Today’s Wall Street Journal takes a look at how House Republicans are reasserting themselves in pushing forward the conservative agenda:

“Next week, House Republicans plan to vote to cut $50 billion from federal spending over the next five years, $15 billion more than they planned to cut a few weeks ago. Before the end of the year, House Republicans also will take votes on an across-the-board cut in federal spending, legislation to extend Mr. Bush's 15% tax rates on capital gains and dividends and a border-security bill that has been celebrated by conservatives.”

“Republican leaders hope the votes can unite a political base that has turned rebellious over issues such as deficit spending and the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Republicans are ‘more invigorated now, we have something to fight for,’ said Rep. Jack Kingston, a conservative from Georgia. ‘We have moved from the second tier of our issues for our base to our first tier.’"

I’d like to give a special thanks to everyone who came out for last night’s New York Young Republican Club meeting. We had an enjoyable Q&A discussion on topics including Harriet Miers, Tom DeLay, fiscal discipline and the Democratic agenda.

If you live in the New York area, and are between 18-40, I highly recommend checking this organization out. They organize a lot of interesting activities and are quite a fun group.

I'm on the road driving to NYC. On the radio, hero of the Democratic Party Rahm Emanuel is advocating a dollar for dollar tax increase to match Iraq reconstruction spending. Emanuel made a comparison between training Iraqi teachers while U.S. teachers "lose their jobs." His plan sounded quite similar to one made by John Kerry in '04 about "opening fire stations in Iraq while we are closing them at home." While the GOP struggles with reasserting fiscal discipline it's telling to hear the contrasting lack of ideas from the other side.

Many thanks to the Republican Conference for hosting Blog Row today. I am now on the road to NYC. Will be back later this evening with more updates and traveling to NJ tomorrow to cover the Forrester campaign.

Mike Pence, Deborah Pryce and Kevin Brady are in the room answering questions from bloggers right now. My first question was directed at Congressman Pence. I told Pence that questions of fiscal restraint are of high concern to conservative voters. While there is some optimism over Republicans’ apparent renewed commitment to fiscal restraint, there is also deep hesitation as to whether the GOP leadership will actually deliver on proposed budget cuts.

I asked Pence if he believes the leadership will actually push through cuts. And if so, will they be done in time to resonate with voters before the 2006 elections? Pence answered:

“There are a lot of miles between the sand and the dunes. However, I am confident the House Republican leadership are committed to respond to issues such as Hurricane Katrina with both discipline and compassion.”

“I am confident Speaker Hastert will deliver results on fiscal issues. No doubt, there are challenging days ahead. But in my time in Congress, I have never seen such purpose and unity between the White House and the congressional leadership.”

“For the millions of Americans who cherish a Republican leadership, you are going to have something to feel good about before Christmas.”

I just got settled in at “Blog Row” here over at the Canon House Office Building. There are eight of us here right now, including myself. Also in attendance are Ian Schwartz from the Political Teen, Mary Katherine Ham and Tim Chapman from Townhall.com, William Beutler from the Hotline’s Blogometer, Just Hart from Right Side Redux and Pat Cleary from Red State.

This morning I’m headed over to Congress. The Republican conference is providing a first-time opportunity this morning for live blogging from the House office buildings. In addition, there will be a rolling list of members coming through the workspace today to meet and speak with bloggers. I’ll be filing reports from the scene and posting pictures of who’s there and what they’re up to.

For any Buzz readers in the New York area, I’ll be the featured speaker tomorrow night at the New York Young Republican Club at 7pm.

While most would agree that Rove cannot be replaced, would the White House nonetheless look to a particular individual to step-up if Rove were indicted? There has been a lot of buzz around Washington that former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie would be just such an individual. However, my same source is close to Gillespie and says that isn't happening.

“I’m certain he will not remain in the White House, nor will he return after the Miers nomination process is complete. He made a financial sacrifice to run the RNC. The partners in his new contract made an exception to allow him to temporarily return to the White House to assist in the Miers nomination. But his contract won’t allow him to remain at the White House. Besides, he is anxious to get back to the private sector.”

If Karl Rove were forced to step down for any reason could the Bush agenda survive? No one doubts Rove's value to this president. However, perhaps it is possible the agenda could stand on its own merits even while losing one of its great messengers.

Another source that works closely with the White House tells The Buzz, “Karl Rove is irreplaceable. Not only does he have incredible talents, he has a close working relationship with the president. Aside from Laura Bush, no individual can influence his opinion more. I don’t think Rove should be indicted and I do not think he will be. However, if Rove were to leave the White House for any reason, there is a talented team in place. No one person can replace Karl Rove. It would be similar to the situation after Karen Hughes left the White House. Everyone said it would be a disaster. But people like Dan Bartlett stepped up and are getting the job done.”

Yesterday, I asked if the Bush agenda is stalled and if so how much of that is directly tied to the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation?

A source who asked to remain anonymous because of their close ties to the White House tells The Buzz it is not the president's agenda itself that is lacking, but the means by which it is being conveyed, “The administration has caught the second-term curse. They are lacking an agenda that is on the offensive. Sure, they’ve had fits and starts, but they have lacked a plan to govern. And when you have a failure to govern, you feel it at the polls. This didn’t start with Hurricane Katrina. Things were going south in August. There is a growing disconnect. The second-term agenda has not hit it off with the American public.”

Nonetheless, this same source feels the situation is far from dire. “They need a forward-looking economic package that conservatives and Republicans in Congress can get behind. Time is on our side for cleaning up this mess. It’s going to be a lot of work. But the president’s political capital will not wean until early next summer even if this course doesn’t change. If you’re a member of Congress up for re-election that’s when the survival instincts kick in and you’ll do or say what you need to in order to win your campaign.”

There should be some consensus now as to the "personal wisdom" of Harriet Miers.

Those who continue support her nomination can look to today’s White House talking points.

But for those against her nomination, there is today’s 65-page questionnaire response handed out by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As it turns out, Miers didn't think she should be Bush's pick to replace O'Connor either.

In her response, Miers reveals that when Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, Miers was asked if she would like to be considered to replace O’Connor. Miers responded, "I was asked whether my name should be considered. I indicated at that time that I did not want to be considered.”

Buzz reader Florence writes in:

“How breathtakingly unfair and hypocritical is the major media. The presumption of guilt in covering the Plame/Wilson affair is an affront to that most basic of American jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty. If it should happen that say neither Rove nor Libby, or one of them, does not get indicted, how do they recover their good name? Even Tom Oliphant, that lefty partisan, has expressed his dismay over this aspect of the brouhaha and of attempts by the prosecutor, supposedly, to invent novel readings of statutes to bring indictments in the absence of a crime being committed on the original reason for the investigation. I would hope that those who count themselves as conservatives would not be part of the premature mob drawing conclusions and discussing such before a decision is made. It is not sufficient to issue a caveat about...we don't know yet what will happen... and then proceed to discuss the effects of same. That is cheap and lazy journalism. Please hold yourselves at NRO to a higher standard.”

As I told Florence, I must respectfully disagree. Reporting on unanswered questions is my job. I do not presume to know Karl Rove’s fate. But I do know it is within the realm of possibility that he could be indicted. Also, let’s not forget indicted is far from convicted. Just ask Tom DeLay.

What’s more, regardless of Rove’s legal standing, there are legitimate concerns from conservatives about the White House agenda on spending, the Supreme Court and Homeland Security. I personally am not advocating solutions to these concerns. However, I do think it’s fair, and hopefully helpful, to ask more informed individuals what they know and think about such concerns.

What’s more, the list is lacking of those who restrained their opinion during the months leading up to Bill Clinton’s impeachment. There was open speculation and reporting from all corners on the potential consequences of his actions.

We can believe in Karl Rove’s innocence and we can advocate on his behalf. However, if you care about the conservative agenda that does not mean you should adopt an “ignorance is strength” approach to the very real troubles he faces. Looking for answers is far from a predetermination of guilt.

I just spoke with GOP strategist Charlie Black about the White House agenda. Black tells NRO he doesn’t think the White House has been “off its game” despite the distractions posed by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald:

“I don’t think there’s a consensus that the White House has lost direction. Most of this criticism comes after they were forced to deal with two hurricanes. Since then, they’ve had the successful confirmation of John Roberts. No doubt the White House was caught off-guard by the response from some conservatives to their appointment of Harriet Miers. But you are seeing them getting out front of that issue now. They still have a big agenda. They are working well with the leadership on Capitol Hill to move things forward. There has been a strong list of legislative accomplishments this year directed from the White House and carried out in Congress. So, I don’t think it’s fair to say the White House has lost direction.”

Even though everyone in Washington has an opinion, no one knows if Karl Rove will be indicted. However, it is obvious that the White House has been off its game for a while now. If Patrick Fitzgerald ends his investigation without indicting Rove, will strategy improve in the Oval Office?

If Rove were to be indicted, who would step up to replace him? As I wrote earlier, some prominent conservatives clearly do not think Andy Card would be up to the task. Rove has been so integral to formulating the president’s agenda that any successor would likely be a shadow in comparison. What about Ed Gillespie? He has been brought on board to help guide the nomination of Harriet Miers. Is Gillespie someone conservatives would trust to help shape and deliver the president’s second term agenda?

New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut takes a look at criticism surrounding White House Chief of Staff Andy Card. She points to two critical events – the response to Hurricane Katrina and the selection of Harriett Miers – that fell under Card’s stewardship. Kornblut writes:

“The confluence of crises, all running through Mr. Card's suite just steps from the Oval Office, has some critics asking whether he needs to clean house or assert himself more forcefully - or at least consider a course correction before Mr. Bush is downgraded permanently to lame duck status.”

David Frum says, “The lesson of both Katrina and Miers is that the system of decision making in the White House no longer meets the needs of the president.”

And Bill Kristol implies Card is less influential than his predecessors.

So, with Karl Rove under the microscope of Patrick Fitzgerald, is Andy Card up to his increased responsibilities? As the New York Times reminds readers, Card helped coordinate FEMA’s response to hurricanes while the first President Bush was in office, an effort that won universal accolades. And Card has been with President Bush since day one, finding particular success in coordination efforts between Rove, Condoleezza Rice and Josh Bolten. In fact, Rice says Card has been instrumental in making sure competing voices get the president’s attention:

“Andy is not just completely comfortable with, but has encouraged, the president's four or five key advisers to feel that they can walk into the Oval and just talk to the president," Ms. Rice said. "There have been chiefs of staff who want to control access all the time; that's just not Andy.”

The Washington Post says special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has “zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office” had in the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair. The Post reports, “The prosecutor has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.”

From today’s Washington Post story headlined, “House GOP Leaders Set to Cut Spending”:

“House Republican leaders have moved from balking at big cuts in Medicaid and other programs to embracing them, driven by pent-up anger from fiscal conservatives concerned about runaway spending and the leadership's own weakening hold on power.”

Republican Study Committee members Mike Pence and Jeff Flake receive attention and praise throughout the piece, which also includes two “close associates” of Tom DeLay saying his misread the drive for cuts from fiscal conservatives:

“’He screwed up,’ one of the confidants said of DeLay's comments. ‘People were completely taken aback. That more than anything else was the reason Republicans were upset.’"

An interesting quote and one you almost certainly would not hear before DeLay’s indictment. However, it’s not about criticizing DeLay. This was clearly an issue with the GOP leadership in general, not one individual. Nonetheless, the Post warns:

“But Republicans could be taking a big risk by cutting Medicaid programs while their standing in the polls has plummeted and Democrats gear up for a fight. ‘We have seen a sea change in the budget policies of House Republicans,’ said Thomas S. Kahn, the Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee. ‘Clearly, the RSC's influence over their budget policies is in the ascendancy.’"

Of course, fiscal conservatives could argue that the bloated Medicaid bill never did anything to benefit Republicans in the first place. Though unlike campaign finance reform, it seems Republicans, including the White House, are getting a second chance.

It was widely reported last week that Democrat Bob Casey Jr. raised more campaign funds during the last quarter than Rick Santorum. Santorum has raised significantly more cash during past quarters and still leads Casey in cash on hand more than two-to-one with $6.6 million compared to Casey’s $3 million. Last quarter’s totals show Casey raising about $2 million compared to Santorum’s $1.7 million.

The reason behind the difference may surprise you and should disappoint Democrats.

After Hurricane Katrina, Santorum cancelled a fundraising trip to Texas. His campaign estimates they lost about $1 million in fundraising due to their moratorium.

The Casey campaign promised to not fundraise in areas “affected” by the hurricane, but on September 19th, held fundraisers in Houston and Austin. The fundraisers netted about $18,000 for the Casey campaign. As the Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported:

“On the same day Sen. Rick Santorum canceled a fund-raising trip to Texas because of Hurricane Katrina, his leading Democratic opponent collected $18,000 in Austin and met with prospective donors in Houston.”

“Robert P. Casey Jr. traveled to Texas Sept. 19, a detail the Democrat's campaign did not disclose when asked last month whether he planned to raise money outside the state before close of the quarterly fund-raising period on Sept. 30.”

"’The vast majority of our fund-raising is taking place in Pennsylvania and in areas not affected by the floods,’ said Jay Reiff, Casey's campaign manager, in a Sept. 18 Inquirer story. ‘We are certainly not doing any fund-raising in the areas impacted.’"

“Reiff said yesterday that the campaign did not view Texas as an impacted area, and never found it necessary to curtail political activity in the first place…”

Over at Red State there is an interesting assessment of the upcoming 2006 elections:

“Two days after the 2004 Republican win, I stated that a filibuster-proof Senate was possible in 2006. That was based on the seats in play before recruitment of candidates had happened. Unfortunately, Senator Dole’s recruitment efforts have been poor at best. With almost all the candidates declared, it would take a major Republican gust to win 60 seats. Fortunately, the landscape was favorable enough that despite bad recruiting it seems that few seats will switch hands. Bottom line is that if elections were today, the result would be net -1 to +1 for Rs. We would lose PA and maybe RI while gaining MN and maybe MD.”

You know the basic story here: All the news these days is bad news for the GOP. The White House has lost direction and the GOP congressional leadership is embroiled in scandal. But three critical points stand out to me that are not being addressed by the media or even in most conservative circles. First, the GOP does face significant problems. However, the party seems aware of this fact more than a year before votes are cast. Re-locating their direction on fiscal issues would be a great start: budget restraint, tax reform and a steadfast commitment to the president’s tax cuts.

The second point is that Democrats still lack direction and a unified message. Until they come up with both, their chances of tapping into any national reform sentiment will remain limited.

Finally, Republicans retain a powerful fundraising advantage. The challenge of maintaining or even picking up seats appears substantial at this point. But the news cycle will eventually turn back at least somewhat in favor of the Republicans, strong fundraising will continue and when it comes time to get out the vote, a unified message beats generalist anger nearly every time.

You Can Call Me President Al

There’s a new blog that’s good for a quick laugh, “The Official President Al Gore Blog.” This “official” blog is more a chronicle of what Al Gore is, or isn’t, up to these days. Ok, there's nothing real about it at all. But it is very interactive:

“For each website that links to algorelabs.com, Tipper and I will invent, patent, or copyright something for you. For two links, you get to name it.”

I can’t wait for my own invention/patent/copyright. Though it seems I will have to wait for Al or Tipper to name it. But we know that’s one of his specialties, right?

While you’re there, don’t forget to check out Tipper’s photo page. Oh wow, did I just qualify to name my own invention/patent/copyright?

The other seemingly positive event to emerge this weekend for Tom DeLay concerns the evidence, or lack thereof, contained in Ronnie Earle’s indictment against him. As the Houston Chronicle reports:

“Travis County prosecutors admitted Friday they lack physical proof of a list of Republican candidates that is at the heart of money-laundering indictments against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and two of his associates.”

“The list is key to prosecutors being able to prove that corporate money that could not be legally spent on Texas candidates was specifically exchanged at the national level for donations that legally could be spent on Republican candidates for the Texas House.”

“Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.”

“But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a ‘similar’ list and not the one allegedly received by then-RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme.”

Media Blog has more, too.

There were two positive news developments for Tom DeLay over the weekend. First, it was reported DeLay had his best fundraising quarter ever in his 21 years in Congress.

Over the past three months, DeLay raised a reported $1.2 million in funds for his 2006 re-election campaign. The only catch to that is the vast majority came before he was indicted by Ronnie Earle and forced to step down as House Majority Leader. However, since stepping down, DeLay has used Ronnie Earle as a fundraising tool on his re-election website. The true measure of his grassroots, financial support will become apparent after the next quarter’s numbers are made available.

Still, the information currently available is positive. My first question was how much of DeLay’s money came from Texas voters? Secondly, how much from PAC’s? As the non-partisan Political Money Line reports:

“The majority of the committee receipts came from individual contributions totaling $569,246. Only $100,000 came from persons outside Texas. PACs and other committees contributed a total of $346,097.”