agenda forward. I'm still a member of Congress."

Indiana House Republican Dan Burton just told Fox News, “I think these are trumped up charges for political reasons.”

"I have talked to leading attorneys about these charges and they tell me they are trumped up charges, there’s no valid reason for this indictment to come down. … This will not fly.”

On whether Tom DeLay stepping down with stall the GOP agenda, Burton said, “The Republican agenda will go forward … [Roy Blunt] will do a great job.”

It has been officially announced that Majority Whip Roy Blunt will take over as temporary House Majority Leader. House Speaker Dennis Hastert also announced that Virginia’s Eric Cantor and California’s David Dreier will “step up” to take on additional duties.

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the actual indictment document for Tom DeLay, John Colyandro and James Ellis.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman (NRCC) Tom Reynolds released the following statement today on Tom DeLay’s indictment:

“The Majority Leader has been a highly effective leader of our conference. Democrats resent Tom DeLay because he routinely defeats them – both politically and legislatively.

“Although much of Ronnie Earle’s investigation has been conducted in secret, we know that he is an unapologetic Democrat partisan. Throughout his three-year scrutiny of the Majority Leader, Earle has been incapable of separating his personal politics from his professional responsibilities. He has used his investigatory powers to energize Democrat activists, and Democrat activists have, in turn, fueled the zeal with which he has pursued DeLay.

“It was only months ago that Ronnie Earle attended a Democrat Party fundraiser in which he openly discussed an ongoing investigation in front of a room full of party activists, and then singled out and attacked a potential target of the investigation. Earle’s unapologetic politicization of the probe prompted the Houston Chronicle to opine that Earle’s behavior has ‘damaged the credibility of his investigation with a stunning display of prosecutorial impropriety.’

“Until Majority Leader Tom DeLay has his day in court, it is vitally important he be afforded the same presumption of innocence afforded to every other American.”

Also released from Tom DeLay’s office, a direct statement from Majority Leader DeLay:

“I have notified the Speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County District Attorney today.”

Tom DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden has released the following statement on DeLay’s indictment:

"These charges have no basis in the facts or the law. This is just another example of Ronnie Earle misusing his office for partisan vendettas. Despite the clearly political agenda of this prosecutor, Congressman DeLay has cooperated with officials throughout the entire process. Even in the last two weeks, Ronnie Earle himself had acknowledged publicly that Mr. DeLay was not a target of his investigation. However, as with many of Ronnie Earle's previous partisan investigations, Ronnie Earle refused to let the facts or the law get in the way of his partisan desire to indict a political foe.

This purely political investigation has been marked by illegal grand jury leaks, a fundraising speech by Ronnie Earle for Texas Democrats that inappropriately focused on the investigation, misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them. Ronnie Earle's previous misuse of his office has resulted in failed prosecutions and we trust his partisan grandstanding will strike out again, as it should.

Ronnie Earle's 1994 indictment against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was quickly dismissed and his charges in the 1980s against former Attorney General Jim Mattox-another political foe of Earle-fell apart at trial.

We regret the people of Texas will once again have their taxpayer dollars wasted on Ronnie Earle's pursuit of headlines and political paybacks. Ronnie Earle began this investigation in 2002, after the Democrat Party lost the Texas state legislature to Republicans. For three years and through numerous grand juries, Ronnie Earle has tried to manufacture charges against Republicans involved in winning those elections using arcane statutes never before utilized in a case in the state. This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat."

The AP is also reporting House Speaker Dennis Hastert has recommended that California House Republican David Dreier take over Tom DeLay’s position temporarily.

Here is the Associated Press write-up on Tom DeLay’s indictment. From the piece:

“DeLay attorney Steve Brittain said DeLay was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay's national political committee.”

CNN is now reporting Tom DeLay has been indicted on one count. They do not have the specific indictment.

The Austin American-Statesman is reporting this morning that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay could be indicted on conspiracy charges stemming from involvement with his PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority, in the 2002 congressional elections.

Austin defense lawyers who spoke on condition of anonymity said, “I wouldn't have expected this a year ago. It's quite a turnaround if it happens.”

If indicted, DeLay would not be forced to resign from the House. However, under House GOP rules, he would be required to step down as Majority Leader. The natural assumption is that Roy Blunt and David Dreier would share leadership duties until a new majority leader, temporary or not, could be voted in.

Mississippi House Democrat Gene Taylor just told Bill Hemmer on Fox News that FEMA should be eliminated. When Hemmer asked Taylor is he was serious, Taylor responded, “Well, they are either going to have to change or go away. We can’t keep throwing billions of dollars at a group that is doing absolutely nothing for the American people.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer says Democrats are now considering dropping their boycott of the House Select Committee investigating the response to Hurricane Katrina:

“’I think that is under discussion,’ said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), noting that the option was being talked about in “a lot of places.”

House Select Committee Chairman Tom Davis has an op-ed in today’s USA Today calling on Democrats to take part in the hearings investigating what went wrong with Hurricane Katrina. Anyone watching yesterday’s hearing could be forgiven for thinking there were more Democrats present than William Jefferson, Charlie Melancon and Gene Taylor. The questions were tough and almost entirely coming from Republicans. Nonetheless, House Minority Leader has tried to block Democrats from taking part in the proceedings. From the Davis op-ed:

“We want both Republicans and Democrats at the table. The more voices asking tough questions, the better. It is unfortunate that Democratic leaders are refusing to appoint members to take part in this important investigation. In the meantime, I've asked several Democrats to participate in our hearings, and they have. Democrats have tried to score political points in the past by accusing Republicans of passing up opportunities to conduct important oversight, particularly of the Bush administration. I've proven that wrong with our investigations at the Government Reform Committee (such as our four hearings into Halliburton contracts), and we'll prove it wrong again with the Select Committee.”

Buzz reader Ken writes in on the line of questioning Chris Shays delivered to former FEMA Director Mike Brown this morning:

“Chris Shays was outrageous. He intended to get out front on a public flogging and showed no interest in learning facts. I was deeply irritated by his accusations and conclusions which were built into his questions/accusations; he showed no interest in hearing anything.”

I agree that Shays appeared more interested in attacking Brown before the cameras than gaining an honest assessment of Brown’s experiences. At the same time, Brown is certainly deserving of harsh criticism. Most other Republicans achieved this balance of critical inquiry without grandstanding. But with Shays, this sort of thing is par for the course.

Texas Republican Kay Granger just reported to Mike Brown’s earlier comment that he “sleeps at night” because he claims to have privately foreseen many of FEMA’s current problems. Granger responded, “I don’t see how you sleep at night.”

Brown then admitted, “Maybe I should have resigned my position earlier and gone public with this.”

Gene Taylor and William Jefferson were the only two Democrats present for today’s questioning of Mike Brown. Most Democrats chose to boycott the hearing since Republicans are in charge of the committee.

New York House Democrat Louise Slaughter just told reporters “the party that controls all of the government can’t investigate itself.” So, whom has the moral authority set the parameters for such hearings? Slaughter’s first and only evidence: 400,000 petition signatures from MoveOn.org members.

New Jersey House liberal Bob Menendez is right in line with Slaughter’s rhetoric. He is now accusing the White House of attempting to “white wash” the “federal government’s failure” after Hurricane Katrina. Not surprisingly, there were zero mentions of state or local failures.

Chris Shays just described Mike Brown’s attempts to coordinate a New Orleans evacuation as having a “look like a deer in the headlights.”

Brown noted he contacted Joe Hagen, Andy Card and President Bush in the White House on Saturday and Sunday before Katrina struck to ask for assistance in convincing Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin to order a mandatory evacuation. He said the White House’s response was to offer to do “whatever they could do” to help.

Mike Brown is engaged in a back and forth exchange with Kentucky House Republican Harold Rogers on why Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco did not earlier order an evacuation of New Orleans. Up until now, Brown has been leading his responses to make it seem Blanco did not issue an evacuation until the day the levees broke, despite repeated urging to do otherwise.

Brown also acknowledges he did not urge Blanco to evacuate until Sunday morning. However, Brown insists he made repeated attempts to contact Blanco earlier.

The House Select Committee is holding a questioning of former FEMA Director Mike Brown. Brown just finished delivering his opening remarks. Brown began by stressing, “emergency management begins at the local level.”

According to Brown’s testimony, FEMA is “not a first responder,” but that “FEMA pushed forward with everything we had,” in response to Hurricane Katrina.

When stating the mistakes he made, Brown listed in order:

1. Holding more regular briefings with the media instead of being “tied to the news shows.”

2. Not being able to more successfully mediate differences between Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. Brown said, “I just couldn’t pull that off.”

Here is an advance clip of the new documentary “Inside the Bubble” a searing look at the failed 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry. The profanities, and there are quite a few, have been bleeped out.

I have a new article up on NRO this morning. After my reporting in Texas this past weekend, it became clear that most in the media and nearly everyone one the Left would succeed in making Bush at least the temporary loser in Hurricane Rita’s aftermath. It doesn’t matter to them that the hurricane’s damage was far less than anticipated or that a successful evacuation was completed. What matters is that Bush is president and they are outraged.

However, the lingering drag on Bush’s agenda may come from the present debate within the Republican Congress on hurricane spending and fiscal restraint. Check out my piece this morning for all the details.

While the RSC deserves much credit for its “Operation Offset” proposals, the House GOP leadership also deserves credit for taking a measured approach to the nearly universal calls for a boon of federal funding in response to hurricane relief efforts.

Congress has already announced plans to send a “special team of highly trained investigators” to the Gulf region to monitor disaster expenditures.

Congress will also hold hearings with testimony from local, state and federal officials on the status of recovery efforts and how relief funds are being spent. In the meantime, Congress has mandated weekly expenditure reports, while federal Inspector Generals are conducting audits and investigations on disaster assistance funds.

As I’ve been reporting on The Buzz, there is an ongoing debate within the Republican Party as how to best pay for the recovery efforts after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Republican Study Committee has released its “Operation Offset” plan that outlines potential savings of $800 billion over 10 years. Seemingly on the other side of the debate is the House leadership, who has not yet endorsed the RSC’s proposed cuts and warns rolling back legislation could stunt economic growth.

But the differences may not be quite as stark as they appear at first glance. There are a few points worth noting when it comes to fiscal prudence and the current Republican Congress:

Tax revenues are up an estimated 15 percent over the same period last year, which has helped reduce the deficit. At the same time, Congress last year held non-security discretionary spending to a 1percent growth rate. That’s below inflation, and significantly below the previous 5-year average of 6 percent growth.

Nonetheless, fiscal conservatives should hope the House Leadership turns an attentive ear to the more than 100 conservative members of the RSC. Katrina and Rita are a catalyst for principled conservatives who have been patiently waiting several years for a stronger approach to fiscal restraint both from the White House and Congress.

Tom DeLay has an op-ed in today’s Washington Times that addresses concerns over spending in Congress. When it comes to the debate over slashing programs to pay for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, DeLay writes:

"This has brought about an important level of debate on the vital need to promote fiscally responsible policies in Congress. And I agree that an essential point has achieved consensus in this debate: The current political dialogue on spending is one that requires a clear declaration of principles from House Republicans. We will continue to display an earnest devotion to the ideals of a smaller, more efficient, better-prioritized government. Flaunting rhetoric on the issue of fiscal discipline will not be enough. The conservative ideals of fiscal discipline and leaner, smarter government require a legislative agenda that can be put into action and enacted into law."

"Our positioning on this issue -- as a party that is strongly identified with the American people as sensible and determined protectors of the hard-working taxpayer -- demands a unified and clear opposition to those whose policies and agendas are hostile to the taxpayer's best interests: Capitol Hill Democrats intent on raising taxes, free-spending special interest groups intent on curing the ills of society by advocating federal dollars as the only solution and a bevy of bureaucrats more interested in an expansion of federal programs than the reduction of ineffective ones."

Over the weekend, I reported on the difference between some Republicans on how to best respond financially to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. On Saturday, Tom DeLay told me those who are calling for the repeal of specific legislation tend to be those who opposed the legislation in the first place. On the other hand, Senator John Cornyn told me there is room in the budget for cuts.

During our conversation, DeLay specifically pointed out John McCain’s criticism of the Highway bill. Right on cue, McCain told ABC’s “This Week yesterday when asked about the Highway bill,
“Can't we sacrifice one bike path, one horse trail, one bridge to nowhere?”

I returned back from Texas early this morning and will be returning to my regular reporting on Washingon politics. However, I'll continue to post reports on Rita recovery efforts as they develop.