Chip Unruh, press secretary for US Senator Jack Reed, got in touch after I yesterday highlighted Charlie Bakst's column on the senator. In buttressing the case that Reed will remain in the Senate in the event of a Democratic White House adminstration, Unruh pointed out the following:

In the last 27 years, over 140 people served in the cabinets of Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, and only 1 person -- Lloyd Bentsen of Texas -- left their elected U.S. Senate seat to take a cabinet post. 

 

After they lost their re-election bids, John Ashcroft and Spencer Abraham joined George W. Bush's cabinet, but they both had already been voted out of office by the people of their respective states and were not going to serve another term in the Senate.

 

There are currently three U.S. Senators who formerly held a cabinet post (Mel Martinez of Florida, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee) and then went on to be elected to the U.S. Senate.

Unruh was also kind enough to share rough excerpts of Reed's remarks, to an AP reporter, following yesterday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana:

The great factor I think is: who is best positioned to win in November?

 

This is not about selecting a nominee, it is about electing a President.

 

And there are several encouraging things, but one encouraging thing is this huge popular turnout in these elections, which I think is a manifestation of a sincere desire for change.

 

And both candidates are close enough on the fundamental issues that I think it reflects the fact that there is a strong Democratic wave building.

 

I want to make sure we’ve got the candidate who can most effectively tap into that undercurrent of change.

 

They have been very good to reach out, but I have made it clear that my decision will not be based on frequency of phone calls.

 

The decision I am going to make, again, the key point is: who is the best candidate and how can we bring the party together quickly?  Because one of the challenges that we face is not just selecting a nominee, but also ensuring that we hopefully go in to Denver unified and come out even stronger.  And I think that is something we have to consciously work on.

  

I think there may be some pressure building, but there is something else that is out there and that is we still have some primaries to run. ....

 

I have not given myself a deadline because this race has been like a bucking bronco.  It has been up and down, up and down.  Not just in terms of results of independent primaries, but in terms of who is gaining momentum, who is breaking through.

 

One of the good things about this campaign is that both of these candidates have been tested by the media, by the different issues, etc.

 

That is something that has been constructive not only to them, but to us.

As we know, Jack Reed has repeatedly stated his intent to remain in the US Senate. Today, Charlie Bakst shares some reasonable skepticism about what might happen if a Democrat wins the White House in November.

I can understand that Democrat Reed, looking at it as an abstract idea, indeed would prefer to steer clear of the Pentagon and stay in the Senate, where he has what is likely a lifetime lock on a seat and has emerged as a top voice on military issues.

But G. Wayne Miller’s recent in-depth Sunday Journal profile of Reed reinforced my belief that the former paratrooper would not balk — could not balk — if actually asked to take this powerful and important Cabinet post.

Miller’s report was bolstered by scenes of Reed visiting West Point, the academy that transformed this son of a Cranston school janitor and became the metaphor of a life of public service. It is where Reed is an alumnus and where he taught and where, eventually, he was wed.

Anyone challenging Reed this year would have an exceedingly tough time of it, particularly considering the senator's traditionally high approval rating and his ample war chest. In a reflection of the former, Reed, by far, got the most enthusiastic reception on Saturday, at Rhodes on the Pawtuxet, during the latest induction ceremony for the Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame.

So far, there are no formally announced GOP candidates, although Donna Perry, executive director of the Rhode Island Republican Party, said last week on A Lively Experiment that Jonathan Scott, who challenged Patrick Kennedy in 2006, has an exploratory committee.

The office of US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse just put out this release:

“Five years ago, President Bush told America its mission in Iraq was accomplished. Today, four thousand American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars later, our country is mired in a war this Administration refuses to end, a war that has damaged our security, our prosperity, and our standing in the world. 

 

“Rhode Islanders are tired of watching this Administration stubbornly follow its misguided strategy in Iraq, at the expense of the lives, health, and well-being of our servicemembers and their families. It’s time to bring our troops home.”

While US Senator Jack Reed's disavowals of interest in a Cabinet job may be familiar to readers of this blog, G. Wayne Miller's charasterically lengthy portrait of the senator in the Sunday ProJo made for an excellent read, speaking to his stature and his diligence. It's no wonder that he routinely rates as Rhode Island's most popular elected official.

In his 12th year in the U.S. Senate and 16th year in Congress, Rhode Island's senior senator has established himself as a leading voice on military and national-defense issues. With seats on the Appropriations Committee, the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and Kennedy's health committee, Reed has also emerged as an authority on economic and working-class issues. Reed is 50th in Senate seniority, but Knowlegis, a nonpartisan Congressional analysis group, ranks him the 17th most powerful senator overall –– ahead of Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd, former presidential candidates. ....

 

ALTHOUGH A search would surely find detractors in Washington, none surface during several days spent with Reed in the capital. Even senators who disagree politically with his liberal social politics and his stand on Iraq acknowledge respect for him. That stand is incorporated in legislation, the June 2006 Levin-Reed amendment. The amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to begin reducing the number of American forces in Iraq within 90 days of adoption. The amendment does not yet have the support needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.

 

"I've served in the Senate with great Rhode Island senators," Majority Leader Harry Reid says. "John Chafee was my pal, my friend. I liked him so very much. And then, of course, Senator Pell was a wonderful man –– totally different than Chafee but somebody I got along with. Jack fits the mold of how I see senators from Rhode Island, even though those two were much more patrician and came from families with lots of money. Jack didn't but he's still as good as those two great senators. If you asked me to say something bad about Jack, I'd have trouble finding it."

Someone I know once wrote to Reed's office with a constituent issue. If memory serves, the constituent received a return letter the next day.

As we know, Jack Reed's mantra is that he is running for reelection and not about to take a Cabinet post in a Democratic administration.

On a related note, two General Assembly Democrats have filed legislation that would change the process for filling a US Senate vacancy.

STATE HOUSE – Rep. David Segal and Sen. Paul V. Jabour have submitted legislation that would require that U.S. Senate vacancies be filled by special elections. 

 

At present, the governor is empowered to appoint people to fill such vacancies. But the bill (2008-H 7586 and 2008-S 2324) would require that a special election be held to fill U.S. Senate vacancies, unless such a vacancy occurred after July 1 of an election year, in which case the vacancy would be filled per the regular general electoral cycle.

 

The sponsors say the current law is a vestige of an outdated system of electing senators, prior to the ratification of the 17th amendment in 1913, which called for the direct election of senators. Until that point, senators were chosen by state legislators. While the amendment called for the popular election of senators, it allowed for vacancies to be filled via other mechanisms.

 

“In the last 100 years, 151 U.S. senators have take office without being elected.  Incumbency affords great electoral advantages, and it is exceedingly likely that once appointed to office, a senator would readily achieve reelection,” said Representative Segal (D-Dist. 2, Providence, East Providence). “The only legitimate vehicle for ascension to a body as powerful as the Senate is popular support – only the passage of this legislation would ensure that the electorate determines its representative.”

 

Said Senator Jabour (D-Dist. 5, Providence), “Here in Rhode Island, we have legitimate cause for concern about this issue, since Sen. Jack Reed is a strong candidate for a cabinet appointment. If that were to occur, allowing voters to choose a replacement would be a much more democratic avenue than having one chosen solely by the governor. Regardless of whether the governor is a Democrat or a Republican, he or she shouldn’t have the only vote in choosing who will represent our state in the U.S. Senate.”

 

The bills have both had hearings before their respective chambers’ judiciary committees and are currently being held for further study.

From our senior senator:

WASHINGTON, DC -- In the wake of the Federal Reserve’s latest rate cuts and actions to help Bear Stearns meet its financial obligations, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), a senior member of the Banking Committee, today issued the following statement:

 

“This weekend’s dramatic and extraordinary action by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department demonstrate the urgent and critical challenges facing our economy. 

 

“The same focus and aggressiveness the Administration directed toward rescuing Bear Sterns should be applied to the economic problems facing America’s homeowners.

 

“The President needs to address the middle-class folks who are struggling with the mortgage crisis, their neighbors whose homes are loosing value due to foreclosures, and the local communities dealing with the fallout from declining property taxes. 

 

“Democrats have put forth a plan that would help more families refinance out of bad loans, stabilize the economy, and improve regulations so this type of foreclosure crisis never happens again. 

 

“Now that the Bush Administration has addressed the concerns of sophisticated investors, it should support legislation to reduce the impact of the foreclosure crisis on middle-class families."

Meanwhile, quite a difference from their pre-2006 exile for DC Dems.

For Democrats hoping the November elections set off a seismic shift in Washington, the dream scenario is not just capturing the White House, but also winning a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate — a luxury no president has enjoyed since Jimmy Carter 30 years ago.

As far-fetched as that might seem — Democrats now control the Senate by a razor-thin 51 to 49, thanks only to two independents who vote with them — some Democrats have started thinking aloud that such a scenario is within reach.

From the Northeast to the Southwest, the Democrats have such a strong hand in this year’s Senate contests that they sense the possibility of victories in unlikely states like Oklahoma and Mississippi, and now even Alaska, which last elected a Democratic senator in 1974.

“It’s a remote possibility, but it is within the realm of plausible,” said Paul Starr, a public affairs professor at Princeton University and a liberal commentator.

Numbers help tell the story. Republicans have 23 seats to defend, including five left vacant by retiring incumbents, while the Democrats have just 12, with a competitive race expected only in Louisiana. Even there, the incumbent, Mary L. Landrieu, is still a heavy favorite.

The presidential race, too, seems to cut in the Democrats’ favor. In many states, there has been record voter turnout in the primaries, but far more for the Democrats. About 28.5 million people have voted in Democratic primaries so far, compared with more than 17.3 million in Republican races, said Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University.

Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, the former Democratic presidential candidate and PC grad, is due to endorse Obama this morning.

Dodd's facility with Spanish should make him an effective surrogate in the waning days of the campaign, particularly in Texas and perhaps even Rhode Island.

The ProJo's John Mulligan catches up today with speculation about US Senator Jack Reed being selected as a Democratic vice presidential candidate:

WASHINGTON — The mentioning season is upon us, and Sen. Jack Reed’s name has begun to pop up in print, blogs and TV as a possible ticket-mate for front-running Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

But Reed, emphatic in his declarations of non-interest in a national candidacy, is ready for his 15 minutes of near-fame to be over. “It’s very flattering” to be mentioned, Reed said last week, “but my intention is to run for reelection to the U.S. Senate from Rhode Island.”

The Rhode Islander added a Shermanesque declaration about the vice-presidential nomination: “I have no intention to seek it or even, if offered it, to accept.”

Reed stressed, further, that neither Obama nor rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, nor anybody representing their campaigns has ever broached with him the topic of a place on the national ticket.

So Reed said the notion of a vice-presidential nomination for him is “not only hypothetical, but it ain’t going to happen.”

Reed is the only remaining high-profile RI Democrat who remains neutral in the presidential race, and his denials notwithstanding, some observers continue to think he's in the running for secretary of defense should a Democrat win in November.

WPRO-AM's John DePetro this morning expressed his belief that Reed will take a Cabinet post in a Dem administration. Appearing on the show, Brown's Darrell West disagreed, asserting that Reed's Senate seat -- which could amount to a lifetime appointment, given his popularity -- is likely to remain more appealing.

The freshman senator wants you to know:

Providence, R.I. – U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) will talk with Rhode Islanders’ concerns about the economy and share news from Washington, including financial assistance for seniors and working families included in a new economic stimulus plan, at his first community dinner of 2008 this SUNDAY, February 10th, at St. Joseph’s Veterans Association in Woonsocket. 

 

Yesterday, Congress approved an economic stimulus package that extends financial assistance to over 20 million seniors living on Social Security. Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, had urged Senate leaders in a letter last month to include aid to seniors in legislation aimed at boosting the economy. 

 

EVENT: Sheldon Whitehouse to Discuss the Economy and a New Economic Stimulus Plan at First Community Dinner of the Year.

 

WHEN: Sunday, February 10, 6 p.m.

 

WHERE: St. Joseph’s Veterans Association, 99 Louise Street, Woonsocket.

We took a look yesterday at how Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch is virtually alone among high-profile Rhode Island Democrats in remaining neutral in the presidential race.

The other high-profile neutral is US Senator Jack Reed, who faces reelection this year. Chip Unruh, the senator's press secretary, got back to me after the close of business yesterday with a response, via e-mail, to my question about why Reed remains neutral. Here is the answer in its entirety:

Senator Reed is focused on Rhode Island, the economy, and his own race for 2008.

 

He has not made an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. Senator Reed works closely with both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama; all three of them serve together on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and they continue to work together to try and expand health care coverage for working families and reform our schools. 

Speaking of endorsements, the ProJo's Scott MacKay noted the different dynamic between Rhode Island and Massachusetts when, on Monday, he previewed the Kennedys' backing of Obama.

While many top Massachusetts Democrats, including Governor Patrick, Sen. John F. Kerry and U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, are backing Obama, Patrick Kennedy becomes the first major Rhode Island Democrat to back the Illinois senator.

All of the other top statewide elected Democrats and party officials are with Clinton. Sen. Jack Reed, who is up for reelection this year, is neutral but Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, General Treasurer Frank Caprio, Democratic State Chairman William Lynch and House Speaker William Murphy are all behind Clinton.

In fact, as the ProJo noted with a correction yesterday, Patrick Lynch remains neutral in the presidential race. N4N was curious about this, so I asked spokesman Mike Healey for an explanation. Here's what he had to say, via e-mail:

As a super delegate, and particularly in a year when the votes of super delegates could be decisive, Attorney General Lynch feels obliged to remain open-minded as long as possible. He thinks that the nomination process is working to narrow the field, as it should, and that the best candidate will be left standing at the end. He might endorse somebody before too long -- and he's certainly getting his arm twisted about whom he should endorse -- but, right now, he thinks he serving Rhode Island Democrats better by remaining neutral.

Meanwhile, Senator Reed's neutrality remains interesting. Back in November, during an appearance on 10 News Conference, Reed made a favorable reference while mentioning a few of the then-candidates by name (Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton) and not mentioning another (Obama).

Reed is on record in having ruled out his interest in becoming secretary of defense in a Democratic administration.

I left a message this morning for the senator's press secretary, asking for an explanation of Reed's neutrality, and will post an update when I hear back.

There are a number of lively revelations in Scott MacKay's ProJo story today on the forthcoming book by former US Senator Lincoln Chafee. This following quote about the run-up to the Iraq war, in particular, could be construed as a sharp slap at Hillary Clinton:

“I find it surprising now, in 2008, how many Democrats are running for president after shirking their constitutional duty to check and balance this president,” writes Chafee. “Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill.

“They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.”

Speaking of lapses in judgment, Chafee tells MacKay that he should have left the GOP sooner to become an independent, a la James Jeffords of Vermont.

While Chafee has been mentioned on this blog as a potential Providence mayoral candidate in 2010, he declined to talk about his political future with the ProJo, saying, "I'm focused right now on promoting my book."

MacKay notes how Steve Laffey, Chafee's 2006 GOP primary opponent, used his own campaign book to call Chafee "fickle," "a confessed cocaine abuser," "a dull fellow," and a "Ted Kennedy Republican," among other things -- and how Chafee doesn't mention Laffey's name in his book.

Both men, however, suffer from some convenient myopia. Laffey's book devoted all of about two paragraphs to the self-imposed problems of George W. Bush's Republican Party, preferring to focus on the former Cranston mayor's shock and outrage about how the GOP came down on one of its own, rather than remaining more neutral in his battle with a RINO such as Chafee. Apparently, Laffey's never heard the line about politics making odd bedfellows.

For Chafee's part, as MacKay notes, the former senator, irked that pro-war Dems advocated against him, "doesn't mention that such GOP war supporters as former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, Arizona Sen. John McCain and First Lady Laura Bush traveled to Rhode Island to raise money or campaign for Chafee."

This bit, about the then-senator's search for an explanation for Dem support for the war, is intriguing:

A bewildered Chafee, seeking an explanation, turned to an unnamed Democratic senator who opposed the war but was well-respected by his party’s leaders. This senator tells Chafee “in confidence” what concerned the Democrats. “They are afraid the war will be over as fast as Gulf One. Few will die, the oil will flow and gasoline will cost 90 cents a gallon.”

The anecdote is the only unattributed quote in a book that otherwise names names. The speaker was reportedly Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Jack Reed. When asked whether Reed was that senator, Chafee declined to confirm or deny it.

Reed, too, declined comment when asked last week about the quote.

Other interesting revelations:

-- former ProJo reporter Tony DePaul helped Chafee to "focus his thoughts and meet deadlines."

-- When the CIA presented him with its ant-Saddam evidence, " 'I looked at the aluminum tube, looked at the analysts and thought, I can go buy one of these at Adler’s Hardware,' the Providence hardware emporium."

-- Regarding his entry into politics, via the mayoralty in Warwick: "He recalls with a wink the times he was verbally lambasted by the Democrats who controlled the City Council when he was mayor of Warwick. After these meetings he and his tormentors jawed over beers at a nearby tavern."

From the junior senator:

Washington, D.C. – A year after President Bush’s speech to the nation announcing that he would significantly increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) criticized the administration’s continued failure to change course and begin bringing our troops home:

 

“In 2006, the American people sent a clear message to Washington that it was time to seek a new direction in Iraq. Instead, a year ago today President Bush escalated the war, sending tens of thousands more troops into harm’s way with assurances that the leaders of Iraq would step forward and work towards political reconciliation. Today, one year later, our troops have performed their duties as directed with skill and bravery – but the Iraqis have not done their part, and the Bush administration has not in its own conduct measured up to their sacrifice.

 

“Iraq will never stand up until we prepare to stand down. I have told President Bush personally that the prospect of an American redeployment is our best pressure on Iraqi leaders to take responsibility for the security and governance of their country. America cannot continue pouring billions of dollars and thousands of lives and limbs into the sands and marshes of Iraq. The Bush Administration cannot shirk the tough choices it must make. We must announce the process of bringing our troops home.”

While federal funding was hardly an issue in the lax response to last week's snow storm, Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse have released a statement expressing opposition to homeland security cuts for Rhode Island:

A November 26 document released from the Office of Budget Management indicated that the budget for fiscal year 2009 would cut funding in half for critical domestic homeland security initiatives and eliminate grant programs that benefit Rhode Island’s port security, transit security, and emergency management.

 

“At a time when this Administration asks for hundreds of billions of dollars to conduct its war in Iraq, it should also provide adequate support to protect Americans here at home and reject these misguided cuts to vital homeland security programs,” wrote the senators.

 

The reported funding cuts would directly impact three critical programs the Administration recently signed into law, including the Port Security Grant Program, which funds security improvements to America’s ports; the Transit Security Grant Program, which helps secure high-risk mass transit; and the Emergency Performance Management Grant Program, which allows communities across the country to develop emergency management plans to respond to a disaster. 

 

Rhode Island received funding from all three grant programs in fiscal year 2007, including $719,479 $1,201,570 from the Port Security Grant Program; $498,466 $1,219,823 (Providence) from the Transit Security Grant Program; and $483,649 $2,360,209 from the Emergency Management Performance Grants.

 

“These homeland security programs were all authorized by legislation this Administration supported and signed into law,” the senators concluded. “Unfortunately, real security does not come cheap and cannot be achieved with mere words of support.”

UPDATE: As noted in his comment, Matt makes the useful point that Reed named some of the other Dems without specifically including Obama. 

. . .

US Senator Jack Reed, who has previously ruled out the prospect of his becoming secretary of defense in a Democratic White House, remains publicly uncommitted in the Democratic presidential race.

This was one of the more interesting tidbits to emerge from last weekend's special broadcast from DC of 10 News Conference. In contrast to his Senate colleague Sheldon Whitehouse -- who, like much of the Democratic establishment in RI and elsewhere, is backing Hillary Clinton -- Reed talked up the entire Democratic field and says he is anticipating the primary season with interest.

Reed, of course, has worked in the with many of the Democratic candidates (he said he's less familiar with Mike Gravel, the former senator from Alaska) in the Senate, one of the more collegial of legislative bodies, and he's also facing reelection next year. This combination, along with the senator's somewhat cautious approach, likely explain his decision to avoid an endorsement for now.

It's embarrasing that the US Senate confirmed an attorney general -- Michael Mukasey -- who danced around the question of whether waterboarding constitutes torture.

Here's what Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who held Mukasey's feet to the fire on this issue, had to say:

“I voted against the nomination of Michael Mukasey because I believe this nation had the chance to present the world a moment of clarity on what we stand for.  America’s strength comes from its ideals.  We do not – we cannot – stand for torture. And we cannot stand for an administration that cannot condemn torture.  

 

“I was deeply disappointed by Judge Mukasey’s evasions on whether the practice of waterboarding is torture and unconstitutional.  But this moment is now past. What is left is the hope that he will repair the damage his predecessor did to the Department of Justice, and the hope that if called upon to choose between obeying the President and upholding the rule of law, he will make the right choice. I hope we can trust this man for that.”

US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse continues to impress in the nation's capital, but as for the body as a whole, not so much. When it comes to earmarks, one of Steve Laffey's pet issues, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

From yesterday's New York Times:

Even though members of Congress cut back their pork barrel spending this year, House lawmakers still tacked on to the military appropriations bill $1.8 billion to pay 580 private companies for projects the Pentagon did not request.

Twenty-one members were responsible for about $1 billion in earmarks, or financing for pet projects, according to data lawmakers were required to disclose for the first time this year. Each asked for more than $20 million for businesses mostly in their districts, ranging from major military contractors to little known start-ups.

The list is topped by the veteran earmark champions Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who is the chairman of the powerful defense appropriations subcommittee, and Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, the top Republican on the panel, who asked for $166 million and $117 million respectively. It also includes $92 million in requests from Representative Jerry Lewis, Republican of California, a committee member who is under federal investigation for his ties to a lobbying firm whose clients often benefited from his earmarks.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, requested $32 million in earmarks, while Steny H. Hoyer, the majority leader, asked for $26 million for projects in the $459.6 billion defense bill, the largest of the appropriations bills that go through Congress.

As promised when they took control of Congress in January, House Democratic leaders cut in half from last year the value of earmarks in the bill, as they did in the other 11 agency spending measures. But some lawmakers complained that the leadership failed to address what it had called a “culture of corruption” in which members seek earmarks to benefit corporate donors. Earmarks have been a recurring issue in recent Congressional scandals, most recently the 2005 conviction of Representative Randy Cunningham, Republican of California, for accepting bribes from defense contractors.

“Pork hasn’t gone away at all,” said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, an earmark critic who cites the “circular fund-raising” surrounding many of them. “It would be wonderful if this was a partisan issue, with Republicans on the right side, but it is really not. Many of these companies use money appropriated through earmarks to turn around and lobby for more money. Some of them are just there to receive earmarks.”

Congressional earmarks are for programs that are not competitively bid , and the Bush administration has complained that they waste taxpayer dollars and skew priorities from military needs, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror.

Thomas E. Mann, a Congressional scholar and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, though, sees the costs of earmarks as less of a problem than their potential for abuse.

“The fiscal fallout of earmarks is trivial,” he said. But they can lead to “conflicts of interest, the irrational and unconstructive allocation of resources, or their use by Congressional leaders as carrots and sticks to buy votes for larger measures that clearly lack majority support on the merits.”

The House version of the military bill includes 1,337 earmarks totaling $3 billion, the most Congressional earmarks in any of the spending bills passed this year. A conference committee is now reconciling House and Senate versions. The Senate added $5 billion in earmarks, but it is difficult to determine the sponsors because it has no disclosure rules.

The author, humorist, and US Senate candidate in Minnesota is scheduled to make an appearance at Blue State Coffee, between 3 and 4:30 pm tomorrow. The Nation recently featured a story on Franken's attempt to win the Wellstone seat.

With all the unanswered questions surrounding the budget and future political races, Scott MacKay today updates what's happening with Senator Jack Reed, the closest thing to a sure bet in Rhode Island politics.

Thirteen months before the 2008 U.S. Senate election, Democratic U.S. Sen. Jack Reed is sitting on a campaign chest of about $2.7 million and still has no Republican opponent in sight.

According to campaign finance reports made public at yesterday’s reporting deadline, Reed has $2,771,898 in campaign money and is continuing to raise more, said Chip Unruh, the senator’s spokesman.

Reed has said he intends to be a candidate for a third term next year and is counted as one of the Democratic Party’s surest bets for reelection.

“He’s got nearly $3 million in the bank and no opponent,” said Jennifer Duffy, who follows Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “Life is good.”

While Republicans are defending 22 Senate seats in the 2008 election cycle, Democrats have just 12 up for grabs. Along with such Senate veterans as Joe Biden of Delaware and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Reed appears to have a safe road to reelection, Duffy said.

. . . .

Republicans do not have a candidate, but Giovanni Ciccione, state GOP chairman, said yesterday that, “I’m confident that we will have candidates for all federal offices at the appropriate time.”

Republican Jonathan Scott, of Providence, who was swamped in a race for U.S. House last year by 1st District Rep. Patrick Kennedy, has said he may challenge Reed.

The filing deadline for state and federal offices is in June 2008. Ciccione acknowledged that Reed will be a formidable candidate.

Former US Senator Lincoln Chafee says he won't support Hillary Clinton -- or anyone who voted for the Senate authorization for the war in Iraq -- for president in 2008.

"Anyone who voted for the war is disqualified in my view," Chafee said during an appearance broadcast yesterday on WJAR-TV's 10 News Conference. " . . . It was a key moment in our history . . . Anyone who bought in . . . has no right to be our next president."

The former senator, now ensconced at Brown University's Watson Institute, was the only Senate Republican to vote against the war authorization.

Other highlights from Chafee's appearance:

-- The Republican-turned-independent liked Barack Obama's recent answer about why he doesn't wear an American flag pin. "It's almost suspect, those that wear their flags [on their proverbial sleeve]," Chafee said. "What, you've got wear it [your patriotism] on your lapel?"

-- Post-Senate life is "terrific," and beyond receiving fundraising letters, he does not remain in touch with his former Senate colleagues.

-- Chafee, who, with his wife, is super-duper-rich, continues to blame the cost of Steve Laffey's primary challenge last year with costing him his Senate seat. Chafee defended his decision to run as a Republican, saying that leaving the party while in office would have hurt Rhode Island.

-- The former senator doesn't yet have an answer on whether he will run again for elected office, but he said he "spends a lot of time thinking about it." If he is to run for mayor of Providence in 2010, he noted, he will have to "get busy" in the city's neighborhoods.

US Senator Jack Reed, whose military insight makes him a respected voice on national security matters, will deliver the Democratic response tonight to President Bush's address to the nation on Iraq.

Speaking of the Senate . . .

US Senators John Ensign and Chuck Schumer, the respective chairs of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commitee, are slated to preview the 2008 Senate races this Sunday on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

DC Democrats, of course, have had their own share of sex scandals over the years. But in terms of the recent record, Phillpe + Jorge raise this question:

One of the great mysteries for P+J is why, whenever there is a Washington controversy in which a major male political figure is discovered to be engaging in superior behavior in a most un-superior way (for example, in a public men’s room), it’s 90 percent likely that the figure is not just a Republican, but a “family values” kind of Republican.
 
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, there is also a boatload of empirical evidence on the non-superior side of how hookers claim to do better business at national GOP conventions than Democratic ones.
 
So Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, appears to have been the latest swinger. He allegedly tried to signal to a plainclothes police sergeant in an adjoining toilet stall in the Minneapolis airport that he was looking for a bit of company. Court records indicate that Senator Craig pleaded guilty and paid a fine on a lewdness charge.
 
The senator, in a statement issued by his office, complained that the police had “misconstrued” his actions. Those actions, according to the sergeant in the adjoining stall, comprised of “tapping his toes several times and [moving] his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area.”
 
While the sergeant said that he recognized this wingtip tango as “a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct,” we’re quite certain that Senator Craig will reveal how his footwork was a well-known move used in Pocatello when someone is searching for a fourth for bridge. Either that or he has unusually long legs, and ends up playing footsies with guys in the next stall inadvertently, but on a regular basis.

Perhaps it was the scrutiny being cast on US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by the likes of US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that led him to finally announce his plans this morning to leave the Bush administration. As the ProJo's Charlie Bakst wrote yesterday:

He [Whitehouse] is angry at President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over the war and what he considers the administration’s disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law. He told an East Providence community dinner he hosted Wednesday night that he doesn’t quarrel with the idea they deserve to be impeached. But he knows it won’t happen and, in any case, feels the “hugely divisive” process of impeaching the two men would divert attention from more important work, such as strengthening health care and ending the war.

On the other hand, this former U.S. attorney and former Rhode Island attorney general would welcome the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whom he has long criticized. He thinks the House may initiate the proceedings on, say, the grounds of having lied to Congress. Just the launch of an impeachment inquiry might be enough to send Gonzales over the side, Whitehouse said later. “That may be the thing that pushes him out.”

In his column, Bakst also notes how DC Democrats have failed to deliver on some of their campaign pledges from 2006:

Whitehouse called for getting the troops out of Iraq and filling in the so-called doughnut hole in the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. A Democratic Senate could make these and other things happen, he said.

But — and Whitehouse himself finds it maddening — the war rages and the hole is unfilled. He says it’s tough when Democrats lack the votes to overcome GOP filibusters and the president is a Republican.

I asked in an interview last week if Whitehouse was naïve last year, or misled voters about the difficulties, or has anything to apologize for.

He said no. He said he was frustrated that those and other things have not been accomplished. “But, you know, we are 7 months in. It’s a 6-year term. The fight is a long way from over. I’m not willing to concede defeat on either point. I believe that we’re actually going to be able to deliver on both of those. It’s just that you have to battle your way.”

Bakst also shares this interesting bit about Whitehouse's support of Hillary Clinton:

When Whitehouse came out for Clinton, whose husband named him U.S. attorney, I wondered how Obama felt. The celebrity senator from Illinois visited Rhode Island for Whitehouse twice last fall, including a jaunt when he was unable to get a flight out of Newark and had to ride here in a car.

Whitehouse says that when he decided this year to endorse Clinton, he phoned Obama and said, “I want you to know the context of this. I go back to being a Clinton U.S. attorney. They did TV ads, they came in four times, I am very, very personally committed there. I appreciate what you did for me.”

He says Obama replied, “Well, I hope you don’t forget what I did for you, because I came in twice, and one of them was pretty inconvenient.”

Whitehouse said, “Barack, I will always be indebted to you for that, but on this one I have to make the call that I have to make.”

Senators running for president frequently see each other in the Capitol. I’ve read that the body language between Clinton and Obama is cool; Whitehouse says he is “astounded” to see “zero” evidence of such tension.

For what it's worth, many RI progressives are delighted with Whitehouse's performance thus far in the Senate.

Apparently, I'm not the only wretch focused on the idea of Jack Reed becoming secretary of defense in a Democratic administration. The AP's Andrew Miga, formerly of the Boston Herald, yesterday took a look at the senator and his place in the continuing debate over Iraq:

WASHINGTON --Sen. Jack Reed does not usually turn many heads on Capitol Hill.

The low-key, unassuming Rhode Islander tends to get overlooked in the Senate where more brash personalities and shrill partisan attacks dominate.

But Reed is at center stage this week as the heated debate over ending the Iraq war nears a showdown. The former Army captain has cemented his role as a leading Democratic voice on the war. There's even speculation he could be tapped as defense secretary or another high-level post if Democrats capture the White House in 2008.

"You'd have to give him a hard look," said Norman Ornstein, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, who specializes in Congress and the presidency. "In the old days we would call him the E.F. Hutton senator. When he speaks, everybody stops and listens. He's somebody who commands wide respect."

Reed, 57, has not endorsed any of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates who might consider him for a job if they win. But he denied any interest Tuesday in leaving his Senate seat, saying he's focused on his 2008 re-election.

"I would not accept it, that's what I make of it," he said. "I have a job to do here and I'm asking the people of Rhode Island to give me the opportunity to serve again. I want to do that sincerely and faithfully."

Going to defense would offer some potential benefits to Reed, particularly the opportunity to subsequently cash in with a lucrative defense industry job. One would think he could do a far better job than the likes of Don Rumsfeld. The senator, though, who routinely ranks as Rhode Island's most popular elected official -- and for good reason -- appears to have mind made up about wanting to stay in the Senate.

UPDATE II: Let's go to the tape.

Here's part of the relevant transcript from 10 News Conference, as provided by the senator's office:

TARICANI: Let’s talk a little bit about your future, we’ve asked you this before, should a Democrat get elected president in ’08 and should you be requested or nominated to be Secretary of Defense, would you accept that position?

REED: No. My intention and hope is that I will be re-elected by the people of Rhode Island.  I’m very privileged to serve as a United States Senator and I hope they will give me the opportunity to serve the state and the nation for six more years.

TARICANI: So you are ruling that out.

REED: Yes.

RAPPLEYE: Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, any… you want to stay a Senator?

REED: Yes, very much and I’m going to wage a campaign and hope that the people of RI will again give me the opportunity to do that. I feel extraordinarily fortunate. I can’t think of a better place to represent people I know, people I grew up with, people who work hard, respect this country, serve the country well and I hope in some simple way I get to serve them.

UPDATE: Reed rules it out.

Kennedy's comment notwithstanding, Reed is apparently uninterested in the position of Secretary of Defense. WJAR, which yesterday featured the senator on 10 News Conference, reports that Reed says he would not accept such a nomination.

. . . .

One of the more interesting tidbits in Scott MacKay and Mark Arsenault's look yesterday at the maturation of US Representative Patrick Kennedy was the congressman's certitude about US Senator Jack Reed's possible place in a Democratic administration:

“I’m very comfortable in the House,” says Kennedy in an interview. “My dad asked me whether, if Senator [Jack] Reed got tapped for secretary of defense, whether I’d think of running for his seat.

“I think it’s a very probable scenario under a Democratic administration that Jack Reed would be tapped for secretary of defense, and I assume he would accept it in a heartbeat. But I’m so far along, both seniority-wise and also personally and politically in the House. … I feel I have my own territory where I don’t have to worry about comparisons made with my dad.”

Reed, of course, sounded a quite different message when I asked him about this subject in April. When I wrote that he was being coy -- the senator had cited a desire to remain in the Senate -- his spokesman called me to characterize his remark as "pretty categorical."

The really interesting thing, of course, as Matt has noted, is whether the General Assembly will try to take from the governor the appointing authority for elevating a successor, should Reed leave in mid-term. Something tells me the answer is "yes."

As part of my July 6 interview with US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, I asked him, "Do you think Americans are more or less safe since 9/11?"

Here's his answer:

I think we're less safe since 9/11, because I think the Bush administration has failed to adequately implement the 9/11 Commission report, because they've failed to adequately implement the Baker-Hamilton report. And because of that combination that we talked about earlier, of the price of our footprint on the ground in Iraq being so high internationally -- in terms of lower prestige, and increased irritation and frustration by our allies, and a heightened sense of anger, resentment, and desire to hit back by the Islamic world, kind of at the lower level -- and then again we've allowed the dynamic in the Middle East to framed against us so badly that we look like bumblers, to sophisticated observers.

For more of the interview, check here.

Jon Scott was the far more credible of the challengers to US Representative Patrick J. Kennedy last fall. I've had the opportunity to speak with him since, and Jon is a bright guy with a strong measure of interest in public service. Earlier this week, Tom over at RI Report theorized that Scott may challenge US Senator Jack Reed when the Democrat comes up for reelection:

With Jack Reed up for reelection next year, the state GOP will need to field a candidate who will be more than a ballot-filler in order to begin to establish itself as a credible political entity. And right now, the field is wide open with the only other possible names being floated by Republican insiders as those of former Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey and Warwick Mayor Scott Avedesian. However, with a primary loss to Linc Chafee in hand and already an early GOP frontrunner for governor in 2010, a Laffey loss to Reed in the general election would be extremely costly to a candidate whose critics maintain cannot win a state-wide election. Meanwhile Avedesian, who has been reluctant to step up as a candidate for higher office in the past would likely also avoid a match-up against Reed, who has become the state’s most respected and senior politician.

Scott, on the other hand, has nothing to lose and if would provide an energetic and visible GOP challenge at the top of state party’s ticket.

Why lose to a congressman when you can lose to a senator?

A loss, indeed, would be the all-but-certain outcome, since Reed is routinely Rhode Island's most popular elected official. I agree with Matt that Scott would be better-served by establishing more credentials, perhaps with a run for a lower office. The RI GOP seriously needs to develop its farm team, and it doesn't help when would-be hopefuls run quixotic campaigns.