Congress Can't Pass Budget

A deeply unpopular Congress is bolting for the campaign trail without finishing its most basic job - approving a budget for the government year that begins on Friday. Lawmakers also are postponing a major fight over taxes, two embarrassing ethics cases and other political hot potatoes until angry and frustrated voters render their verdict in the Nov. 2 elections.

As a last necessary task before leaving, both the Senate and House passed a temporary spending measure needed to keep federal agencies operating when the new budget year starts.

As Congress moved toward a messy end to a session fraught with partisan fire, President Barack Obama campaigned for Democrats in Iowa and Virginia, accusing Republicans of being dishonest about what needs to be done to revive the economy and restore middle-class dreams.

With their House and Senate majorities on the line, Democratic leaders called off votes and even debates on all controversial matters.

"It would be one thing if you have a chance to pass something, then by all means have a vote," Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said Wednesday. "But it was pretty clear that it was going to be mutually assured destruction."

One foot out the door, the House and Senate convened just long enough to vote on a "continuing resolution," a stopgap measure to keep the government in operating funds for the next two months and avoid a pre-election federal shutdown.

The Senate late Wednesday approved the temporary spending bill 69-30. The House followed suit several hours later with a 228-194 vote, sending it to Obama early Thursday.

"We may not agree on much, but I think, with rare exception, all 100 senators want to get out of here and get back to their states," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is locked in a tough re-election fight against Republican Sharron Angle in Nevada.

Staying or going might seem an equally unpleasant prospect for some embattled Democrats, who are facing more than four weeks of defending unpopular votes in favor of Obama's economic stimulus measure, health care law and uncompleted legislation for curbing global warming.

They also head home without what was supposed to be their closing argument of the campaign, an extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making less than $250,000.

Republicans and a few Democrats urged Congress to preserve the tax cuts for all Americans, even the wealthiest. Democratic leaders opted to avoid the risk of being branded tax hikers and punted the matter until after the elections.

Republicans applied the label anyway, scolding Democrats for folding the tent without voting on extending former President George W. Bush's tax cuts beyond their Dec. 31 expiration. A motion to adjourn upon completing routine business passed by a single vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's, after 39 Democrats joined Republicans in protest.

"If Democratic leaders leave town without stopping all of the tax hikes, they are turning their backs on the American people," said House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Pelosi has vowed that the middle class tax cuts will be passed this year.

Republicans also denounced Democrats for delaying the ethics trials of Reps. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and Maxine Waters, D-Calif., until after the elections. Both lawmakers had said they wanted trials as soon as possible.

House leaders also appeared unlikely to call a vote on a Senate-passed school nutrition bill favored by first lady Michelle Obama. The bill is opposed by liberals because it would cut food stamp benefits to find the money to pay for better school lunches. The Senate passed the $4.5 billion legislation in August, and many of the child nutrition programs it includes are to expire on Thursday, the last day of the fiscal year. They'll be temporarily extended under the stopgap bill.

In the waning hours before adjournment, Democrats moved what smaller legislation they could.

The House advanced to Obama's desk a bill setting NASA policy and legislation aimed at strengthening congressional oversight of sensitive spy operations. But a House measure to provide free health care and additional compensation to World Trade Center workers sickened in the towers' crumbled ruins was sure to stall in the Senate.

The stopgap spending measure was kept clean of a host of add-ons sought by the Obama administration, including money for "Race to the Top" grants to better-performing schools and more than $4 billion to finance settlements of long-standing lawsuits by black farmers and American Indians against the government. A single GOP senator, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, was blocking the bill for black farmers and Indians, and negotiations were continuing.

Prospects were being helped by the addition of several measures - favored by western Republicans - to resolve Indian water claims.

The stopgap bill is a reminder of the dismal performance by Congress in doing its most basic job - passing an annual budget and the spending bills for agency operations.

Only two of a dozen annual appropriations bills have passed the House this year and none has passed the Senate as Democratic leaders have opted against lengthy floor debates and politically difficult votes on spending.

The breakdown in the budget process includes a senator from Obama's own party holding up the confirmation of a director to head the White House budget office, a critical post. Mary Landrieu, D-La., is blocking the nomination until the administration lifts or significantly modifies a Gulf oil well moratorium imposed after the BP spill.

The end-of session agenda included:

_The House, on a 304-118 vote, sent to the president a legislative blueprint for NASA's future that would extend the life of the space shuttle program for a year while backing Obama's intent to use commercial carriers to carry humans into space. Obama will sign the measure.

_Also on its way to the president's desk was the first intelligence authorization bill since 2004, with compromise language on demands by Congress for greater access to top secret intelligence. The most secret briefings will still only be provided to top congressional leaders, but members of the intelligence panels will receive a general description of the programs. The House vote was 244-181.

_The House approved legislation, 348-79, that would allow the U.S. to seek trade sanctions against China and other nations for manipulating their currency to gain trade advantages. Its prospects are unclear in the Senate.

The child nutrition bill ran into trouble after House supporters abandoned their own $8 billion version and proposed passing the Senate version, which would be partially paid for by using future funding for food stamp programs. The bill now faces opposition from hunger groups, and some Democrats have said they will not support it if the food stamp money is used.

U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey

How much does it matter that most Americans don't know that Maimonides was Jewish? Or that most of us do not know that most people in Indonesia -- the world's largest mostly Muslim nation -- are Muslim? Or that Protestants (and not Catholics) are taught that salvation comes through "faith alone"?

Academics call it the Religion Congruence Fallacy: In survey after survey, year after year, Americans who say they belong to a particular religious tradition tend not to act like it.

To take an easy set of examples: Conservative Protestants are no less likely than other Protestants to have been divorced, to have seen an X-rated movie in the last year, or to be sexually active even if they aren't married. Even though their church teaches strongly that all three practices are wrong.

Maybe that's because many of us don't know all that much about the faith tradition we say we profess -- or what makes it distinctive from any other. That was certainly the premise for Boston University professor Stephen Prothero's 2007 book, "Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know -- and Doesn't." He wrote that "Americans are both deeply religious and profoundly ignorant about religion."

But there hasn't been a ton of research to back up Prothero's claim. Enter the good folks from the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life. They commissioned a national poll with the goal of providing "a baseline measurement of how much Americans know about religion today." The results of that poll were released Tuesday. And Prothero was one of the experts who helped them craft their queries.

Regular readers of my work know I like the Pew folks a lot. But I'm not totally loving this particular report. Oh, the methodology is fine. But I wonder about the questions. Too many read to me as if they were taken from a religion version of Trivial Pursuit. Too many check the recognition of names or facts without offering much obvious insight into how people understand their faith or the faith of others.

I suppose it's interesting that only 8 percent of Americans knew that the 12th-century scholar Maimonides was Jewish. And I guess it's surprising that only half of those surveyed know the Muslim sacred text is the Koran. (Heck, even the idiots who want to burn it know what it's called.)

And maybe it's just that I've been writing about religion so long that makes me shocked that four in 10 Catholics polled said their church teaches the consecrated bread and wine at Mass is only symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. (That the host and wine actually turn into the body and blood of Christ is central to Catholic teaching. The big word is "transubstantiation." )

And I'll admit that I goggled a bit to find that more people could identify Zeus as the king of the Greek gods (65 percent) than could name Joe Biden as vice president of the United States (59 percent). Are there that many "Percy Jackson" fans out there?

I found a couple of the religion/politics questions more interesting than those that probed specific religious knowledge. I was troubled at the glass-half-emptiness of some of the responses.

For instance: About three in 10 missed a multiple choice question about what the U. S Constitution says about religion. The right answer was "The government shall neither establish a religion nor interfere with the practice of religion." That's a lot of people who don't know about the First Amendment.

And while only one in 10 didn't know a public school teacher is not allowed to lead a class in prayer, almost seven in 10 didn't know that it's legal for the same teacher to read the Bible in class as literature.

Enough of my quibbling. Here are some of the other questions. How would you have done?

What is the first book of the Bible? (63 percent of Americans knew it's Genesis.)

Name the Gospels. (45 percent of everyone surveyed could reel off all four.)

Where, according to the Bible, was Jesus born? (71 percent -- but only 65 percent of Catholics -- knew it's Bethlehem. Is it really possible that there's a place where 30 percent of America isn't forced to listen to piped-in Christmas carols? "O Little Town of . . .")

Was Mother Teresa Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Mormon? (82 percent of everyone surveyed -- but only 66 percent of black Protestants -- knew she was Catholic.)

What is the name of the person whose writings and actions inspired the Reformation? Luther, Aquinas or Wesley? (Only 46 percent chose Martin Luther.)

Was Joseph Smith Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu? (About half knew the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was Mormon.)

Is Ramadan the Islamic holy month, the Hindu festival of lights or a Jewish day of atonement? (About half knew this was the Muslim holy month.)

Which religion aims at nirvana, the state of being free from suffering? Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam? (Only 36 percent knew this is a Buddhist concept.)

Which group traditionally teaches that salvation is through faith alone? Protestants, Catholics, both or neither? (Only 16 percent tagged this as a Protestant teaching. But Jews and the religiously unaffiliated were more likely than Catholics and almost as likely as Protestants to get this one right.)

That last question is representative of an interesting trend: Jews, Mormons and the religiously unaffiliated got more answers right than other religious groups, all other factors being equal. In fact, atheists/agnostics answered more questions correctly than any other group.

The most important factor in whether people knew stuff was, not shockingly, their level of education. College grads and people who had taken courses in religion did much better.

Maybe I'm being too critical of the questions. One can make the case that someone who doesn't know some of the basic names and facts about a faith probably doesn't understand the essentials of that belief.

You can read the whole report for yourself here. And you can take a 15-question version of the quiz here.

Presidential Power?

An amalgamated cybersecurity bill that lawmakers hope to pass before the end of the year includes new powers which would allow the Federal Government to shut down not only entire areas of the Internet, but also businesses and industries that fail to comply with government orders following the declaration of a national emergency – increasing fears that the legislation will be abused as a political tool.

The draft bill is a combination of two pieces of legislation originally crafted by Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller. One of the differences between the new bill and the original Lieberman version is that the Internet “kill switch” power has been limited to 90 days without congressional oversight, rather than the original period of four months contained in the Lieberman bill.

In other words, the White House can issue an emergency declaration that lasts 30 days which can be renewed for an additional 60 days before congress can step in to oversee the powers.

The new powers would give the Executive Branch a free hand to not only shut down entire areas of the Internet and block all Internet traffic from certain countries, but under the amalgamated bill he would also have the power to completely shut down industries that don’t follow government orders, according to a Reuters summary of the new bill.

“Industries, companies or portions of companies could be temporarily shut down, or be required to take other steps to address threats,” states the report, citing concerns about an “imminent threat to the U.S. electrical grid or other critical infrastructure such as the water supply or financial network.”

The only protection afforded to companies under the new laws is that they would have to be defined as “critical” in order to come under government regulation, but since the government itself would decide to what companies this label applies, it’s hardly a comforting layer of security.

“Even in the absence of an imminent threat, companies could face government scrutiny. Company employees working in cybersecurity would need appropriate skills. It also would require companies to report cyber threats to the government, and to have plans for responding to a cyber attack,” states the report.

As we have highlighted, the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S. power grid or water supply is minimal. The perpetrators of an attack on such infrastructure would have to have direct physical access to the systems that operate these plants to cause any damage. The recent Stuxnet malware attack, for example, was introduced and spread through a physical USB device, not via the public Internet.

Any perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore completely contrived and strips bare what many fear is the real agenda behind cybersecurity – to enable the government to regulate free speech on the Internet.

Handing the White House the power to shut down certain companies or businesses is likely to heighten already existing fears that the new cybersecurity federal bureaucracy could be used as a political tool.

Senator Joe Lieberman appeared to admit that the legislation had more to do with simply protecting US infrastructure when he told CNN’s Candy Crowley that the bill was intended to mimic the Communist Chinese system of Internet policing.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman.

As we have documented, the Chinese government does not disconnect parts of the Internet because of genuine security concerns, it habitually does so only to oppress and silence victims of government abuse and atrocities, and to strangle dissent against the state, a practice many fear is the ultimate intention of cybersecurity in the United States.

The implementation of the cybersecurity apparatus would represent another huge expansion of the federal government, creating an Office of Cyber Policy within the executive branch and also “A new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) within the Department of Homeland Security, led by a separate director who would enforce cybersecurity policies throughout the government and the private sector.”

Lawmakers have indicated that they intend to push through the bill before the end of the year, though with Congress set to leave Friday amidst deadlock on a number of issues, cybersecurity looks like it will have to wait until mid-November, providing its opponents with extra time to point out the inherent threats the legislation poses to free speech and free enterprise.

Cali Divided Over Pot Initiative

It's the land of hippies, Humboldt County and Cheech and Chong. But in the state more closely associated with marijuana than any other, the ballot measure to legalize pot has exposed California's conflicted relationship with the drug.

Pot growers have opposed it. Some police have favored it. Polls show the public is deeply divided. Only politicians have lined up as expected: Nearly all major party candidates oppose the measure.

Meanwhile, hanging over the whole debate: the federal law banning marijuana, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled still applies regardless of how Californians vote.

As the Nov. 2 election nears, Proposition 19 has become about much more than the pros and cons of the drug itself. The campaigns for and against have framed the vote as a referendum on everything from jobs and taxes to crime and the environment.

The measure gained ground in a Field Poll released Sunday, pulling ahead 49 percent to 42 percent among likely voters. The poll also found that Californians have become steadily more permissive toward the drug since pollsters began quizzing state residents about their attitudes 40 years ago.

Proponents of say the measure is a way for the struggling state and its cities to raise badly needed funds. A legal pot industry, they say, would create jobs while undercutting violent criminals who profit off the illegal trade in the drug.

"I think it's a golden opportunity for California voters to strike a real blow against the (Mexican) drug cartels and drug gangs," said Joseph McNamara, who served as San Jose's police chief for about 15 years. "... That would be a greater blow than we ever struck during my 35 years in law enforcement."

Supporters, including a group of former and current law enforcement officials, have called attention to the failure of the so-called "War on Drugs" to put a dent in pot production in California, and they say police need to pursue more dangerous crimes.

To pull ahead, opponents will have to convince voters that legalized marijuana will create a greater public safety threat than keeping it illegal.

"If the price drops, more people are going to buy it. Low income people are going to buy marijuana instead of buying food, which happens with substance abusers," said Pleasant Hill police Chief Pete Dunbar, who also speaks for the California Police Chiefs' Association, one of many law enforcement groups against the measure.

As a result, he said, legalizing marijuana would only encourage the cycle of theft and violence driven by people who need money to buy drugs. They argue that the wording of the proposed law would compromise public safety by gutting restrictions on driving and going to work while high.

The state district attorneys' group has come out publicly against Proposition 19, as have many county governments, the editorial boards of the state's biggest newspapers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said the law would make California a "laughingstock."

Under the proposed law, adults 21 and older could possess up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use and grow gardens up to 25 square feet.

The proposal would allow cities and governments to decide for themselves whether to tax and allow pot sales. Opponents say a vague, disorganized patchwork of regulations would ensue and lead to chaos for police and courts.

Proposition 19 is the brainchild of Richard Lee, an Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur who spent more than $1 million to get the measure on the ballot. Also the founder of a trade school for aspiring marijuana growers and retailers, Lee has pushed legal marijuana as a boon to the state's economy and an important source of tax revenue to help close the state's massive budget deficit. The Service Employees International Union, the state's biggest union, has endorsed the measure as an economic booster.

But analysts have said the economic consequences of a legalized pot trade are difficult to predict. The state Board of Equalization last year said a marijuana legalization measure proposed in the state legislature could have brought California up to $1.4 billion in tax revenue. On Friday, the agency said Proposition 19, which leaves marijuana taxing decisions to local governments, contained too many unknowns for its analysts to estimate how much the measure might generate.

In July, the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy Research Center forecast that legalizing marijuana could send prices plunging by as much as 90 percent. Lower prices could mean less tax revenue even as pot consumption rose, the group said.

The potential price drop has brought unexpected opposition, or at least suspicion, from rural pot farmers who fear the loss of their traditional, though legally risky, way of life.

Marijuana has become so crucial to rural economies along the state's North Coast that even some local government officials are working on plans for coping with a pot downturn.

The state's medical marijuana economy is thriving as hundreds of retail dispensaries across California sell pot to hundreds of thousands of qualified patients. And some medical marijuana supporters have said Proposition 19 could undermine the credibility of the drug as a medical treatment.

"I'm just against the whole concept of the recreational use of marijuana," said Dennis Peron, the San Francisco activist who was the driving force behind the 1996 ballot measure that legalized medical marijuana.

Is New Tea Party Ad "Race Baiting"

WASHINGTON – A little-known congressional candidate from North Carolina has released a television advertisement that calls the planned Muslim community center in New York City a “victory mosque” and associates it with terrorists.

Renee Ellmers, a tea party advocate and Republican challenger in the 2nd Congressional District, began running the ad Wednesday morning on cable channels throughout the district. She is taking on U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge, a seven-term incumbent considered a moderate-to-conservative Democrat.

The ad’s script echoes the words of many conservative commentators in recent months who complained about Park51, the Muslim community center being planned two blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center.

In the ad a male narrator, his voice backed by an ominous music score, says Muslims built “victory mosques” after conquering Jerusalem, Cordoba and Constantinople in the early A.D.’s.

“And now, they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero,” the narrator says.

Then Ellmers appears on the video. “The terrorists haven’t won, and we should tell them in plain English, ‘No, there will never be a mosque at Ground Zero,’” she says.

The ad says Etheridge “won’t take a stand” on the community center.

In an interview, Ellmers said the planned mosque is relevant in North Carolina.

“One of the interesting things we’ve found in talking to people in District 2 is they’re overwhelmingly concerned about and against the mosque being built in New York,” Ellmers said. “I think it’s a very serious issue.”

In response, Etheridge campaign spokesman Mike Davis said Ellmers “is desecrating hallowed ground” and distracting voters with her ad.

“Bob Etheridge has never thought building this mosque and community center so close to Ground Zero is a good idea,” Davis said in his statement.

Ellmers pounced back, saying it was her ad that prompted Etheridge’s public skepticism of the Park51 project.

“Why did it take him so long to say that?” she asked.

Davis acknowledged that Etheridge has never offered his opinion publicly, but said that’s because “he’s not going to get involved in it. … That decision is for New York.”

The ad began running Wednesday morning on CNN and Fox News, Ellmers said. Her campaign consultant, Carter Wrenn, said it likely will run about a week. He would not disclose the amount the campaign is spending.

As of June 30, the last time campaigns had to disclose their finances, Ellmers had raised less than $190,000 and had about $46,000 on hand. Etheridge had raised $909,000 and had about $417,000 on hand.

Ebrahim Moosa, an associate professor of Islamic studies at Duke University, corrected the ad’s assumptions about “victory mosques,” saying Ellmers’ ad perpetuates disinformation about Islam.

“All conquering nations built temples, churches and mosques whenever they arrived in new territories,” Moosa said. “But these were not ‘victory’ shrines, but rather testaments of faith. Claims that Muslims have built victory mosques in Jerusalem or Cordoba are sheer flights of fancy with no historical testimony to support it.”

Within hours of being posted on Ellmers’ site, the ad was all over political blogs, receiving attention from Capitol Hill newspapers and cable news networks. A separate version of the ad, on YouTube, encouraged viewers to contribute to Ellmers’ campaign.

“Did we think we might get some national attention? Yeah, we thought this might strike a nerve,” Ellmers said.

A blogger at the left-leaning Salon.com, Justin Elliott, called it the “most baldly anti-Muslim ad of the year.”

Ellmers disagreed.

“This is the anti-Muslim card that they’re going to pull out,” she said. “Well, I’m not anti-Muslim. As a nurse, I’ve taken care of people of all races, creeds and colors and respected all their traditions. What I am is pro-American.”

Wrenn, who consulted for U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, said several years ago he regretted the race-baiting ads that Helms ran in his races in the 1980s and ‘90s.

But Wednesday, Wrenn said he doesn’t see Ellmers’ ad in the same light.

“No,” he said. “I think it’s just absolutely wrong to say, ‘Well, if you’re opposed to putting a mosque at Ground Zero, you’re a bigot.’ That’s playing the race card in reverse.”

A YouTube video surfaced this summer showing Etheridge grabbing a young man who tried to question him with a video camera on a Capitol Hill sidewalk. Etheridge, clearly angry, was seen repeatedly asking the man, “Who are you?” and holding his arm.

Etheridge apologized for his actions, but Ellmers has not made much of the video politically.

Ellmers said Wednesday she has recorded one other political advertisement, though -- a repudiation of Etheridge’s voting record in Congress.

That ad, she said, has not yet been released.

Israel Offers Settlement Deal

Israel is seeking the release of an American jailed for life for spying for the Jewish state in return for concessions in the renewed peace process with the Palestinians, including the extension of a partial freeze on the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories.

According to Israel's army radio, the prime minister's office has approached Washington with a deal to continue the moratorium for another three months in return for the release of Jonathan Pollard, a former navy intelligence analyst convicted of spying in 1987. Binyamin Netanyahu, has long pressed for Pollard to be freed, but winning his release would help him sell concessions to rightwing members of his cabinet and the settlers.

Army radio said that Netanyahu had asked an unnamed intermediary to sound out the Obama administration on the proposal, but it is not known what response was received. Other Israeli media reported that the prime minister dispatched the intermediary to approach the Americans "discreetly, and unofficially".

Netanyahu's office initially said: "We know of no query to the Americans on this matter", but later was more equivocal. Israeli officials dismissed the prospect of a deal for Pollard's release over such a short time frame but, given that Netanyahu has attempted to attach the convicted spy's freedom to earlier peace talks, it is likely that the issue is being broached.

Danny Dayan, head of the Yesha Council of Jewish settlers, condemned any proposal to swap Pollard for an extension of the settlement freeze: "The very idea is an ugly form of blackmail. Should we also agree to give up the Golan Heights in exchange for Gilad Shalit [an Israeli soldier held by Hamas in Gaza]?"

However, any deal is likely to meet stiff resistance from US intelligence which has previously scuppered plans to free Pollard. Netanyahu has said Israel does not plan to extend the moratorium on settlement building, and officials are not commenting on how the issue might be resolved, saying only that Israel "does not want people leaving the table".

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, told a French news agency that peace talks would be over if Israel abandoned the settlement freeze. "The negotiations will continue as long as the settlement remains frozen," he said. "I am not prepared to negotiate an agreement for a single day more."

Pollard's supporters in Israel and the US have tried to portray his actions as motivated by loyalty to the Jewish state. However, that position has been undermined because he was paid for the information and the FBI has claimed he also sold secrets to apartheid South Africa and attempted to pass them to Pakistan.

Pollard began passing US secrets to Aviem Sella, an Israeli military officer, in 1984 in return for cash and jewellery. He was caught the following year having passed tens of thousands of pages of documents. The full extent of the damage done by Pollard to US intelligence interests has not been made public but he is known to have given Israel comprehensive details of the US's global electronic surveillance network. Pollard was jailed for life under a plea agreement and his wife sentenced to five years in prison.

For more than a decade after Pollard was jailed, Israel denied that he was on its payroll, saying he was part of a rogue operation, even though it granted him citizenship in 1995.

Israeli leaders have persistently pressed for Pollard's release. At peace talks in 1998, Netanyahu told President Bill Clinton that "if we signed an agreement with Arafat, I expected a pardon for Pollard". Clinton later said he was minded to free Pollard but US intelligence, including George Tenet, director of the CIA, was strongly against it. However, another former CIA director, James Woolsey, has endorsed Pollard's release.

American intelligence was also angered by Israel's lack of co-operation in recovering the material passed on by Pollard and by its promotion of Sella to head an air force base – they saw this as a deliberate snub. Sella was eventually removed from that position after the US Congress threatened to cut funds to Israel.

FBI Admits to Overstepping Post 9/11

The FBI overstepped its authority in investigating left-wing domestic groups after the September 11, 2001 attacks and then misled Congress about its actions, an inspector general's report has said.

The report said the FBI improperly used the cover of "terrorism" to investigate a number of domestic activist groups from 2001 to 2006 including Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the pacifist Thomas Merton Center.

The Justice Department inspector general's report, requested by Congress four years ago, said the FBI classified these investigations as "domestic terrorism cases" but had little to back this up.

It said this was based on "potential crimes" including trespassing and vandalism "that could alternatively have been classified differently."

The report also said the FBI "made false and misleading statements to Congress" about the investigations including surveillance of an anti-war rally, and said that the agency should review whether "administrative or other action is warranted" for this.

The inspector general concluded that these were a number of specific cases rather than a bureau-wide policy.

"The evidence did not indicate that the FBI targeted any of the groups for investigation on the basis of their First Amendment activities" or expressed political beliefs, the report said.

"We concluded that in several cases, the FBI predication was factually weak and in several cases, there was little indication of any possible federal crime as opposed to local crime."

It said that the FBI went to observe a 2002 protest by the Merton Center, a group based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that says it is dedicated to peace and social justice.

"We found no evidence that the assignment was made pursuant to a particular investigation or in response to any information suggesting that any particular terrorism subject might be present at the rally," the inspector general stated.

"The FBI stated in a press response and (FBI) Director (Robert) Mueller stated in congressional testimony that the FBI's surveillance at the event was based on specific information from an ongoing investigation and conducted to identify a particular individual. These statements were not true."

The American Civil Liberties Union said the report showed the FBI "improperly spied on American activists involved in First Amendment-protected activities and mischaracterized nonviolent civil disobedience as terrorism."

ACLU policy counsel Michael German said the FBI "has a long history of abusing its national security surveillance powers, reaching back to the smear campaign waged by the American government against Dr Martin Luther King."

He added that "we are all in danger of being spied on and added to terrorist watch lists for doing nothing more than attending a rally or holding up a sign."

FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said however that the lengthy review "did not uncover even a single instance where the FBI targeted any group or any individual based on the exercise of a First Amendment right."

Bresson added that the report "disagreed with a handful of the FBI's investigative determinations over the course of six years, (but) it has not recommended any significant modifications to the FBI's authority to investigate criminal conduct or national security threats."

Town Hall Gets Personal For Obama

President Barack Obama defended his economic program in starkly personal terms Monday after coming face-to-face with supporters who said, bluntly, that he had let them down.

The first two questioners from the audience at a live CNBC town hall meeting both expressed a sense of personal disappointment with Obama, with one man asking, “Is the American Dream dead?” And CNBC’s moderator John Harwood asked Obama whether his elite education, personal style and “racial heritage” might make it hard for average Americans to believe that he is feeling their suffering.

“I think when unemployment is high and people are having a tough time it doesn’t matter if I was green, it doesn’t matter if I was purple, people would still be frustrated and understandably so,” Obama said. “The whole reason I ran was because my life is a testament to the American dream.”

Obama sought to use his own narrative as the child of a single mother to push back against the notion that he is out of touch with the middle class.

One audience member, a chief financial officer with two children soon to go to college, said she was afraid her “new reality” would including struggling just to keep decent food on the table. “I’ve been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things for the middle class, . . .and I’m waiting sir, I don’t feel it yet,” she said.

“Times are tough for everybody right now. I understand your frustration,” Obama responded, adding that new consumer protection rules on things like mortgages and credit cards would help the middle class as would tax breaks for small businesses that create new jobs.

Another audience member, a young public interest lawyer, said he was “really inspired by you and your campaign and the message you brought, and that inspiration is dying away, and it feels like the American dream is moving away from us. . . .Is the American dream dead?”
"Absolutely not,” Obama said. “There is not a country in the world that would not want to change places with us for all the problems we have got.”

In his answer to the lawyer and others, Obama returned to his argument that he inherited an economy laid low by 10 years of bad decision-making and that his policies headed off an even deeper recession, and now are turning things around, but acknowledged it was happening more slowly than anyone would like.

“What we saw happening during 2001 till the time I took office was wages actually declining for middle class families, people treading water, young people having trouble getting their foot in the door in terms of businesses. We are now having to go back to the fundamentals of what made America great and that means that we have to make sure that our markets are working in a way that is good for a broad base of people and not just a narrow base of people,” Obama said.


At another point, he said, “It’s slow and steady as opposed to the kind of quick fix that I think a lot of people would like to see, but. . .it took us a decade to get into the problem we’re in right now.”

Obama also sought to rebut the argument from business leaders that he is hostile to private industry.

Asked if he distrusted the profit motive, as many business leaders believe, Obama said that was “absolutely not” the case, adding that “modest reforms” such as those he has supported are often initially resisted.

He cited the creation of the FDIC as one example of a reform initial strongly resisted by the financial industry. He also repeatedly cited the multiple tax breaks Congress has passed for small business as well as new proposals he has put forward to reduce taxes on research and development as examples of his “pro-business agenda.”

Obama said he had not made any final decisions about his economic team staying on after a midterm election in which Democrats are expected to lose the House of Representatives. But he added that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers and other members of the team are doing “an outstanding job.”

But he added that “decisions about family” would in part determine how many members of the economic team stay after the midterms.

The president once again firmly opposed extending the Bush administration tax cuts on the wealthiest two percent of earners who make over $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for families. Some moderate Democrats in Congress have taken the opposite stance, saying that all the tax cuts should remain in place while the economy remains weak.

“I’m speaking against my own financial interests here. It’s an irresponsible thing for us to do. Those folks are least likely to spend it,” Obama said.

Obama added, “I can’t give tax cuts to the top 2 percent of Americans, 86 percent of which would go to people making a million dollars or more, and lower the deficit at the same time. I don’t have the math. I would love to do it. Anybody in elected office would love nothing more than to give everyone tax cuts.”

Obama also made a strong push for his proposed new $50 billion infrastructure spending plan. "China spends 9 percent [of GDP] on infrastructure, we are spending 2 percent, which is why are roads are so messed up."

But in a nod to those who say the plan is not big enough, Obama said there was "no free lunch" on spending and that decisions have to be balanced against the rising federal deficit.

Obama had some tough words for China, arguing that its policy of keeping its currency artificially low is doing significant damage to the U.S. economy. "You can't just sell to us and we can't sell to you," he said. "We have been bringing more actions against China before the WTO and we are going to enforce our trade laws much more effectively." He added, "I am pro-trade. I just want to make sure trade is good for American business and American workers.”

Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Faces Senate Vote

The effort to end the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy faces a major hurdle today with Republican Sen. John McCain vowing to filibuster a vote on a defense bill that includes a controversial repeal of the law.

Democratic supporters of the bill say it's unclear they have the 60 Senate votes needed to override McCain, despite unprecedented popular and legislative support for allowing openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve in the military.

McCain, a war hero and outspoken advocate for the armed forces, insists changing the policy now would hurt military readiness and unit cohesion in the middle of two ongoing wars. He and other Republicans want Congress to wait to consider a repeal until the Pentagon completes a review of the impact of changing the policy.

"This is turning legislation related to our national defense and military preparedness into a vehicle to force a partisan agenda through the Senate, often on a party-line vote," said McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Their desperation because they see a Nov. 2 election coming up is palpable."

But many Democrats say McCain is the one playing politics, since language in the Senate bill states any change to the current policy would depend upon completion of the military study, expected by December, and certification from the Pentagon that military readiness would not be harmed.

Critics of McCain also note he previously indicated an openness to a change in the policy if top military brass supported the move.

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it," McCain said in 2006.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen both endorsed ending the policy in Congressional testimony in May.

The House has already approved a conditional repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

McCain's wife, Cindy, and daughter, Megan, also support ending the ban on openly gay and lesbian service members.

More than 75 percent of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, a support rate higher than at any other time since the policy took effect in 1993, according to the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Maine Republicans Eyed as Votes for DADT Repeal

"We are optimistic we'll be able to hold all our Democrats and hopeful we'll be able to find some Republicans to help us get cloture," a Democratic leadership aide told ABC News of the vote to move the defense bill to the floor.

Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have been the focus of Democratic advocates seeking to win votes from across the aisle. Pop star Lady Gaga held a rally in Portland, Maine, Monday to put a spotlight on the state and pressure on the lawmakers to support repeal.

"To the Senate, to Americans, to Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, both of Maine, and Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts. Equality is the prime rib of America. Equality is the prime rib of what we stand for as a nation. And I don't get to enjoy the greatest cut of meat my country has to offer. Are you listening?" she screamed as the crowd cheered.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Olympia Snowe said she is "still reviewing everything," while Sen. Susan Collins voted for the repeal at the committee level but has yet to say if she will vote for the bill on Tuesday.

On Monday Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts said he will vote against the defense measure due to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan to later attach the DREAM Act amendment, which would provide a path to legal status to young illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 15 and complete college or military service.

"I am opposed to illegal immigration and I am deeply disappointed that Washington politicians are playing politics with military funding in order to extend a form of amnesty to certain illegal immigrants," Brown said in a statement.

A majority of Republicans have echoed Brown, arguing Reid's inclusion of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the DREAM Act in the annual defense bill are meant to score political points and unrelated to the intent of the legislation.

"I've been to Afghanistan and Iraq numerous times and I haven't had one soldier ask me about the DREAM Act," Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday. "I think this is politics at its worst."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell argued last week that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal and the DREAM Act were "extraneous measures that have nothing to do with defense," making the bill "needlessly controversial."

Dems Argue Gays, Immigrants Relevant to Defense Bill

But with gays and immigrants serving in the military, Democrats retort that both Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the DREAM Act have plenty to do with national security.

"We've enacted a defense authorization act every year for the last 48 years and we need to do the same this year," said Democrat Sen. Carl Levin, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I hope we can at least make some progress during the next few days and weeks on this bill."

If the defense authorization measure receives 60 votes Tuesday, it will move forward to the floor for full debate but isn't likely to receive an up or down vote until November.

However, if Democrats can't get 60 votes tomorrow, then it'll be back to the drawing board, with a litany of other issues such as the Bush tax cuts, food safety, and government funding still left to be taken up before the lame-duck session. That might be a welcome development for some lawmakers who are none too excited about debating issues such as immigration and gays serving openly in the military only weeks before the elections.

Grand Old Tea Party?

Pulling off one of the biggest upsets of the 2010 primary season, tea party insurgent Christine O'Donnell defeated [1] Rep. Mike Castle in the Delaware's Republican Senate primary. O'Donnell won 53 to 47 percent with the final ballots still being counted Tuesday night, shocking observers across the political spectrum. Castle, a veritable political veteran, appeared to have a clear path to victory until a poll from Public Policy Polling came out last week showing [2] O'Donnell ahead by three points, having received a last-minute boost from national tea party groups that poured money and grassroots support into the race.

The question now is what the national GOP will do with O'Donnell. Just how far to the right are their national leaders willing to go to play to the tea party base and do anything to oppose the Democratic agenda? The GOP establishment poured an unusual degree of invective into its crusade against O'Donnell, casting her as completely unelectable in a reliably blue state that went for Obama in 2008 by a 25 percent margin. Without the Delaware seat, the GOP's chances of winning back the Senate majority have diminished significantly. Minutes after O'Donnell's victory was called, Beltway GOP operatives were aghast. It's the "worst night for GOP since passage of Obamacare," tweeted [3] Republican new media consultant Patrick Ruffini. "Congratulations [4] Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)."www.thedailybeast.com/beltway-beast/nrsc-just-kidding-we-love-odonnell/ [5]

Certainly, the GOP might finally be willing to distance itself from one of the tea party darlings. While there's been considerable infighting in other Republican primary races, the GOP has never been bested by a tea party candidate with so little chance of winning a Senate seat. In addition to adopting all the usual hard-line views on the major issues, O'Donnell has equated [2] masturbation with adultery—advocating self-abstinence [6], let's say—and has lied repeatedly about her education and political accomplishments. Though other tea party candidates have voiced extreme positions, O'Donnell appears to have transgressed an outer limit that even Nevada Republican nominee Sharron Angle couldn't reach.

It's doubtful whether the national GOP will want to put any resources into her bid. "They'll have to make that call," says Tom Davis, a former House Rep. and chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee. A long-time Castle supporter, Davis considers O'Donnell's chances of winning the general election "miniscule." On Tuesday night, the National Republican Senatorial Committee would only say [7] that they were "watching" the race to decide what they would do, and there are already reports [8] that Republican strategists have written off the state entirely*. While O'Donnell might continue to draw grassroots tea party support, the national movement may decide their money might be better spent backing Angle or another candidate with a feasible chance of winning. "The right wing world will move on…to the new new thing," says Davis. "She'll be their darling for a week or so, then she'll have problems being competitive financially." With only about $20,000 of campaign cash currently on hand—versus Coons' $900,000—O'Donnell stands even less of a chance if she doesn't get another avalanche of backing.

The right-wing crusade against Castle always seemed more like a symbolic than pragmatic assault, even before the race blew up in the national spotlight. There were few targets in the GOP who were more tempting: as one of the only remaining moderate Republicans in Congress, Castle continued to stay true to his bipartisan rep, even after almost every other member of his party had deserted the center. With Castle gone, the moderate GOP caucus in the Senate will be small indeed—regardless of whether Coons or O'Donnell ends up winning in November. If the ultimate goal of the tea partiers really is to push the party farther to the right—rather than win as many Republican seats as possible—then their work in Delaware really might be finished.

Tea Party Coup

Delaware Republican Christine O’Donnell quickly emerged Wednesday as a litmus test for establishment Republicans, as some national GOP figures rushed to endorse a candidate that just the night before had been a party pariah.

Top conservative commentators unleashed a ferocious attack on strategist Karl Rove for his comments disparaging O’Donnell Tuesday night – when he said her unusual statements and questionable financial decisions could cost Republicans the seat, and even control of the Senate.

“I never heard Karl Rove as mad at a Dem as he was at Christine last night,” tweeted conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

O’Donnell’s victory, in effect, puts national Republicans on the spot — forced to choose whether to embrace an unorthodox candidate with a spotty political record, or be seen as snubbing the tea party’s newest star.

Some wasted no time getting on board. Hours after the National Senatorial Republican Committee issued a grudging, one-sentence congratulation to O’Donnell Tuesday night, NRSC Chairman John Cornyn offered a full-throated endorsement of the tea party insurgent Wednesday morning.

“Let there be no mistake: The National Republican Senatorial Committee – and I personally as the committee’s chairman – strongly stand by all of our Republican nominees, including Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Cornyn said, announcing that the committee was transferring $42,000 to O’Donnell’s campaign.

Expected GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney threw his support behind O’Donnell Wednesday morning as well.

“Now is the time for Republicans to rally behind their nominee, Christine O'Donnell,” Romney said. “She ran an impressive campaign. I believe it is important we support her so we can win back the U.S. Senate this fall.”

But the conservative backlash against Rove was a sign of just how badly O’Donnell’s candidacy could fracture GOP unity – particularly since Rove’s cutting critique of O’Donnell Tuesday night merely echoed what other Republicans were repeating in private: a fear that she can’t win.

“Rove came across as an effete sore loser instead of the supposedly brilliant and grounded GOP strategist that he’s supposed to be,” added the popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin. “The establishment Beltway strategist couldn’t even bother with an obligatory word of congratulations for O’Donnell.”

Rove stood his ground Wednesday morning, saying, “If she wins more power to her, she is right on the issues. I think the voters of Delaware don't just want to know are you right on the issue, but do you have the character, background that makes you the right person for the job.”

Rove on Tuesday pointed out that O’Donnell has been accused on many questionable financial decisions – including profiting off campaign funds – and has a long history of bizarre statements that Democrats will use to hit her in the general.

“I’ve met her. I wasn’t frankly impressed by her abilities as a candidate,” Rove said during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “One thing that O’Donnell is now going to have to answer in the general election that she didn't in the primary is her own checkered background.”

Despite the outpouring of support, top Republicans still indicate privately that O’Donnell’s win in the Delaware Senate primary was a disaster for the party, placing an expected win in the seat very much in doubt.

But the party’s leaders seemed set Wednesday to embrace O’Donnell – for better or worse – in hopes that the GOP can still win the Senate with what is widely perceived to be a lesser candidate that the party favorite, Rep. Mike Castle.

Prior to her win, O’Donnell’s only real national support came from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the Tea Party Express and former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin, who has found herself in the unusual position of trying to play GOP peacemaker.

“I say buck up,” Palin said during an interview on Fox News, send a message to Republicans who had opposed O’Donnell. “Competition is really good and it makes everyone work harder. These contested races were great for our party.”

O’Donnell too had some harsh words for Rove, smacking the “so-called political guru” during an interview with ABC News.

“Everything that he is saying is un-factual,” contended the Delaware GOP Senate nominee. “He is eating some humble pie and he is just trying to restore his reputation.”

Dems Plan for Future Without Pelosi

For House Democrats, planning for a future without Nancy Pelosi is neither pleasant nor easy.

But as the polls worsen and a Republican-controlled House looks more and more possible, Democrats are beginning to realize they face a top to bottom leadership shakeup if the powerful speaker steps aside in a Democratic minority.

For the most part, Democrats have no obvious roadmap, no heir apparent to the Pelosi mantle, and a fairly thin bench around which to plan the future of their party. After the election, Democrats would face a power vacuum in the lower ranks – assuming current Majority Leader Steny Hoyer takes the helm as minority leader in a post-Pelosi Democratic caucus.

“This is a subject that everybody in town is thinking about,” said a former House Democrat who keeps close contact with his former colleagues.

Pelosi herself has privately discouraged any talk of a Democratic minority – despite multiple predictions that as many as 80 Democratic seats are in play.

The most likely scenario after a Republican takeover would be for Pelosi to step down, with Hoyer replacing her. But the idea of a clean sweep of Democratic leadership - forcing out all the elected leaders is clearly something being considered by rank-and-file.

“If we lose it badly, Pelosi would have to leave, as might the whole leadership team,” said a veteran House Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “I can see Hoyer becoming Minority Leader. And I can imagine that Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) would stay as Whip, but then retire. They could become transitional leaders as we look for new leadership. It would have to sort itself out.”

Pelosi allies contend that the Democratic caucus would still be deferential to her – even in losing.

“She can declare victory and retire. She would be rewarded by history, with a great career. But she has a competitiveness and she can say that the worm may turn, especially with the economy, and that Democrats may be rewarded” in 2012, said the former Democratic member.

Others contend that her fundraising and party-building skills could position her to lead Democrats back to the majority in 2012, though her low-profile in the past month has shown her limitations, especially in swing districts.

Even with the obvious options, House Democrats have mostly avoided the discussion.

"It is impossible to imagine Nancy thinking anything negative at all, so therefore you can't get a read on what she would do if bad things happen," said a Democratic lawmaker who has worked closely with Pelosi.

And Democrats understandably have focused on their top priority of keeping House control, which would make this discussion largely academic.


“The speaker has not considered this and Democratic staff hasn’t discussed it,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee deputy executive director Jennifer Crider, who also serves as Pelosi’s political director. “We are focused on winning in November. We do not believe Democrats will lose control of the House.”

Whatever she decides, the ambiguity over an heir apparent reveals that Pelosi’s dominance among Democrats since she entered the leadership nine years ago has mostly stifled the ambition of rank-and-file members. To paraphrase French King Louis XV, Democrats may face their own revolution: Apres Nancy, le deluge.

Virtually all of the other current Democratic leaders were installed by Pelosi, usually without a challenge, which is why there has been little maneuvering within the ranks. Those who failed to receive Pelosi’s blessing have been forced to step aside.

Ironically, the chief exception has been Hoyer, who stands to emerge the strongest in a Democratic minority. He narrowly lost to Pelosi in October 2001 in their brutal showdown for Minority Whip. But he relentlessly pursued his leadership ambition and in November 2006 easily defeated Pelosi’s preferred candidate, late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.).

Mostly below the radar, Hoyer has moved cautiously to stake his claim to the Democratic post in case Pelosi exits. Hoyer has spent the past month traveling to key swing districts, and he gave a handful of major economic, budget and national-security speeches earlier this summer to lay out his relatively centrist views.

But Hoyer dismisses the suggestion that that he might become Minority Leader. “It won’t happen. We will hold the majority…..I am not considering that prospect.” But even if he ascends as Democratic leader in the House minority – and Clyburn hangs on in leadership – he may not represent a long-term solution for Democrats.

Like Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn each turned 70 in the past 15 months. With the grueling demands of House leadership positions, they might be reluctant to commit to a long-term effort to regain Democratic control. And the rank-and-file may be eager for generational change.

“Leading the party in the minority, I expect challenges at every level, from much younger members who have the legs and the stamina to bring about an articulate message that could regain the Democratic majority when it’s available,” said a veteran progressive House Democrat.

With Pelosi’s guidance, a second-tier of party leaders has moved into place – though no front runner has emerged. The next generation of Democratic leaders includes caucus chairman John Larson (Conn), vice-chairman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and DCCC vice-chairs Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.). Except for Larson, who is 62, none are older than 52.

It’s unclear what positions these young leaders would compete for – and if they are even are ready to make a run at Hoyer and Clyburn.


Pelosi’s iron control of the Democratic caucus has discouraged the emergence of liberal leaders, which is why her potential departure as speaker could set off a frenzy of maneuvering.

“There is no Prince Charming or liberal alternative out there,” said a party activist who is well-connected to House Democrats.

History does not necessarily provide a clear roadmap for Democrats.

After Democrats unexpectedly lost House control in 1994 and Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) lost reelection in his home state, the next tier of party leaders took over with little challenge – a scenario that does not seem likely in 2010. Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), Minority Whip David Bonior (D-Mich.) and Caucus chairman Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) essentially moved up the ranks in 1994. But that team failed to recapture the majority. And it wasn’t until Pelosi became Whip after Bonior stepped down in 2001 and, and she took over from Gephardt a year later, that Democrats developed sufficient energy and fundraising to take back the House in 2006.

This time around, things could be much more wide open, potentially creating an opening for several leaders.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) has long been a leading House liberal – and would be a natural fit to carry on Pelosi’s work in leadership. But in recent years he has focused chiefly on serving as Pelosi’s chief adviser and Education and Labor Committee chairman. Many expect that he would retire if Democrats lose the majority.

Although Van Hollen seems well-positioned to move up the leadership ladder, he could pay a price if Democrats suffer big losses in November, since he’s running the campaign committee. Van Hollen also faces potential obstacles that he and Hoyer are from the same home state, and because speculation persists that his long-term interest is election to the Senate.

Regardless of the election outcome, President Barack Obama will have to make key decisions over the Democrats’ future direction.

For Republicans seeking potential areas of compromise under potential Speaker John Boehner, they may hope for the selection of a relative moderate such as Hoyer in place of Pelosi. “Steny has shown that he is a professional, and can be bipartisan on big issues,” said a House GOP leadership source.

But that hope may be illusory, given the strongly liberal leanings of the Democratic Caucus. If forced into the minority, a progressive House Democrat added, “I expect there to be less tolerance of the conservative, Blue Dog compromises and concessions than we’ve had in the past, because their message has been the Republican message.”

Plus, Democrats are skeptical that Boehner would have sufficient support from the Republican Conference for bipartisanship, given the likely conservative bent of a large new Republican freshmen class.

Election Season Heats Up: 17 Candidates and Counting for GOP

When Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told us this week that the 2012 GOP presidential field will be "wide open," we had no idea just how many Republicans might be marching to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada for the opening caucuses and primaries. Including Barbour, who will decide after the fall midterm elections but who is expected to run in 2012, Washington political insiders tell us that nine Republicans are almost a lock to run and another eight are considering a presidential bid.

Many former presidential campaign organizers say that now is the time to be considering a bid because by spring of next year, the list of announced candidates will be firm and those in will be divvying up staff and raising money.

The top tier of candidates includes many in the news like Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, but some newbies have scratched their way into the category like budget-slashing New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Long shots include some who've already made trips to Iowa, like former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

"A starting place. That's all anybody has," said Barbour, dismissing talk of front-runners this far out of the election.

Here's the latest list of those who want President Obama's job.

The A-Team Nine

- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the front-runner, largely because he was the runner-up to Sen. John McCain in 2008.

- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has recently made a name for herself by endorsing winning Tea Party candidates.

- Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a social conservative in his second term.

- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a fiscal conservative in his second term.

- Mike Huckabee, a Fox host and former 2008 presidential candidate.

- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

- South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a conservative and darling of the party for defeating former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose budget cutting in his first year has impressed many in GOP ranks who want him to apply his touch to Washington.

- Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, already running and showing his conservative side.

The Eight Long Shots

- Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, a hero to fiscal conservatives.

- South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a Palinesque conservative who's helped steer the U.S. Senate to the right.

- Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the gadfly 2008 candidate who kept a very loyal following.

- South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley, who hasn't even won yet but is being heralded as the new Sarah Palin.

- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush who has rejected a run but who still gets kudos for being the "smart Bush" for his successful two terms in Florida.

- Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who'd be the social conservative in the race.

- Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, a foreign policy hawk who conservatives adore.

- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal whose effort to protect his shores from the Gulf Oil Spill won him notoriety lost when he gave a lackluster national political address in 2009.

GOP Leader Hints at Tax Concession

A leading Republican has offered a glimmer of hope for a potential compromise in the fiercely partisan US debate over extending middle class tax cuts.

The US Congress returns from recess this week amid discussions about boosting the economy by extending Bush administration tax cuts that are due to expire.

The White House has argued for only extending cuts for households with an income of less than $250,000, while Republicans want all reductions to be kept.

On Sunday John Boehner, Republican leader in the House of Representatives, suggested he might vote for only the tax cuts on middle-income Americans. He told CBS television that while he favoured extending all the tax cuts that dated from the era of George W. Bush, he would vote for a partial extension if necessary.

“If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I’ll vote for it,” he said. “If the only option I have is to vote for those at 250 and below, of course I’m going to do that”.

The tax cuts, which were passed with a time limit to keep down their cost, are due to expire at the end of the year. President Barack Obama argues that since the rich are less likely to cut spending if their tax cuts are rescinded, extending those cuts will do little to help the economy.

“We welcome John Boehner’s change in position and support for the middle class tax cuts, but time will tell if his actions will be anything but continued support for the failed policies that got us into this mess”, said Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, on Sunday.

Austan Goolsbee, the newly appointed chair of the White House council of economic advisers, said on Sunday that the middle class tax cuts took priority before anything else. “Borrowing $700 billion to extend tax cuts that average more than $100,000 a year to millionaires and even billionaires is the least effective bang for the buck we have,” he told ABC television.

Peter Orszag, who recently resigned as head of the White House budget office, caused a stir recently by arguing that all the tax cuts could be extended for a couple of years. On Sunday he said that the suggestion was a tactical one designed to provide a short-term boost while preserving longer-term fiscal sustainability. “If the price of not making the tax cuts permanent is extending all of them, even the upper income ones, for a year or two, that would be a price worth paying,” he told CNN.

Mr Goolsbee played down the apparent difference of opinion, saying that Mr Orszag’s speech was a political rather than an economic intervention.

The performance of the economy and particularly of unemployment is emerging as one of the most important issues in the forthcoming midterm elections in November. Mr Goolsbee said that after such a deep recession, unemployment was likely to remain high for a while.

“[Unemployment] is going to stay high,” he said. “I don’t anticipate it coming down rapidly.”

The cuts reduced taxes on income, dividends and capital gains and increased tax credits for retirement and education savings. They represent around 2 per cent of GDP, a relatively small proportion of current deficits but a substantial part of estimates of the medium-term deficit.

2nd Amendment Test

****ATTENTION****
This story is about a former LHS student and current TTU student. We will be talking about this issue in a couple of weeks. Very interesting case.

LUBBOCK, TX (KCBD) – A Texas Tech professor says a Lubbock teen who filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the age to buy handguns may have a chance to win. James D'Cruz is the plaintiff in the case that was filed in a Lubbock federal court.

The right to bear arms is a target of many conversations out on the shooting range. The lawsuit claims that eighteen year olds are considered adults for almost all purposes and ‘certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights.' The National Rifle Association is challenging the federal law that prevents people under 21 from purchasing handguns, something the association believes infringes on personal constitutional rights.

Licensed gun dealer and Rustic Range owner Dub Dillard has some concerns about the suit. "I like the law the way it is. I don't think that 18-year-olds are mature enough to handle handguns."

Papers filed in federal court say D'Cruz, the plaintiff, is well trained and was a member of JROTC's marksmanship team and has earned awards for his marksmanship.

It's that training that gun owner Don Vandiver doesn't believe everyone will have access too. "I'm not sure all 18-year-olds have maturity to handle something so inherently dangerous," said Vandiver who would like to see more training for people between the ages of 18 and 20 if the ban is overturned.

As the law stands, people under the age of 21 can walk into a licensed store and if they pass background checks can purchase a rifle, but cannot buy a smaller handgun or the ammunition for those weapons.

Texas Tech constitutional law Professor Mark McKenzie, who used to litigate cases, believes D'Cruz has a strong case. "The problem of treating 18 to 20 year olds differently in terms of your right to bear arms is that it is a fundamental right enshrined in the bill of rights."

"We think if you are old enough to vote, old enough to serve your country and old enough to die you should be able to buy a handgun through all legal means," said Alexa Fritts, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.

McKenzie says the Supreme Court has not defined what is too restrictive when it comes to gun laws. He says this lawsuit is just the next of many steps for gun right advocates.

"The NRA systematically is testing regulations which are okay and which go too far," said McKenzie.

World on Fire

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) - Will he or won't he? Negotiations between a local Muslim cleric and the leader of a tiny Florida church who had threatened to publicly burn copies of Islam's holy text left the heated debate in a state of confusion with the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks a day away.

The Rev. Terry Jones said Thursday he would call off the planned burning of Qurans based on a deal negotiated with the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida that the location of a mosque planned near ground zero in New York would be changed.

But Imam Muhammad Musri said he was clear on Thursday when he told Jones that he could only set up a meeting with planners of the New York City mosque, whose leader said he had spoken to neither the pastor nor Musri. Jones responded by opening the door, if only a crack, that he would go forward with his plan on Saturday.

"We are just really shocked," Jones said of Musri. "He clearly, clearly lied to us."

For U.S. political leaders and Muslims around the world who have been outraged by Jones' antics, the on-again, off-again threat bred even more angst and frustration.

Cleric Rusli Hasbi told 1,000 worshippers attending Friday morning prayers in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, that whether or not he burns the Quran, Jones had already "hurt the heart of the Muslim world."

"If he'd gone through with it, it would have been tantamount to war," the cleric said in the coastal town of Lhokseumawe. "A war that would have rallied Muslims all over the world."

Muslims consider the book the sacred word of God and insist it be treated with the utmost respect.

In Afghanistan, where tens of thousands of U.S. troops are in harm's way, President Hamid Karzai said he heard Jones had perhaps abandoned his Quran-burning plan.

"The holy book is implanted in the hearts and minds of all the Muslims," Karzai said. "Humiliation of the holy book represents the humiliation of our people. I hope that this decision will be stopped and should never have been considered."

Jones announced earlier Thursday - with Musri at his side - that they had a bargain and that he would call off the Quran-burning. Later he accused Musri of lying and said the burning was only suspended, not canceled.

Musri, countered that Jones wasn't confused or misled and that "after we stepped out in front of the cameras, he stretched my words" about the agreement. The imam in charge of the New York Islamic center and mosque project also quickly denied any deal was made.

Musri said Jones had instead caved into the firestorm of criticism from around the world and that his announcement might have been a ploy to try to force Muslim leaders' hand on the Islamic center.

Jones said later that he expected Musri to keep his word and "the imam in New York to back up one of his own men." Musri said he still plans to go ahead with the meeting Saturday.

In New York, the Islamic center project leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, said in a statement that he was glad Jones had backed down but that he had spoken to neither the pastor nor Musri.

"We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter," Rauf said. "We are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony."

Opponents argue it is insensitive to families and memories of Sept. 11 victims to build a mosque so close to where Islamic extremists flew planes into the World Trade Center and killed nearly 2,800 people. Proponents say the project reflects religious freedom and diversity and that hatred of Muslims is fueling the opposition.

Moving the mosque is not why Jones canceled his threat, Musri said. Instead, he relented under the pressure from political and religious leaders of all faiths worldwide to halt what President Barack Obama called a "stunt." Musri said Jones told him the burning "would endanger the troops overseas, Americans traveling abroad and others around the world."

"That was the real motivation for calling it off," Musri said.

Jones had never invoked the mosque controversy as a reason for his planned protest at his Dove World Outreach Center. Instead, he cited his belief that the Quran is evil because it espouses something other than biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims.

Obama urged Jones to listen to "those better angels," saying that besides endangering lives, it would give Islamic terrorists a recruiting tool. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took the extraordinary step of calling Jones personally.

Jones' church, which has about 50 members, is independent of any denomination. It follows the Pentecostal tradition, which teaches that the Holy Spirit can manifest itself in the modern day.

News of the cancellation also was welcomed by Jones' neighbors in Gainesville, a city of 125,000 anchored by the sprawling University of Florida campus. At least two dozen Christian churches, Jewish temples and Muslim organizations in the city had mobilized to plan inclusive events, including Quran readings at services, as a counterpoint to Jones' protest.

Jones said at the news conference that he prayed about the decision and concluded that if the mosque was moved, it would be a sign from God to call off the Quran burning.

"We are, of course, now against any other group burning Qurans," Jones said. "We would right now ask no one to burn Qurans. We are absolutely strong on that. It is not the time to do it."

Despite Jones' words, in the Gaza Strip, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said to a crowd of tens of thousands of Muslim faithful that they had come "to respond to this criminal, this liar, this crazy priest who reflects a crazy Western attitude toward Islam and the Muslim nation."

"We came to say, the Quran is our constitution, we are committed to God and his holy book," he said to those holding the texts in their hands at a stadium in the northern town of Beit Lahiya. "God willing, should they try to carry out their crime against the Quran, God will tear their state apart and they will become God's lesson to anyone who tries to desecrate the holy book."

Part of the pressure exerted on Jones came from Gates who briefly spoke to the pastor before his first announcement to call it off. Gates expressed "his grave concern that going forward with this Quran burning would put the lives of our forces at risk, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

Morrell said earlier that the decision to issue a personal appeal was not easy because it could provoke other extremists "who, all they want, is a call from so-and-so." Earlier, Jones had said if he was contacted by the White House that he might change his mind. After Gates' call to Jones, Morrell said the secretary's "fundamental baseline attitude about this is that if that phone call could save the life of one man or woman in uniform it was a call worth placing."

Governor Race Tightens

And now for something completely different: Rick Perry and Bill White are virtually tied in the race for governor, according to a poll done for Texas Watch by Republican pollster Hill Research Consultants.

Perry got 42 percent of the support to White's 41 percent; 14 percent were unsure and 3 percent said neither or refused to answer. The pollsters talked to 600 Texas voters from August 25 to 29; the poll's margin of error is +/- 4.0 percent.

That virtual tie differs from other recent polls. Just last week, Wilson Research Strategies, polling for GOPAC Texas, had Perry ahead by 12 percentage points, and the most recent poll from Rasmussen Reports gave the incumbent an advantage of 8 percentage points. The Wilson poll of 1,001 likely voters was done August 29 to 31 and had a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent. Rasmussen's automated poll of 500 likely voters was done on August 22 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percent.

Texas Watch, a non-profit insurance watchdog group, found Perry ahead with independent voters and with people who are sympathetic to the Tea Party wave. On their own issues, they found that voters think insurance rates are too high and think the state's regulation of that industry favors insurers over the people who buy insurance. Most Texans — 84 percent — think the state's insurance commissioner should be elected rather than appointed, and 73 percent think companies should have to get the state's approval before rates can go up.

Hopeful Start to Mideast Peace Talk

President Barack Obama set off on a new round of Mideast peace talks Wednesday with a pledge that violence in the West Bank would not deter the American, Israeli and Palestinian leaders from pushing ahead with an agreement.

With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his side, Obama said “extremists and rejectionists” would try to undermine the talks with attacks like the one Tuesday in which a Palestinian gunman killed four Israelis in Hebron. He said it was “an example of what we’re up against.”

“The United States is going to be unwavering in its support of Israel's security, and we are going to push back against these kinds of terrorist activities,” Obama said at the White House after meeting privately with Netanyahu. “The message should go out to Hamas and everybody else who is taking credit for these heinous crimes that this will not stop us from not only ensuring a secure Israel, but also securing a longer-lasting peace in which people throughout the region can take a different course."

Netanyahu then stepped to the microphone, thanking Obama for the “sentiment of decent people everywhere, in the face of this savagery and brutality.”

“Four innocent people were gunned down and seven new orphans were added, by people who have no respect for human life and trample human rights into the dust and butcher everything that they oppose,” the Israeli leader said of the attack.

“I think that the president’s statement is an expression of our desire to fight against this terror. And the talks that we had, which were, indeed, open, productive, serious in the quest for peace, also centered around the need to have security arrangements that are able to roll back this kind of terror and other threats to Israel’s security,” Netanyahu said.

Obama praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for condemning the attack — a statement that drew a nod of approval from Netanyahu — and he expressed confidence in the prospects of reaching a “two-state solution” with Israel and the Palestinians.

“We’re going to remain stalwart,” Obama said.

The statements by Obama and Netanyahu marked the start of the White House’s effort to turn attention from the Iraq war to the peace negotiations. Obama will hold a series of meetings and host a White House dinner with leaders from the region to kick off the first direct Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations in more than 18 months.

Obama will also meet Wednesday with Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, and then host at a dinner at the White House the leaders and former U.K. Prime Minister and Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair.

Photographers captured photos of Obama and Netanyahu talking quietly in the Oval Office ahead of the meeting. The Obama-Netanyahu statement was added to the schedule late. It’s unclear whether the Israeli leader will be the only one to make a solo statement with Obama.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosts the direct talks between Netanyahu and Abbas and their negotiating teams at the State Department.


But the talks come at a perilous time — a fact underscored by Tuesday’s shooting by Hamas in the West Bank — and analysts are now wary of any big, sweeping moves.

“These talks aren't quite ready for prime time yet, and everyone should be slow-walking the process,” former U.S. Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller said. “If they get more ambitious now, it will collapse.”

“What counts are only three things this round,” Miller said. “One, that the Israelis and Americans work out (or toward) an agreement on a moratorium on settlements; two, that Benjamin Netanyahu, even while he pushes security, shows some movement in the Palestinian direction on one other issue — borders; three, that the Palestinians hang in there and not bolt the talks because they believe they're the key to an empty room.”

At a meeting Tuesday night at the Mayflower Hotel, where the Israeli delegation is staying, Clinton and Netanyahu condemned the shooting earlier that day near the West Bank city of Hebron. But Clinton said the attack demonstrates that Netanyahu is right to move forward with peace negotiations with a Palestinian Authority that rejects Hamas’s terrorist tactics in favor of peace.

“The forces of terror and destruction cannot be allowed to continue,” Clinton said. “It is one of the reasons why the prime minister is here today: to engage in direct negotiations with those Palestinians who themselves have rejected a path of violence in favor of a path of peace.”

Obama administration officials have indicated they envision a one-year process for the negotiations to achieve the framework agreement for a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an agreement that then would be implemented over several years.

Noting that it was Netanyahu who publicly said in July that he thought the parties could get an agreement within a year, Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell told journalists Tuesday that the ambitious deadline suited Abbas and the administration as well.

“People ask whether the long history of negotiation has been beneficial or harmful. It’s actually been both, in some respects,” Mitchell said, adding that it’s been beneficial in that people understand what the “principal issues are and how they might be resolved; harmful in the sense that it’s created” cynicism in the region about “a never-ending process, that it’s gone on for a very long time and will go on forever.”

“So it’s very important to create a sense that this has a definite concluding point,” Mitchell said. “And we believe that it can be done, and we will do everything possible, with perseverance and patience and determination, to see that it is done.”

Mitchell also said that he supports Netanyahu’s idea to meet with Abbas every two weeks in the region going forward, after the direct talks begin.

“We think that’s a sensible approach, which we hope is undertaken and that, in addition to that, there will be meetings at other levels on a consistent basis,” Mitchell said.

Washington Middle East experts who have consulted with the administration this week say it is keeping its cards close to its vest on the specifics and does not seem to have many details worked out — nor a Plan B should talks run aground.

Of most immediate concern is the fact that a 10-month partial moratorium on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank is due to expire Sept. 26. Sources said that Netanyahu adviser Dan Meridor has proposed a “compromise” under which after Sept. 26, some construction could resume in some settlement blocs that many Israelis feel would go to Israel in a final peace agreement, swapped in exchange for other land given to the Palestinians. But the administration is not satisfied with the Meridor compromise plan, sources said.

The administration is frustrated, the sources said, that Abbas keeps publicly insisting on an absolute freeze and positions that may limit his own flexibility in the talks.

“I get a pretty strong sense of exasperation from the administration folks that Abbas keeps climbing up the tree himself,” one Middle East expert in close consultation with the administration said Tuesday. “This time, he is the one putting demands on a moratorium.”

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, himself a former Labor Party prime minister serving in Netanyahu’s right-wing government, told Israeli newspaper Haaretz in an interview published Wednesday that Israel would be willing to cede parts of East Jerusalem to a future Palestinian state — a position Netanyahu has never publicly embraced.

"West Jerusalem and 12 Jewish neighborhoods that are home to 200,000 residents will be ours,” Barak told the newspaper. “The Arab neighborhoods in which close to a quarter-million Palestinians live will be theirs. There will be a special regime in place along with agreed-upon arrangements in the Old City, the Mount of Olives and the City of David."

Look Who's Going to Iowa

Sarah Palin’s scheduled political trip to Iowa this month marks a shift from near silence in the leadoff presidential nominating state to the kind of outreach common among White House prospects.

Palin’s plan to headline the Iowa Republican Party’s annual fall fundraiser on Sept. 17 is solely to help raise money for the state party’s candidates, the former Alaska governor’s aides said.

And one trip to Iowa is a long way from a successful campaign for the state’s 2012 presidential caucuses, still 18 months away, Iowa party insiders said.

But Palin’s recent overtures to Iowa reveal a change in posture that puts her in a position — like other 2012 presidential prospects already laying campaign groundwork in Iowa — to build goodwill and relationships with influential activists, state Republican officials said.

“It does signal an interest in helping Iowans be successful in 2010,” state Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn said. “Iowa Republicans are going to look favorably on anybody that has come to this state this year to help us win in 2010.”

Palin aides confirmed Tuesday that she plans to be the featured guest at the Iowa GOP’s Reagan Day dinner on Sept. 17. Palin is also planning yet-announced political stops that day, with the state party’s marquee Ronald Reagan dinner that evening.

In the dinner’s nine years, it has drawn national party stars and up-and-coming figures. Some, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2004, have gone on to wage competitive caucus campaigns. Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was the guest a year later, and saw his own presidential ambition fade when Republicans lost the majority in 2006.

No Reagan headliner has gone on to become president, or even the party’s presidential nominee. Still, the importance of the visit should not be underestimated, GOP leaders say.

“If she’s serious about her own prospects, she needs to be here — and she’s doing that with a big, high-profile event,” said Ann Trimble-Ray, vice chairwoman of the Sac County Republicans and an adviser to Congressman Steve King.

Palin, a Fox News Channel contributor, has emerged as a top national Republican Party draw since stepping down from the governorship last year. She was among the top draws last weekend at a Washington, D.C., rally sponsored by conservative commentator Glenn Beck, also with Fox News.

Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, is lending her voice and celebrity to the Iowa Republican party’s fundraising for this year’s elections — and nothing more, aides to her political action committee said Tuesday.

But after playing hard to get for the past year, Palin approached Iowa Republicans recently, party officials said.

Palin had drawn large, enthusiastic crowds during her four campaign stops in Iowa in the fall of 2008.

Iowa GOP event planners first invited Palin to headline the fall fundraiser a year ago after she stepped down as governor in July, 2009. Palin never responded, despite periodic reminders.

She touched Iowa soil once in the meantime, slipping in and out of Sioux City to sign copies of her books in December without holding any political meetings or press interviews.

Palin endorsed Republican candidate for governor Terry Branstad before the June 8 primary. But she did so with a Facebook post. Palin also contributed $5,000 to Branstad’s campaign and $5,000 to Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s campaign in June. Last month, Palin endorsed Iowa attorney general candidate Brenna Findley, also through Facebook.

Palin hasn’t avoided all early primary states. She campaigned in May in South Carolina, expected to host the first Southern primary in 2012, for gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley.

Palin began taking a more active approach toward Iowa in late July, when her political action committee told Iowa Republican Party staff that Palin’s people were planning a more aggressive fall campaign schedule and had asked whether the Reagan invitation was still open.

Palin has remained popular with Iowa Republicans. Fifty eight percent of Iowa Republican primary voters said in June they had a favorable opinion of Palin, according to The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll.

That was slightly behind Romney, at 62 percent, and slightly ahead of former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, at 56 percent.

Still, Palin lacks the connections other Republican presidential prospects have begun assembling.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, in five trips to Iowa since last November, has been the most active in lining up a team of key supporters and strategists. He has enlisted former Iowa GOP Chairman Chuck Larson, and former George W. Bush advisers Sara Taylor Fagen and Terry Nelson.

“She’s completely dark on that side,” said Des Moines Republican strategist Nick Ryan, who was a top aide to former Congressman Jim Nussle. “And amongst the opinion-leader class, there’s not a lot of fervor toward her.”

The Iowa Poll also showed more Iowa GOP primary voters — almost 40 percent — viewed Palin unfavorably than they did Gingrich or Romney.

West Des Moines Republican Ryan Rhodes said he plans to attend Palin’s appearance in Des Moines this month, but that it’s too early to say whether he would support a Palin caucus campaign. “

“I’ll go to the event. I’ll go and see her,” said Rhodes, chairman of the Iowa Tea Party Patriots. “But as far as the presidential candidates people are talking about now, I’m dissatisfied with any of them so far and hope there’s somebody else who emerges.”