During my interview last month with Ed Cox he told me it was George Pataki himself who had encouraged Cox to run, because he would be “a better candidate” versus Jeanne Pirro than Hillary Clinton.

Well, it appears Pataki changed his mind. For those scratching their heads as to why Cox would withdraw after picking up a rapid succession of endorsements, fundraising and grassroots support, here is your unexpected answer: George Pataki has endorsed Pirro.

Ed Cox has withdrawn from the 2006 New York Senate race. Here’s what he had to say in a statement:

“Over the past several months, I have traveled more than 7000 miles across this state, earning the support of party leaders, elected officials and members of both parties. I believe that they have come to know me as a passionate proponent of fiscal restraint, lower taxes, government reform, job creation, school choice, second amendment rights, a strong national defense and a culture of life.

I believe that they have come to know me as a principled and credible candidate. I have been truly honored by the confidence members of both the Republican and Conservative Parties have placed in my ability to not only wage an aggressive campaign, but effectively represent New York State in the Senate.

The Governor is the leader of the Republican Party. Out of respect for his position and his decision, I have decided to stop my campaign for the United State Senate.

Again, my family and I thank all those who have supported my fight to bring voice to the concerns of all New Yorkers in Washington.”

The Washington Post and several other media outlets today have negative reactions to President Bush’s semi-scripted news conference with U.S. troops in Iraq yesterday. After reading their takes, I’d say they are 1 for 2 on judging the politics of this.

First, the teleconference was a failure by any reasoned account. On this point, you can’t really blame the political press for criticizing the president. As I joked with a fellow blogger yesterday, Bush appeared to be reenacting CNN’s “Situation Room,” conducting what looked more like an interview on a multi-flat screen tv receptacle.

I’ve heard from a number of readers currently serving in the military, including some self-ID'd Democrats. Based on their accounts, without exception, this sort of sensitive outreach by Bush does not go over well. He is most inspiring when expressing his true confidence about the war’s effort and purpose. In other words, be the Commander-in-Chief, not the “I feel your pain” post-modern empathizer. It’s not that Bush shouldn’t connect with troops. But he accomplishes this with so much more efficiency when it’s in person. Having me t the president myself, I can personally attest to his ability to convey trust and conviction on an individual basis more than any other politician I’ve met. And that includes Bill Clinton, the man who supposedly makes even Republican quiver face-to-face.

Reporters aimed their second arrow at what was supposedly an entirely scripted and rehearsed meeting between Bush and the troops. However, on this point, the press seems to be exaggerating somewhat. As the Post reports:

“Before they spoke, Allison Barber, a mid-level Pentagon official, helped coach the troops on who would be asked what by Bush. Afterward, according to Reuters, she told reporters that "we knew that the president was going to ask about security, coalition and training" but not the specific questions.”

So, what exactly is wrong with this approach? When I’ve put in tv appearances on cable news networks, the producers tell me what the general topics of discussion will be. Is this coaching? Or, is it being professional and avoiding the uncomfortable silence seemingly only favored by Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction and White House reporters?

What this really comes down to is press anger over Republicans hand-picking attendees for Bush town hall meetings during last year’s White House campaign. It’s something both parties do and is a reasonable point for debate. But when it comes to yesterday’s conference call with troops, the White House is only guilty of an awkward, not telegraphed, delivery.

During today’s press briefing with Scott McClellan, reporters asked him about Harriett Miers reported earlier comments that the Federalist Society was a “politically charged” organization, but the NAACP was not:

QUESTION: "I'm just asking if those continue to be her views to this day, that she believes the Federalist Society is a politically charged organization that she would not take membership in; and that if she still believes that the NAACP..."

MCCLELLAN: "Well, Harriet Miers has been supportive of the Federalist Society, including participating in events and giving a speech to the Society last spring.

"I know she's proud that a number of her attorneys on her own staff are members of the Federalist Society. And she, like the rest of the White House, knows that the Federalist Society has been a great ally on many important issues, particularly when it comes to the federal judiciary.

"It's an organization that advocates a strong and distinguished federal judiciary. And she's spoken to them about that and expressed her appreciation for what they do."

The New York Times has a piece today arguing that Democrat hopes for re-capturing Congress next year are showing signs of coming to fruition. But 13 paragraphs into the story comes this quote from non-partisan analyst Charlie Cook:

"Right now, if I had to bet would the Democrats take the House and Senate back, I'd say no. But are the odds a heck of a lot better than they were three months ago or six months ago? Heck, yes."

Are the Republicans vulnerable? Of course they are. But the GOP has two distinct advantages. First, the Democrats lack an alternative agenda. Second, Republicans may be “on the ropes” but they have become aware of this with more than a year before the midterm elections are held. Unlike Democrats in 1994, Republicans know they have problems and are working to address them now.

Wanted to share this email I received from the office of Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown. Brown's press secretary, Gil Duran, got in touch with me over email yesterday to discuss "We the People" rumors. Duran shared the following for the record:

“Regarding this ‘We the People’ business: Some folks seem to think Mayor Jerry Brown's ‘We the People’ organization is behind this call campaign. In reality, there is no connection.”

Here’s an updated list of GOP House/Senate members targeted by “We the People.” If you’ve received a call from the group and your member’s name is not on my list, please let me know:

Arizona: J.D. Hayworth, Jim Kolbe, Rick Renzi
California: John Doolittle, Richard Pombo
Colorado: Marilyn Musgrave
Connecticut: Nancy Johnson, Chris Shays
Indiana: Chris Chocola, John Hostettler, Mike Sodrel
Kentucky: Geoff Davis, Ron Lewis, Ann Northup, Hal Rogers
Louisiana: Rodney Alexander, Richard Baker, Jim McCrery
New Hampshire: Charlie Bass, Jeb Bradley
New York: Randy Kuhl, Tom Reynolds, James Walsh
Ohio: John Boehner, Mike DeWine, Dave Hobson, Bob Ney, Mike Oxley, Deborah Pryce, Ralph Regula, Jean Schmidt, Pat Tiberi, Mike Turner
Pennsylvania: Charlie Dent, Mike Fitzpatrick, Jim Gerlach, Melissa Hart, Curt Weldon
Washington: Cathy McMorris, Dave Reichert
Wisconsin: Paul Ryan
Wyoming: Barbara Cubin

(14 states, 42 members)

UPDATE: Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Clay Shaw of Florida have been added to the list.

I have a new piece up on NRO this morning on “We the People.” If you’re a regular Buzz reader, you’ve seen my reports on this stealth group targeting House Republicans for their connections to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. With each passing day the target list grows. Almost solely based on reader responses, the list is nearly up to 50 House members in 14 states. You can read the full article here .

During the conference call with RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman today, one caller asked if Harriet Miers has been personally offended or taken aback by the criticism she has received from conservative circles. Mehlman said, “I don’t think so … She is a tough lady … She’s not someone who worries a lot about what other people are thinking. She cares about doing the right thing.”

Matt Margolis of Blogs for Bush has launched a new website No Agenda, that “exposes the Democrats' ethics hypocrisy, corruption, illegal activities, and much more than that. It allows readers to choose from a list of Democrats and find out what ethical violations they have been accused of, or they choose from a list of violations and find out which Democrats are accused of it...”

Another question to Chairman Mehlman regarded whether or not prominent, conservative judges were being adequately rewarded for their experience and time on the bench. Mehlman responded by stressing his involvement in the Federalist Society while attending Harvard Law School and added, “We do want to reward those people and we are rewarding those people. And we’re going to keep rewarding those people.”

I’m currently listening in on a conference call with RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman discussing the nomination of Harriett Miers. When it was my turn to ask Mehlman a question, I asked “Do you believe that those conservatives who have reservations about the Miers nomination will be more comfortable with her qualifications and philosophy after the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee?”

Chairman Mehlman responded, “Yes, I do. People will be able to hear about her vision. She will be a judge who respects the Constitution. She will have a conservative approach to the bench and I think she will reassure people with her constitutionalist approach.”

I’ll have more on the conference call in just a few minutes.

Buzz reader Mike T writes in the Miers/Bush correspondence:

“Dear lord, she sounds like a groupie. As hard as I try to dismiss the tenor of the clips you posted as keeping with the informal nature of messages passed between long-standing co-workers, I just can't. They're just too bubbly, almost school-girlish. ‘Thank you for taking time to visit...Cool’???”

“I'd almost feel better if someone described her as career-oriented and calculating, because then I could just call it schmoozing. As it is, it comes off as worshipful (although the compliments on a speech come across as brown-nosing).”

“It occurs to me - or maybe I've internalized a point made elsewhere in NRO - that the tone of these notes is greatly similar to the way the Miers supporters in the base have sounded. It seems to me that the conservative schism is between - and I use the expression reluctantly - the cult-figure worshippers, i.e. those who are dedicated to George W. Bush, the man, and those dedicated to conservatism as a philosophy, the latter group being comprised of people who embraced the President because they had perceived a kindred spirit, so to speak, but now realize that, while he may have conservative values, he is unwilling or unable to more forcefully govern according to those values.”

“I suspect most of the President's supporters in the ‘conservativism as philosophy’ are, as I am, suffering through the dilemma we are presented: we have no desire to harm the President, especially given the strong support for the way he has conducted the Global War on Terror, but we obviously have the gravest misgivings on this SCOTUS nomination.”

The Drudge Report claims Harriet Miers was chosen as President Bush’s SCOTUS nominee after benefiting from two political filters. First, he has narrowed his search to female candidates. Second, the field significantly narrowed after several prominent, but yet unnamed candidates asked to have their names withdrawn from the selection process.

A source close to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in to me this morning to dispute the claim:

“Today, James Dobson has suggested Karl Rove said that most of the women on the ‘short list’ asked not to be considered. Karen Williams did no such thing. Her name was in the running up until Miers was selected. She did NOT withdraw her name.”

Is there such a thing as political tagging? A number of anti-Tom DeLay propaganda items have been popping up across Washington this week. Near where I live on the U Street corridor, a friend pointed me out to this particular piece:

It’s postcard sized and located on a wall between a Starbucks and a bar. I found another near Dupont Circle this morning in front of the restaurant Rosemary’s Thyme. There have been a few variations on the sign I photographed. Some are larger, including one that was 8x11. I’ve heard there are others with various slogans, but haven’t come across those myself.

The New York Times has a collection (it's a PDF) of correspondence between President Bush and Harriett Miers. Some of the highlights from over the years:

From March 25, 1995:

“Thank you for taking the time to visit in the office and on the plane back. Cool!”

From July 16th, 1997:

“Thank you for the privilege of serving the State of Texas and thank you again for your time. You are the best!”

From January 15th, 1998:

"Thank you for allowing me to travel back to Dallas with you and for _all_ you do. Great speech! Many good compliments from the audience!"

And from an undated letter:

“Dear Governor GWB, you are the best governor ever – deserving of great respect!”

Finally, a somewhat unusual birthday greeting from President Bush to Miers on August 7, 2000:

“Happy birthday to a fine Texan and a great friend! Laura and I extend our very best wishes for your happiness and good health. Have a great life!”

Hat tip: Wonkette

The Free Enterprise Fund announced this morning it will initiate a “saturation buy on broadcast” TV that criticizes Travis County DA Ronnie Earle for, “allowing partisan considerations to interfere with his professional conduct.”

From FEF Chairman Mallory Factor:

“Ronnie Earle is abusing his power and his office. We want to make sure his friends and neighbors know what he's up to -- and are buying time on everything from West Wing to NASCAR to make sure they have a chance to see the real Ronnie Earle."

“Ronnie Earle is using his office as the leading wedge for liberals trying to regain control of the Texas Legislature and the U.S. Congress. By pushing grand juries to issue politically-motivated indictments of prominent Republicans, Ronnie Earle is trying to make it a crime to be conservative, to support an agenda of lower taxes and less government. That’s un-American.”

The ad will begin airing in Austin, Texas starting Thursday.

Gerry Daly writes in with a response to Tom’s NJ GOV Marist Poll breakdown:

"Regarding Tom's concerns. He talks about the various cross tabs, but what needs to be considered with them is that they are not statistically meaningful. It was a wrong (in my opinion) for Marist to present them. At a minimum they should have provided some information to assist readers in measuring how meaningful the various cross tabs are.
The entire survey has just 321 likely voters, which corresponds to a margin of error of +/-5.5% for the overall likely voter sample. However, the results are reported to the nearest whole number, so the MoE is really +/-6%. On top of this, the sub-samples are much smaller for each of the likely voter cross tabs. The margin of error for likely women voters would be along the lines of +/-8%-- per candidate. Meaning the gap could be as much as 16 points higher and still be within the expected range. It is even worse for the ideology breakdowns. The MoE for likely conservative voters is about +/- 9%. The MoE for likely liberal voters is about +/-12%.
However, there have been a number of polls for New Jersey done recently, and they all show the race to be single digits in the gap between the candidates. The problems in the Marist survey due to a small sample size notwithstanding, it is clear that the race there has tightened. It is still Corzine's race to lose, but Forrester is in the ballpark."

Democrat Buzz reader Tom writes in to disagree with the Marist Poll’s methods, but not its general findings:

“If you really take a look at the cross tabs they offer, there are a ton of red flags. Jon Corzine is not only 2 points down to Doug Forrester among men, it’s much higher than that.”

“Jon Corzine is up more than 5 points among women. Jon Corzine is also not leading Forrester among independents by 14 points. The unfavorables are wrong as well, Corzine’s are higher and Forrester’s are lower.”

“Also, the sub sample of likely voters is very, very small. Less than 400 voters. Assembly races are using higher samples than that. The Margin of error is almost 6 points, that’s ridiculous.”

“However, internal polling around the state does show that this race is tightening very quickly and Corzine just went up on the air with the hardest ads they’ve produced so far. It is probably a 3-5-point race right now. So, your readers can get excited that this race is taking a turn in Forrester’s direction, but they shouldn’t believe the Marist poll.”

I agree with Tom on the small polling sample. I think this race comes down to two factors: Forrester establishing credibility as a serious candidate and ethical concerns staying at the top of voters' minds.

The president and Laura Bush appeared on the “Today” show this morning while working on a Habitat for Humanity house in Louisiana. “Today” co-host Matt Lauer used his opportunity to pepper President Bush on topics including Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Harriett Miers and Karl Rove. Lauer’s sources included one unnamed, but “prominent” Democrat, New York House liberal Carolyn Maloney and citing conservatives upset over the Miers nomination. The selective evidence didn’t escape the president’s attention:

Lauer: “I talked to a prominent Democrat in Louisiana who has said that this type of appearance, while it’s great to see you guys rolling up your sleeves and grabbing a hammer and helping with this piece of wall here, that it’s a photo op, and they want to see a plan on paper, your plan to rebuild this region. Do you have that kind of a plan?”

Bush: “Well, Matt, you see, I don’t think Washington ought to dictate to New Orleans how to rebuild. I guess we have a different philosophy than whoever the prominent Democrat was you spoke to. Last night, Laura and had dinner with Mayor Nagin and a group of distinguished New Orleans citizens from all walks of life. And my message to them was, we will support the plan that you develop.”

“The point is, is that it comes from the local folks. And I recognize there’s an attitude in Washington that says, we know better than the local people. That’s just not the attitude I have.”

Lauer: “Carolyn Maloney, who, as you know, is a Democrat from New York, a congresswoman, said –-“

Bush: “You’re quoting a lot of Democrats today, Matt, that’s interesting.” (Laughter)

There is exciting news today from New Jersey. A new Marist Poll shows Republican candidate Doug Forrester trailing Senator Jon Corzine by only one point amongst likely voters. 13 percent of voters remain undecided.

This is a substantial swing from previous polls, which consistently showed Corzine with a lead of at least five points or more. Corzine still leads in nearly every important category: who is more qualified, who is likely to win and which candidate the voters are leaning towards. Corzine also leads on most of the specific issues.

So, why has Forrester narrowed the gap? First, the two issues he leads Corzine on are of high importance to New Jersey voters, reducing property taxes and cleaning up government corruption. Second, a plurality of survey respondents blames the Democrats by a nearly 2-1 margin over Republicans for the state’s problems.