George Stephanopoulos: Obama’s Nobel ‘Fruitcake From a Wealthy Aunt’

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports:

President Obama's stunning selection as the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize makes for a complex political calculus for a White House that's now deep in deliberating the best course for the war in Afghanistan.

On ABCNews.com's “Top Line” today, George Stephanopoulos offered this analogy:

“The president has essentially gotten the world's biggest, most elaborate fruitcake from a wealthy aunt he can't afford to offend. You can't return it, you can't re-gift it. You just gotta make the best of it, and I think he did this morning,” Stephanopoulos told us.

With Rush Limbaugh leading conservative criticism of Obama's award, the president's critics have to be careful not to push too far, he said: “Will this be a moment where the conservative critiques, you know, fire the imagination of the country, or will they go too far? I don't know the answer to that yet,”

We also touched on the president's looming decision on Afghanistan, and the latest in the health care debate. You can watch the full discussion HERE.

George will have much more on those topics and more on “This Week” Sunday, with two high-profile roundtables: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., and retired Gen. Jack Keane; and Arianna Huffington, Nicolle Wallace, Donna Brazile, and George Will.

Also on today's “Top Line,” we interviewed former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer about his controversial memoir: “Speech-less: Tales of a White House Survivor.” Watch that discussion HERE.

From the “Hammer” to “Wild Thing”: Tom DeLay Makes his Debut on ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars”

ABC News’ Kristina Wong reports: Donning brown pants and a matching vest lined with leopard print and rhinestones, former House Republican majority leader and whip Tom DeLay made his debut Monday night on ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars.”

In the outfit DeLay described on Twitter as “Elvis meets animal print,” DeLay and his partner Cheryl Burke cha-cha’ed to the song “Wild Thing”.

During the dance, DeLay played the air guitar, slid across the dance floor on his knees, pointed at the camera, and mouthed “Wild thing, I think I love you.” At age 62, the man nicknamed “the Hammer” for his aggressive style of keeping his party members’ votes in line, was, according to judge Carrie Ann Inaba, “very light on his feet.”

“That was surreal,” Inaba said. “Tom DeLay – you’re wild thing!”

“You’re crazier than Sarah Palin!” exclaimed judge Bruno Tonioli. Yet the judges’ scores on DeLay and Burke’s first dance were more muted.

While Inaba said DeLay had “a natural grace,” DeLay and Burke were given a 6, 5 and 5, on aone-to-10 scale, 10 being the best.

“Parts were magic, parts were tragic,” said judge Len Goodman.

Clearly reveling inhis “wild” exhibition, DeLay quipped, “I got bigger critics than those judges.”

By RICK KLEIN

If all the cards are on the table, there?s an awful lot of bluffing going on. And if the stakes get any higher, is someone bound to walk away?

The bluffing may be from a White House that won?t really drop the public option, not entirely. It may be the liberals who won?t really block a reform bill, even if they don?t like it. It may be coming from the moderates whose Septembers won?t be as noisy as their Augusts.

A speech, particularly one with the kind of expectations likely to surround the week-long build-up to Wednesday?s address to a joint session of Congress, isn?t going to grease the legislative skids by itself.

But in its symbolism and its (expected) substance, it suggests that President Obama is taking a cue or two from former President Bill Clinton — after spending much of the year trying to do precisely what Clinton didn?t.

President Clinton?s address to the joint session of Congress marked something of a high point in that debate — though the debate was just starting 16 years ago this month. After that night, Americans pretty much knew what the president wanted done (whether they agreed with it or not).

We?re not yet at that point of specificity from Team Obama — by design and by circumstance. And there aren?t many strategy shifts available after this.

Is this a healthy acknowledgement? ?We?re at a point in this debate where we?ve been talking for months and months, all the ideas are on the table,? senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC?s Jake Tapper.

?Now it?s time to close the deal,? Axelrod told Tapper, on ?Good Morning America? Thursday.

Tapper: ?This is clearly not Plan A.?

How about some expectations management: ?Aides said Obama will use the speech to add more specifics to his vision for overhauling the nation's health system,? Anne E. Kornblut, Ceci Connolly, and Shailagh Murray write in The Washington Post. ?He will be attempting a difficult balancing act, seeking to win moderate Senate Democrats to his cause without embracing compromises that would alienate liberal House Democrats. He is not expected to associate himself with any one bill.?

No plastic card this time? ?For better or worse, the high-profile speech is likely to tie Obama closer to the issue in the minds of Americans. Almost exactly 16 years ago, then-President Bill Clinton also attempted to break a logjam on health care in Congress with a prime-time address to lawmakers, and his administration's efforts ended in spectacular failure.?

ABC?s George Stephanopoulos, on ?GMA? ?That speech was at the very beginning. . . . This is more at the beginning of the end.?

Obama will ?basically lay out the bill that he wants? — including a universal mandate and insurance reforms, and maybe a public-option trigger mechanism, as discussed by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, per Stephanopoulos.

Props may work? Time?s Karen Tumulty: ?Bill Clinton launched his health reform effort with a joint session address in September, 1993, one in which he waved a bright blue plastic card labeled ?Health Care Security Card.? It was a prop, yes, but an effective symbol of his commitment to providing every American health coverage that could never be taken away. . . . What's more important than a speech right now is a strategy.?

The part of the last effort Obama wouldn?t mind seeing again: ?Clinton also took healthcare reform to a joint session of Congress, and polls showed a surge in public support. But he made his pitch before his administration had worked out the specifics. And by the time the plan was unveiled, opponents had turned public opinion and the effort failed,? the Los Angeles Times? Peter Nicholas and Janet Hook report.

The move is ?an acknowledgment that the president?s prior tactic of laying out broad principles and leaving Congress to fill in the details was no longer working and that Mr. Obama needed to become more personally involved in shaping the outcome,? Robert Pear and Jackie Calmes write in The New York Times.

Will it be prescriptive enough? ?But the officials said Mr. Obama was unlikely to unveil a detailed legislative plan of his own. And they insisted that Mr. Obama had not given up on the provision that has attracted the most fire from the right, a proposal for a government-run competitor to private insurers, although many Democrats say the proposal may eventually be jettisoned,? they write.

Bad memories: ?Some Obama advisers, wary of parallels between [Clinton?s] effort and Mr. Obama?s push for an overhaul of the health system, had argued that the president should give a televised speech from the Oval Office instead of the House chamber.?

Why it?s maybe not the ideal setting: The image will be an ?audience that is very quick to cheer and quick to jeer,? Stephen Hess, a presidential historian at George Washington University, tells Bloomberg?s Julianna Goldman and James Rowley. ?The commentary will be how divided the Congress is, not united, by doing it this way.?

The perfect stakes, per Karl Rove: ?Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) was inartful but basically correct when he said if Mr. Obama loses on health care, ?it will be his Waterloo.? It would destroy confidence in the ability of Democrats to govern,? Rove writes in his Wall Street Journal column. ?He has used up almost all his goodwill in less than nine months, with the hardest work still ahead. At the year's start, Democrats were cocky. At summer's end, concern is giving way to despair. A perfect political storm is amassing, and heading straight for Democrats.?

Tom Daschle quotes Ted Kennedy Jr. — to basically agree with Rove: ?As we stand, once again, at the bottom of the hill, the challenge is daunting,? he writes in the Journal. ?If we lack the ability to successfully address the urgent problems of health care in our country, the American people and the rest of the world will rightly question our ability to tackle other challenges, domestic and global. And needless to say, given the dominance of my party in the White House and in Congress, Democrats will be to blame.?

Listen up, Mary Landrieu and Ben and Bill Nelson: ?The choice between complete legislative failure and majority rule should not pose a dilemma for any Democratic senator,? Daschle writes.

Try this on: ?If Snowe drops off the bill, using the budget reconciliation process will probably be a necessity,? Ezra Klein writes at his Washington Post blog. ??Passage becomes much less certain, which means a scaled-back bill becomes much more likely. This is the irony of the health-care endgame: The bill becomes much more conservative if it loses its final Republican.?

As big as they come: ?If soaring oratory has often been Obama?s saving grace, the health care reform address he?s scheduled to deliver to a joint session of Congress next week is his riskiest effort to date ? a high-reward gamble with significant potential downsides,? Politico?s Carrie Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush write.

The move ?raises the stakes after a month of contentious town-hall meetings and falling public support,? Richard Wolf and John Fritze write for USA Today.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., is ready for some frank talk: Obama should tell the nation, ?We cannot achieve what many people had hoped at the outset, and we should be ready to strike a deal,? she tells The Washington Post.

The detail that will get the most attention: Obama ?consistently has refused to insist on a government-run program to compete with private health insurers, a top goal of liberals, even though he says he prefers such an option. Axelrod called the public option important, but stopped short of saying it was essential to a final bill,? per the AP?s Chuck Babington.

(And this, according to CMAG: ?In one measure of the intense opposition Obama and his allies faced this summer, opponents of the Democratic effort outspent supporters on television commercials in August for the first time this year.?)

The warnings, on the public option: ?Why would the White House step away from something that is going to weaken their side and that isn?t going to pick up a single vote on the other side?? Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, told ABC?s Teddy Davis.

?If you?re interested in health insurance reform, the public option can?t go away — it?s essential,? Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer and president-designate, told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

Warnings from the other end? From the AP write-up of Sen. Blanch Lincoln?s, D-Ark., town hall Wednesday night: ?U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln says she won't suppport a government-funded insurance option as part of an overhaul of the nation's health care system. Dozens of people repeatedly shouted at Lincoln as she spoke before a crowd of more than 800 people packed into an arena at Arkansas Tech University on Wednesday. At one point, an audience member repeatedly shouted and referred to advisers to President Barack Obama as ?Communists.? ?

The what-went-wrongs begin: ?A look back suggests the president and his allies may have ?overlearned? the lessons of President Bill Clinton's 1993-1994 health-care defeat,? Jonathan Weisman, Neil King, and Janet Adamy write in The Wall Street Journal. ?They expended great effort to line up the support of health-care insurers, pharmaceutical makers and care providers, believing that by keeping them around the table, they could win over Republicans and stop the kind of industry-led attacks that helped sink the Clinton plan. But this strategy left out the wooing of public opinion, which was being affected by broader events, including the economic crisis and anger over bank bailouts.?

Also looking back, Time?s Joe Klein: ?It has been widely observed that Obama overlearned the lesson of the Clinton health-care effort by deferring to Congress to write the legislation. It has been less widely observed that the President overlearned the lesson of Bush's hyperpoliticized Justice Department by leaving to Attorney General Eric Holder the decision about whether to investigate the CIA for torture abuses.?

New Thursday: A Web video from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, starring House Minority Leader John Boehner, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Dick Morris, and Glenn Beck. (And Hitler, Marx, Castro, and Grandma.)

The New York Times gets an early copy of Ted Kennedy?s autobiography: ?In a memoir being published this month, Senator Edward M. Kennedy called his behavior after the 1969 car accident that killed Mary Jo Kopechne ?inexcusable? and said the events might have shortened the life of his ailing father, Joseph P. Kennedy,? Carl Hulse and John M. Broder report.

?Mr. Kennedy also said he had always accepted the finding of a presidential commission that a sole gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, was responsible for President John F. Kennedy?s assassination. Robert F. Kennedy grieved so deeply over the killing of the president that family members feared for his emotional health, Mr. Kennedy wrote, saying that it ?veered close to being a tragedy within a tragedy.? ?

And: ?Mr. Kennedy wrote of a secret meeting in the spring of 1967 between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert Kennedy, whose increasingly outspoken criticism of the war in Southeast Asia was becoming a political threat to Johnson. According to the book, Robert Kennedy proposed that Johnson give him authority to personally negotiate a peace treaty in Vietnam. This implicitly would have kept Robert from running for the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination, a prospect that worried Johnson.?

(Plus: ?Mr. Kennedy also complained that [Carter] White House meetings had been barely tolerable, in part because no liquor was ever served during Mr. Carter?s term. ?He wanted no luxuries nor any sign of worldly living,? Mr. Kennedy wrote.)

Vice President Joe Biden gives a stimulus update at 10 am ET, at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Per his office: ?Vice President Biden will highlight how the Recovery Act is contributing to the overall state of the economy and improving economic conditions across the country.?

McClatchy?s Steven Thomma has a preview: ?Vice President Joe Biden will claim Thursday that the $787 billion stimulus plan ?is doing more, faster, more efficiently, and more effectively than we had hoped.? In a speech planned to mark the 200-day mark since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act took effect, Biden will say that $62.5 billion in tax cuts have been delivered, $1.9 billion contracts have been awarded to small businesses, and more than 10,000 transportation projects approved.?

Just in time: ?After winning $2.3 million in federal stimulus money for a sewer project, officials in Auburn, Maine, wrangled another prize from Washington: permission to forgo American-made manhole covers for a design made only at a Canadian foundry,? Alan Wirzbicki reports in The Boston Globe.

?As local governments race to spend stimulus money, many are seeking exemptions from the law?s ?Buy American? restrictions, which were intended to prevent taxpayer money from ending up in foreign pockets. . . . The Obama administration could not provide a list or amount of waivers granted — which potentially could total billions of dollars — and Vice President Joe Biden?s office, which has responsibility for overseeing the stimulus, did not respond to requests for comment.?

(Here?s guessing they?ll be asked again to respond.)

Also fueling outrage this Thursday: ?In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama?s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question,? ABC?s Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report.

?As one of the preparatory materials for teachers provided by the Department of Education, students had been asked to, ?Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.? Today, after Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda the White House and the Department of Education changed the section to now read, ?Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short?term and long?term education goals.? ?

The Washington Times? Matthew Mosk: ?Presidential aides acknowledged the White House helped the U.S. Education Department craft the proposal, which immediately was met by fierce criticism from Republicans and conservative organizations who accused Mr. Obama of trying to politicize the education system.?

Is the bloody sock getting tossed in the political ring? (Probably not, but it?s a great story in the meantime — and may be Republicans? best shot at a Senate seat in Massachusetts.)

?I have a lot on my plate so as of today, probably not,? Curt Schilling told New England Cable News, per ABC?s David Chalian.

Later, on his blog: ?While my family is obviously the priority, and 38 Studios is a priority, I do have some interest in the possibility. That being said to get to there, from where I am today, many many things would have to align themselves for that to truly happen.?

State GOP spokeswoman Tarah Donoghue, to The Boston Globe?s Matt Viser: ?We?re thrilled so many Republicans are considering a run for US Senate. We have a real opportunity here.?

(Bush White House spokesman Scott Stanzel remembers Schilling?s first foray into politics.)

Coming Labor Day, from American Rights at Work: Two new ads making the case for the Employee Free Choice Act.

And the summer wedding that never was (or, at least, hasn?t been yet): ?Here?s a newsflash: Chelsea Clinton did not get married last month in a swank, celebrity-laden wedding on Martha?s Vineyard attended by the president of the United States,? The New York Times? Peter Baker writes. ?The persistence of the rumor despite the lack of tangible evidence says something about today?s free-for-all Internet media culture, where facts sometimes don?t get in the way of a good story. It also says something about the Clintons and the mistrust they have engendered over the years that so many people do not take them at their word, even over a question like this.?

The Kicker:

?I am making sure I get inoculated from all illnesses by going to town meetings.? — Sen. Russ Feingold, on ?The Takeaway? radio program, on how he?s preparing personally for H1N1 flu.

?Actually, my first press conference could probably be my last as someone on the political scene, which probably wouldn?t be a bad thing.? –Curt Schilling, prospective Senate candidate, on his lack of a ?filter? in public statements.

For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note?s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/

DOJ Seeks Release of 2 Alaska Politicians from Jail

ABC News Jason Ryan reports: The Justice Department has filed two motions to release two former Alaska politicians from jail following recent information that prosecutors and Justice Department officials who worked on the case of Sen. Ted Stevens also withheld evidence during the trial of these two men as well.

The Justice Department has been conducting an internal review of how the prosecutors on the Stevens case acted and carried out their duties and it appears other cases may have been unfairly pursued by the Justice Department prosecutors on the cases. The men Victor Kohring, a former state representative, and Peter Kott, a former Alaska house speaker, have been appealing their cases, especially after the debacle of the Stevens case being dismissed.

The case against Stevens and other public corruption investigations gained momentum in May 2007 after two top VECO executives, CEO Bill Allen and former Vice President of Community Affairs and Government Relations Richard Smith, pleaded guilty to shuttling more than $400,000 to various elected officials in Alaska. Last September the former speaker of the House, Kott, was convicted by a jury on public corruption charges for accepting funds to use his official position to benefit the company.

The Justice Department motions filed today in the 9th circuit court of Appeals note, “the process has uncovered material that, at this stage, appears to be information that should have been, but was not, disclosed to Appellant [Kott andKohring] before his trial.”

Kohring was found guilty of bribery, conspiracy, and extortion in 2007 and was sentenced to 42 months in prison on May 8, 2008.

In a statement Attorney General Eric Holder said, ““After a careful review of these cases, I have determined that it appears that the Department did not provide information that should have been disclosed to the defense…Department of Justice prosecutors work hard every day and perform a great service for the American people. But the Department’s mission is to do justice, not just win cases, and when we make mistakes, it is our duty to admit and correct those mistakes. We are committed to doing that.”

The Justice Department attorneys who were involved in these cases were Nicholas Marsh from Justice Department headquarters and James Goeke and Joseph Bottini from the US Attorney's office in Alaska.

In the Stevens case, which was dismissed April 1, 2009, there have been internal reviews at the FBI underway that the agents on the case acted improperly and reviews by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into the actions of the prosecutors on the case.

An FBI whistleblower lawsuit began to reveal many of the problems with the Stevens case and possibly other cases in Alaska. The FBI whistleblower, agent Chad Joy, has alleged the lead agent on the cases Mary Beth Kepner had an inappropriate relationship with the government's star witnesses in the case and that she disclosed investigative details to people possibly under investigation in Alaska linked to the Stevens probe.

Joy has also alleged misconduct during by the prosecutors including allegations that Marsh did not even turn over boxes of evidence in the Stevens case to the FBI to be properly entered into evidence databases. An affidavit filed by Agent Joy noted, “When I arrived at Public Integrity Section in Washington DC to prepare for the trial of Ted Stevens, I found many boxes of documents stacked outside the office of Nick Marsh. The FBI did not have custody of any of the material and the evidence had not been reviewed by FBI personnel.”

Following the dismissal of the Stevens cases and review of the other Alaska cases Attorney General Eric Holder and head of the Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer have implemented reforms so that all Criminal Division prosecutors can review how to handle proper procedures of information constitutionally required to be given to defendants and defense counsel.

Today Breuer said in a statement, “We will continue regular discovery training for all Criminal Division prosecutors to make certain that they perform their duties in adherence to the highest ethical standards.”

The Note, 3/13/09: Obama Push Gets Boost from First Lady

BY RICK KLEIN

Who’s better at running an organization by himself — Tim Geithner or Michael Steele?

If the stock market is a lagging indicator of an economic recovery — what is a poll?

Which Obama allies will be harder to get on board for further stimulus funds — those foreign, or domestic?

Will Jon Stewart’s joust with Jim Cramer catch Cramer in a . . . crossfire? (Stewart: “I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a [bleeping] game.”)

So as the White House gets action from one ally, it’s putting another one into action — the one, like President Bush’s closest ally, who always gets the biggest reception, no matter where she goes.

“It hurts. It hurts,” First Lady Michelle Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts, on hearing about military families on food stamps. “These are people who are willing to send their loved ones off to, perhaps, give their lives — the ultimate sacrifice. But yet, they’re living back at home on food stamps. It’s not right, and it’s not where we should be as a nation.”

The White House is pushing back hard on the too-much-all-at-once narrative, and the first lady knows how to push back, hard yet gently.

Said the first lady: “There’s also people who say that he’s not doing enough, you know? So I think that’s part of the process. You know, we are at a time when we’re gonna have to try a lot of things. Some of it won’t work, some of them will. I think right now people understand that we’re gonna have to all work together and make a set of sacrifices. And they have faith — as I do — that our current commander-in-chief will see us through these times.”

“I believe in this nation, and I believe in my husband.”

On breaking in the new house: “We’ve had some guests who’ve broken some things, but not the kids. And they know who they are.” (And when Robin Roberts admired the results of her workouts: “Well, I covered my arms up.”)

This is a different face for an administration that wouldn’t mind a change in subject.

“With this series of events, she appears ready to step out as a more forceful advocate for her husband and his policies,” Washingtonpost.com’s Chris Cillizza writes on “The Fix” blog. “Polling suggests a more active role for Michelle Obama will be greeted warmly by the public. In a January Washington Post/ABC News survey, 72 percent of those polled said they had a favorable impression toward the First Lady while just 17 percent felt unfavorably toward her.”

The AP headline: “Michelle Obama begins advocacy as first lady.”

Stepping out: “The trip to North Carolina was Mrs. Obama’s first work trip outside of Washington, and she used it to focus attention on the challenges faced by soldiers and their families in this time of war. Supporting the military and their families is one of Mrs. Obama’s priorities,” Rachel L. Swarns writes in The New York Times.

Nothing like an early, early makeover: “Earlier this year, the Obama administration invited top editors of three of Washington’s local luxury lifestyle magazines — Capitol File, DC magazine and Washington Life — to a meeting where they discussed, among other things, how President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama can embrace Washington’s glittery social scene,” the Washington Times’ Stephanie Green reports.

While we’re talking allies — Robert Gibbs has a big one in taking on Jim Cramer.

Another “Crossfire” moment? Stewart vs. Cramer didn’t disappoint — and nobody captures a moment quite like Jon Stewart.

“I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a f—– game,” Stewart told an uncharacteristically sheepish Jim Cramer, on “The Daily Show” Thursday. “We’re both snake-oil salesmen to a certain extent. . . .But we do label it ‘snake oil’ here.”

The Chicago Tribune’s Phil Rosenthal: “Stripped of his loud, arm-waving hyperbolic TV persona, Cramer tried to defend himself, apologized for some mistakes and said he would try to do better.”

“Jon Stewart nails the zeitgeist,” blogs Andrew Willis, of the Globe and Mail. “For the YouTube generation, Mr. Stewart is issuing a call to arms, against a system that went radically wrong. As someone who works in the business media, the talk show host’s critiques are, to put it mildly, food for thought.”

“It’s true: Jon Stewart has become Edward R. Murrow,” James Fallows blogs for The Atlantic.

Maybe one reason why all of this matters: “Mr. Obama’s approval ratings, while good, aren’t exceptionally high by historical standards for a new president. His support has grown more polarized in recent weeks, and people have noticeably more faith in the president himself than in some of his programs,” Gerald F. Seib writes in his Wall Street Journal column. “All told, the findings suggest the Obama forces hardly have reason to panic. But they do indicate it’s likely to be important for the president to be able to point to some signs of economic improvement by later this year.”

Double-punch from the Journal: “It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama’s high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration,” Doug Schoen and Scott Rasmussen write in an op-ed. “Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.”

(And when does a harmless feature story about a staffer maybe reveal just a little too much? “This is what my job is like. . . . It’s one emergency after the next,” White House ethics adviser Norm Eisen tells The Washington Post’s Eli Saslow.)

Over on that other political side — can Michael Steele survive? (Probably.) Will he be a relevant force in GOP efforts in 2010? (Probably not.) Will he last longer than that? (Almost certainly not.)

“Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele’s series of gaffes turned into something more serious Thursday, as leaders of a pillar of the GOP — the anti-abortion movement — shifted into open revolt,” Politico’s Ben Smith reports. “The flap also added to worries generated by a series of earlier, less policy-oriented statements, ranging from insulting radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to offering ‘slum love’ to Indian-American Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.).”

Was there no one on the Steele team that could stop the damaging comments — from Tony Perkins, Mike Huckabee, and Ken Blackwell, among others?

“Some conservatives are openly mulling whether the party’s first black chairman should keep his job in the wake of a provocative interview he did with GQ magazine,” USA Today’s Jill Lawrence writes.

The upshot: “It appears highly unlikely that there would be any serious move to recall Mr. Steele, who is barely two months into a two-year job. The political repercussions of replacing the party’s first African-American chairman would be too severe, several Republican leaders said, and there are no obvious candidates ready to take the job,” The New York Times’ Adam Nagourney writes.

“Nonetheless, there were expressions of anguish over what many Republicans described as Mr. Steele’s growing pains as he takes on the role of leader of a party struggling to find its way after its defeat in the November elections. This latest episode seems likely to diminish his conservative credentials further, undercutting his ability to present his case for his party and raise money,” he writes.

“Though some party activists may be dissatisfied with Steele, they appear to be stuck with him for the foreseeable future, since RNC rules set a high standard for ousting a sitting chairman,” The Boston Globe’s Joseph Williams writes. “Several political analysts also said the board that made history by electing its first African-American leader is probably loathe to sack him just a few weeks into his tenure — a move that would be a public-relations nightmare for a party struggling to shed its lily-white image in the age of President Obama.”

(What matters more for his near-term fate — fundraising figures, or the New York-20 House race? Was it an accident that a fundraising pitch went out last night, subject line: “It’s time to set the record straight.” That would be the president’s record, but still . . . )

The fallout: “Perhaps Steele is trying to remake the Republican Party in his own image. Could be an effective big-tent strategy — if he’d pick an image and stick with it,” Laura Vozzella writes in her Baltimore Sun column.

“He’s become clownish. And that judgment could endure until the end of his tenure,” The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder blogs (welcome back!). “But it probably won’t. While Steele’s stock is lower than Citigroup’s right now, his legacy will be most likely determined by whether he can help Republicans begin to win elections again.”

A painful prescription, from Chris Kofinis, writing for The Hill: “The time has come for the Republican Party, if it wants to survive as a political party, to undergo an ideological vasectomy and cut off (once and for all) these far-right voices. It will painful (unless someone knows the equivalent of local anesthetic for a political party), but it will save their party in the long run.”

Who doesn’t love when Gov. Ed Rendell plays pundit? “The people who control the party — not the voters — but the people who control the party are not going to allow ideological flexibility,” Rendell, D-Pa., said at a Christian Science Monitor lunch, per ABC’s Teddy Davis. “I think Michael Steele’s days are numbered.”

On the subject of tough going: “Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner got such a torrent of angry criticism from Republican senators today that by the end of the hearing some Republicans lawmakers acknowledged how ‘tough’ and ‘intense’ it had been,” ABC’s Matthew Jaffe reports.

Said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: “If you do have a plan, you haven’t persuaded us yet, and until you persuade us, confidence won’t come back.”

Will Geithner be received better abroad? “President Obama, wildly popular abroad throughout his presidential campaign, is walking into one of his toughest sells yet on the international stage. But first, his Treasury secretary faces the task of paving the way for Obama to meet other world leaders at the G-20 in London on April 2,” The Hill’s Silla Brush writes. “Obama has called on the G-20 nations, whose finance ministers are set to meet in Britain starting Friday, to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate a global economy that the World Bank predicted would contract in 2009 for the first time since World War II.”

Another one: “Democratic sources say that H. Rodgin Cohen, a partner in the New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and the leading candidate for Deputy Treasury Secretary, has withdrawn from consideration,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reports. “It’s the third withdrawal of a top Treasury Department staff pick in less than a week.”

And maybe another one: “President Obama’s newly appointed chief information officer is on leave from his post after an FBI raid Thursday that resulted in the arrests of his former deputy and another man in connection with a D.C. government bribery scandal,” Gary Emerling and Christina Bellantoni write in the Washington Times. “Authorities did not implicate Vivek Kundra in the scandal, but a White House official said he was on leave ‘until further details become known’ about the investigation into the D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer, which Mr. Kundra headed from 2007 until this year.”

We can see earmarks from our house: “The omnibus spending bill that President Barack Obama signed on Wednesday includes earmarks that [Gov. Sarah] Palin sought,” Jonathan Stein and David Corn report for Mother Jones. “According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group, Alaska will receive more money, per capita, from the bill’s earmarks than any other state. (Alaska will pocket $209.71 for each state resident.) One hundred earmarks in the bill, worth a total of $143.9 million, are tagged for Palin’s state.”

New from the DNC: The “Party of No” clock.

Could it finally be coming to an end? (Not necessarily.) “The marathon U.S. Senate trial sprinted down the homestretch Thursday as DFLer Al Franken called his final witnesses and Republican Norm Coleman posed his last challenges, setting the stage for judges to hear closing arguments today,” Pat Doyle reports in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. “After seven weeks of testimony and thousands of bits of evidence, the end of the trial — if not the final outcome — is finally in sight.”

The Kicker:

“If you’re looking for a way to serve the country, join the Marines or go to Treasury. I think they’re both very difficult.” — Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., feeling a little bad for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

“Mr. Chairman, I would rather listen than to talk.” — Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., giving his colleagues (and the public) the silent treatment, per Roll Call’s “Heard on the Hill” column.

Follow The Note on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote

Bookmark the link below to get The Note’s daily morning analysis:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/the_note/index.html

For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/

Earmark Requests from Obama Transportation Secretary

ABC News? Rick Klein reports: Poring over the mammoth, $410 billion ?omnibus? spending bill released by the House Appropriations Committee this afternoon, an interesting name pops up as one of the more prolific earmarkers: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

The earmark requests were submitted early last year, when LaHood, R-Ill., served as a member of the House Appropriations Committee — long before he could have been thinking about serving in President Obama?s Cabinet.

Members of that committee traditionally dominate the requests for funding for specific projects. Those requests are made public by the appropriations committee.

To choose just a few of LaHood?s voluminous earmark requests, which are scattered throughout the documentation posted online: Research funding for the Midwest Poultry Consortium; medical equipment funding for Memorial Medical Center in Springfield, Ill.; construction funds for a cancer research lab at the University College of Medicine at Peoria; ?exhibit design? help for the Lakeview Museum in Peoria; planetarium equipment for the Lakeview Museum of Arts and Sciences; ?public safety communications equipment? for the Logan County Sheriff?s Department; equipment for the Lincoln, Ill., Police Department; research funding for the ?National MarketMaker Network? at the University of Ilinois at Urbana-Champaign; ?crop production and food processing research? in Peoria; biodiesel and E85 storage tanks and dispensers for the City of Peoria; ?green building design and implementation? at Bradley University; and funding for the Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center and the Livestock Genome Sequencing Initiative in Champaign, Ill.

My colleague Jonathan Karl has a more complete look at some of the earmarks included in the House Appropriations Committee draft of the omnibus spending bill.

House Republicans want answers from Geithner on TARP funds

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: House Republicans today asked new Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to answer a series of questions before he outlines how the administration will distribute the second half of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) and possibly requests more money to bail out struggling banks.

“What is the exit strategy for the government’s sweeping involvement in the financial markets?” ask top GOP House lawmakers, including House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor, in their letter to Geithner.

The distribution of the initial $350 billion of TARP funds was widely criticized. Geithner, who has vowed to improve the accountabilty and transparency of the embattled program, is set to announce Treasury’s plans for the second tranche of money next week, but the administration may deem more funds are necessary to save the financial sector. One option could be establishing a ‘bad bank’ to help banks weighed down by toxic assets.

“Because the Administration has committed itself to assisting the auto industry, satisfying commitments made by the previous Administration, and devoting up to $100 billion to mitigate mortgage foreclosures, it has been reported that President Obama might need more than the $700 billion authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) to fund a ‘bad bank’ to absorb hard-to-value toxic assets,” write the GOP leaders.

“In light of these commitments – which come at a time when the Federal Reserve is flooding the financial system with trillions of dollars and the Congress is finalizing a fiscal stimulus that is expected to cost taxpayers more than $1.1 trillion – it is not surprising that the American people are asking where it all ends, and whether anyone in Washington is looking out for their wallets,” they ask.

In January, the House voted against releasing the second tranche of TARP funds at the request of President Obama, but the money was released anyway by the Senate.

Last week, Democrats pushed the massive $819 billion stimulus package through the House, despite no Republicans voting for it even after Obama had gone to Capitol Hill to court GOP support the day before the vote.

The Senate is now debating its own version of the stimulus bill.

Duncan Withdraws from RNC Race

ABC News’ Rick Klein and Teddy Davis Report: Current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan withdrew from contention for another term at the helm of the Republican Party Friday afternoon — clearly sensing that he would not gain majority support to stay on.

“Obviously, the winds of change are blowing at the RNC,” Duncan told RNC members in Washington, to a standing ovation.

Duncan, who had the burden of being the hand-selected choice of President Bush to lead the RNC, placed first in the initial round of balloting, but was well short of the 85 votes he needed to win.

The decision narrows the field of candidates to four — with former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson surging in the third round of balloting. The second choice of Duncan’s supporters — Duncan still garnered 44 votes, good for second place, in the third round of balloting — could be critical in determining the winner.

Duncan is well-liked by committee members but his association with Bush burdened his candidacy at a time when the party is looking for a way to come back from the electoral drubbing it has taken in the last two elections.