"Between the New York Times and the Pentagon's inspector general office, it's pretty clear which is a more credible and non-partisan source." -Keith Urbahn, Don Rumsfeld's current spokesperson, on the Pulitzer prize winning NY Times story about on the DoD co-opting reitred generals to agitate for invading Iraq which was debunked by a report by the Pentagon IG.

A new Quinnipiac poll released this morning finds Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, now a Democrat, crushing former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) in the Senate race general election (April 29–May 3, 1120 RV, MoE +/- 2.9%). However, former Gov. Tom Ridge (R), trails Specter by just 3 points, as he wins over the independent voters that Specter would take over the conservative Toomey.

Specter had faced abysmal GOP primary numbers against Toomey prior to switching parties last week. As he admitted, his move drastically improves his chances of winning re-election.

"A former Republican Senator running as a Democrat against a popular former Republican governor seeking to make a political comeback would be a battle royal in Pennsylvania," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Gov. Tom Ridge is probably the only political figure in Pennsylvania who could give Sen. Arlen Specter a run for his money."

Specter 53
Toomey 33
Und 10

Specter 46
Ridge 43
Und 8

One of the right's arguments as to why Pat Toomey can win his Pennsylvania Senate race is that he won election three times in a congressional district that leaned toward the Democrats from 1998-2004.  In fact, the district had an ever-so-slight Republican tilt compared to the nation as a whole when Toomey won it (which means that it leaned even more heavily toward Republicans when compared to Pennsylvania as a whole), but it is a fair overall point:  Toomey's district was, at the very least, a swing district when he was elected.

But there is an important caveat here.  The 2000 Politics in America (which covers the 1998 election) states: "He is viewed as a moderate on social issues such as abortion rights, which he supports."   After Toomey's first term, Politics in America again wrote "[o]n social policy issues, he is viewed as a moderate -- supporting, for example, abortion rights."

I did some more digging, and came up with the following from LifeNews, reporting on the 2004 Toomey-Specter primary:

The Specter campaign is circulating a memo which calls into question Toomey's pro-life credentials. The memo states that, in 1998, Toomey cast himself as the only Republican candidate in his Congressional race that supported legal abortion. At the time, Toomey said that abortion should be legal if completed in the first trimester of pregnancy.

The LifeNews article goes on to explain that "once he was shown the truth about abortion, [Toomey] became pro-life--and he's never looked back." Setting aside any question about Toomey's motives for changing his views, or any other social issue flip-flops (which in any event surely pale in comparison to Specter's party flip-flop), it is important to remember that, while Toomey did win a swing district in the late 90s, he presented a different ideological profile to the voters on social issues than he does today.  Of course, these are the exact issues that are expected to give Toomey the most trouble in the Philadelphia suburbs.  So we probably shouldn't assign too much weight to Toomey's victories in a swing district.

The Pew Poll that Tom linked to yesterday is an interesting one.   It shows (to oversimplify somewhat) a 9% decrease in support for gun control since last year and an 8% drop in support for generally legal abortion (including an 11% drop since October).  While this is possible, I have to say the poll looks fishy to me.  Public attitudes about abortion are generally stable, and have been since the 70s.  It generallytakes a massive public discussion to move these numbers.

For example, in the mid-90s, there was a consistent decrease in the number of people who believed that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, and a concomitant increase in the number who believed abortion should be legal in most circumstances.  This coincided with the debate over the procedure known as either (depending on your political predilections) intact D & E or partial birth abortion.  Since a pretty small minority thought the procedure should generally remain legal, the number of people in the categorical camp on the abortion question declined somewhat.

In the absence of a similarly incendiary debate in the past few months, I find it hard to swallow that public support for legal abortion has declined to near-parity in a few months.  While support for gun control is a bit "noisier," the fact that the numbers on that question moved in parallel to the abortion question reinforces the notion that this movement isn't "real," but rather is the result of a skewed sample.  The drop of 24 points for support of legal abortion among moderate/liberal Republicans seems particularly unlikely.  More likely, Pew just wound up with a sample of self-described moderate/liberal Republicans who were particularly pro-life.

Every now an again, you'll draw a handful of only yellow M&Ms out of the bag, and every now and again you'll get a weird sample with your poll.  I think that's probably what's going on here.

Just after getting off the phone with Supreme Court Justice David Souter, President Obama surprised White House reporters at the daily briefing and confirmed that Souter would indeed be retiring this year.

"I will seek someone with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity," Obama said. "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

"I will seek someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

"As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties, across the political spectrum."

Obama said that he hopes the new Justice can be sworn in "by the first Monday in October, when the new Court term begins."

In the wake of Arlen Specter's recent party switch, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina said "I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don't have a set of beliefs."

The thing is, the Republican Party has been there and done that.  After the 1932 elections, Republicans had 35 seats.  After the 1934 elections they had 25 seats.  After the 1936 elections they had 17 seats.  After 1958 they had 35 seats and after 1964 they had 32 seats.

Most of the current bête noires of movement conservatives -- farm subsidies, the NLRA, AFDC, the FLSA, Social Security, the Great Society programs -- come from these Congresses with outsized Democratic majorities.  If these programs had merely been temporary and Republicans had been as successful as they would have liked in rolling them back, DeMint's swagger might be justified.  But with the exception of AFDC, these programs have tended to expand rather than contract.  In other words, conservatives would have done better to have a few more "squishes" in these Congresses to blunt government's advance, instead of the proud minority voting against them.

The last term many liberals would likely use to describe Bill Clinton is someone with a strong core set of beliefs.  Disillusionment with his pliancy was a major motivating factor behind the Nader insurgency.  Yet I bet in retrospect most of them were thrilled indeed to have had him standing on the wall when Republicans had their best shot to date at unravelling the Great Society in 1995.  I have a feeling that, in retrospect, many Republicans will long for the day that they had at least some leverage over Arlen Specter and his critical 60th vote.

A DailyKos/Research2000 poll finds Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) leading two potential Democratic challengers, and gubernatorial candidate John Oxendine (R) leading three Democrats.

*Dems tested: Rep. Jim Marshall, ex-Gov. Roy Barnes; Atty. Gen. Thurbert Baker; ex-Adjutant Gen. David Poythress. (Barnes defeated Poythress and others in the 1998 gubernatorial Dem primary, before going on to win the general election.)

*GOPers tested: Sen. Johnny Isakson; state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine; Sec. of State Karen Handel.

Senate
Isakson 48 - Marshall 40 - Und 12
Isakson 47 - Barnes 43 - Und 10

Governor
Oxendine 46 - Barnes 44 - Und 10
Handel 39 - Barnes 45 - Und 16
Oxendine 47 - Baker 42 - Und 11
Handel 40 - Baker 42 - Und 18
Oxendine 47 - Poythress 43 - Und 10
Handel 39 - Poythress 43 - Und 18

Don't look now, but Prime Minister Gordon Brown's already bad week just got worse:

Mr Clarke said: “There have been things that have been done recently which have made me feel ashamed to be a Labour Member of Parliament, which was something I never ever wanted to be in.

“I worked, as you say, over my whole political life to get Labour into a position where it could be a good government and I do see that fading away ... And it feels absolutely appalling.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today he thinks the Senate will agree to bipartisan health care legislation without the need for reconciliation by the 2010 midterm elections, and that the bill President Obama signs will move the nation closer to universal health care coverage.

"By the election in 2010, I think we're going to have health care legislation," Reid said in a wide-ranging interview this morning at a breakfast event hosted by National Journal. The interview was conducted by NJ political director Ron Brownstein.

Reconciliation authority, used by the majority party to get around a filibuster, was inserted into the budget resolution for health care, though Reid indicated that for a number of reasons his preference would be for a bill to go through the normal legislative process.

"A decision was made in the budget process to have in our back pocket reconciliation," Reid said. "The compromise we made was that it would not become available until October 15. That gives us five or six months to do a bipartisan bill. We all want a bipartisan bill."

As evidence that he's hoping not to rely on reconciliation, which requires just 51 votes, Reid noted that with Sen. Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party this week, he would need just one Republican to cross over to get the 60 votes needed. Also, Reid said, he told Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that he wants Republicans to be able to offer amendments.

"As I told McConnell after Specter indicated he was going to change parties, we're going to try to do our best to get along," said Reid. "We need to get a bill that is good for the American people. And if we just jam one through without giving the Republicans the option to be part of the process, it won't be as accepted."

Asked what Democrats need to have passed for the midterm elections to be a successful one for the party, Reid said, "If we continue as we are this year," with health care and energy bills he thinks can be passed, "then 2010 will take care of itself."

On Specter's party switch earlier this week, the effects of which continue to ripple through Congress, Reid said his, President Obama's and Vice President Biden's endorsements of the new Democrat in the 2010 Senate election in Pennsylvania were not conditional, regardless of how Specter votes on Democratic bills going forward.

"He's going to be a valuable member in the Democratic caucus," Reid said. "And I think he'll be a lot of help to us. I don't think he'll be an automatic vote, but I don't have any automatic votes."

On President Obama, Reid described him as "cool in a time of stress" and "about as cool and calm a guy as I've ever dealt with."

(Cross-posted on RCP's Politics Nation blog)

The Kentucky Derby faces cutbacks.