David Kurtz

David Kurtz is Managing Editor and Washington Bureau Chief of Talking Points Memo where he oversees the news operations of TPM and its sister sites.

Articles by David

New St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll shows incumbent Sen. Jim Talent neck and neck with Democrat Claire McCaskill:

The latest Research 2000 poll for the Post-Dispatch and KMOV-TV (Channel 4) found that Talent, R-Mo., has chipped away the edge held by his Democratic rival, state Auditor Claire McCaskill.

With a little more than two months left before Election Day, the two are in a statistical dead heat.

The Maryland-based firm's latest poll of 800 likely voters, conducted Monday through Thursday, found that 47 percent backed McCaskill and 46 percent supported Talent. Two percent supported Libertarian Frank Gilmour, while the remaining 5 percent were undecided.

. . .

The firm's last poll, in June, had shown McCaskill with a lead of 6 percentage points.

Talent closed the gap with a six-week TV ad blitz in which he outspent McCaskill by a ratio of 10:1.

Good point:

A Republican strategist privy to much of the polling conducted in House districts said that, at this point, it is not difficult to count enough vulnerable districts to show how Democrats can take control. But he offered a cautionary point: "I don't know of a single target race," he said, where the Republican candidate "has spent more than 20 percent of what they intend to spend. The battle is just beginning. That's what people really forget."

The story of Hillary Clinton possibly opting out of the 2008 presidential race in order to be Senate Majority Leader has made it from The Washington Note to the LA Times and now across the pond to London. There are so many ifs, ands, and buts to this story that you would think this was a non-election year and people were desperate for political stories.

TPM Reader MD responds to my post below:

In response to your question, "Which press outlets have agreed to those conditions?" I think there are actually a fair number that would take those terms if it meant an interview with Rove -- or any number of good sources of information within the administration or in Congress. Granted, you need to be someone close to power -- a special assistant to the President would qualify of course, but also any number of press secretaries for the more powerful members of Congress, because agreeing to those terms largely means you're going to get a background interview with the person in question. Which can be worth it, if they have good enough information to share.

In many cases, it may make perfect sense for a reporter to have a conversation on background so that the person being interviewed will feel more at ease and won't have to constantly be on guard. Speaking on the record is a pretty big pain in the ass actually, since one slip and you've said the phrase that will be the headline. So this allows the interviewer to actually get substantive information, and if there's a great quote that he'd love to print -- either attached to the actual person or sourced to an anonymous official -- he can ask afterwards and will often get what he wants. So this technique serves to grease the wheels of the reporter-source transaction.

That said, in this case it's obvious that this was too big of a demand since Rove was actually the SUBJECT of the story, rather than a press flack who can give some good background and maybe even serve up a juicy quote. I can see why the Times would refuse his demand, but it is interesting that it would call him out on this in the article: this is something that happens in DC; by devoting a whole paragraph to explaining their refusal, it serves to embarrass Rove. Maybe this says something about Rove's weakening ability to intimidate journalists into agreeing to whatever set of demands he dictates to them?

I suppose I mostly agree with MD as to when such ground rules would be acceptable, but I took the White House claim to mean that those ground rules had been successfully applied before when Rove was the subject of the piece.

Rove & Company have narrowed the battlefield (or at least that's what they're saying for public consumption):

They have determined that control of Congress is likely to be settled in as few as six states and have decided to focus most of the party’s resources there, said Republican officials who did not want to be identified discussing internal deliberations. Those states will likely include Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington, though officials said the battle lines could shift in coming weeks.

What is this about?

The White House said that Mr. Rove would consider an interview for this article if it were conducted off the record, with the provision that quotations could be put on the record with White House approval, a condition it said was set for other interviews with Mr. Rove. The New York Times declined.

Which press outlets have agreed to those conditions?

Worth a look:

The Pakistani regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf has been negotiating truces - with the Bush administration's encouragement - with Islamic separatists in North Waziristan and South Waziristan, mountainous tribal areas along the Afghan border where U.S. officials think bin Laden may be hiding.

In return, Pakistani officials are promising to restrict the country's troops in the area to major bases and towns and to pour huge amounts of aid - much of it from the United States and other nations - into the destitute region, according to American officials.

But as the truces take hold, separatists have been crossing into Afghanistan to fight alongside Taliban and al-Qaida fighters, according to Western and Afghan officials.

I was alerted to another gem from Bush in the Brian Williams interview. When asked about reading The Stranger, Bush explained: "I was in Crawford and I said I was looking for a book to read and Laura said you oughtta try Camus, I also read three Shakespeare's."

Three Shakespeare's?

It's as if Jethro from The Beverly Hillbillies were President--not a real hillbilly, which I wouldn't much begrudge someone, but a Hollywood spoof of a hillbilly.