The Note, 6/3/2009: Truth and Consequences — Will words matter in region that’s heard plenty of them?

By RICK KLEIN

With President Obama set to make enemies into friends in the Middle East, what’s the widest gap out there to bridge?

The one between what Vice President Joe Biden is saying, and what the Obama White House wants him to say?

The one between what the interest groups are saying about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and what GOP senators are prepared to do about it? (Add to that the gap between what Newt Gingrich was saying about her last week, and what he’s saying about her this week.)

The one between what Sotomayor wanted to say, and what she actually said, when asked if she’s a racist?

The one between what Obama said about what he’d consider on healthcare, and what he’d actually consider as president?

Or the one between the honesty the president is delivering abroad, and the honesty that’s being delivered at home?

With the president arriving Wednesday morning in Saudi Arabia, his foreign trip starts with most of the hope he’s used to, and some of the political pitfalls he’s not. There’s such a thing as too much truth, just as there’s such a thing as too close a friend.

His outreach to the Muslim world — to be capped with his Thursday speech in Cairo — carries expectations in the US and beyond that veer close to the unrealistic.

A world waiting for details will again get a long conversation — lectures as leadership, as the president takes the long view.

But words matter perhaps a little less in a region that’s heard far too many of them, from too many US presidents.

And, as always, there are constituencies to balance — foreign and domestic, friendly and not so much.

“Everyone wants peace, but nobody wants to buy a ticket,” Tom Friedman writes in his New York Times column, which highlights an interview with Obama.

“We have a joke around the White House,” the president told Friedman. “We’re just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working — and nowhere is truth-telling more important than the Middle East.”

Said Obama: “I am going to be holding up a mirror and saying: ‘Here is the situation, and the U.S. is prepared to work with all of you to deal with these problems. But we can’t impose a solution. You are all going to have to make some tough decisions.’ ”

Holding these truths: “President Barack Obama has gotten tough with Israel and chosen Cairo — where President Hosni Mubarak rules with a firm hand — for his much-awaited overture to the Islamic world in what appears to be a clear break from decades of U.S. policy,” the AP’s Steven R. Hurst reports.

“Obama's message in Cairo is intended to reach across the wide Muslim world and continue the outreach he began with his visit to Turkey in April,” ABC’s Karen Travers reports, from Saudi Arabia. “The speech gives the president the opportunity to lay out his vision for a new and improved relationship between the United States and Muslims and continue to move the ball forward on a Middle East peace process.”

“The setting of his speech — the capital of a country that calls itself a democracy but is run as a police state — speaks to the complexities before him. In many Muslim nations, from Lebanon to Afghanistan, where Obama's words also will be heard, extremists are gaining ground,” USA Today’s Mimi Hall reports.

“More than any other president in a generation, Obama enjoys a reservoir of goodwill in the region,” The Washington Post’s Anthony Shadid writes, from Iraq. But: “There is another reality, from hardscrabble quarters of Beirut and Cairo to war-wrecked neighborhoods of Baghdad, where distrust of the United States runs so deep that almost anything it pronounces, however eloquent, lacks credibility, imposing a burden on Obama to deliver something far more than the unfulfilled pledges of Bush's speeches.”

Of expectations: “There are no plans to announce a comprehensive Middle East peace proposal, but Obama's eloquence and telegenic gifts may lose resonance here if he does not articulate at least an overall strategy for delivering a Palestinian homeland,” Jeffrey Fleishman writes for the Los Angeles Times. “His is a mystique of personality and power that is rarely glimpsed among the Middle East's own politicians. And it helps set expectations exceedingly high.”

Coloring the new language: “Behind the scenes, however, Obama has opted to continue signature Bush-era democracy programs and is on track to greatly increase their funding,” Farah Stockman reports in The Boston Globe. “Obama's 2010 budget proposal seeks $86 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, a program developed in 2002 by Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, and that promotes training of government officials, entrepreneurs, and activists, up from $50 million in 2009.”

An early endorsement? (Or is there self-interest in having a rooting interest?) Paul Wolfowitz, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “He must counter some of the myths and outright falsehoods about the United States that are commonly believed in many parts of the Muslim world, and he needs to present his audience with some inconvenient truths. But he also has an opportunity, based in no small part on his own remarkable career, to make the case that the political principles and values that are sometimes mistakenly labeled as ‘Western’ are appropriate for the Muslim world.”

What can now be said: “The president himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to — or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world — you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans [are] a key part of Illinois and Chicago,” said Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, per ABC’s Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller.

Back on the home front, Judge Sotomayor fans out for day two of the dreaded senatorial meetings, her much-feared photo-op with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid behind her.

Seeing the writing on the marble hallways: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich apologizes, sort of. “With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word ‘racist’ should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted),” Gingrich writes in his Human Events newsletter.

He’s hardly on board for the nomination, but: “She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words,” Gingrich writes. “So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

Who wants to be out there alone? “While Republican senators vowed to ask tough questions about affirmative action and judicial activism, however, few were willing to rule out backing the 54-year-old federal appellate judge,” McClatchy’s David Lightman reports.

“We don’t have enough Republicans to filibuster even if we wanted to, which I don’t think we do,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. (Suddenly less optimistic about Norm Coleman’s chances?)

Biography as someone else’s destiny: “I've felt sorry for the poor person in the pit getting grilled,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tells The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker. “I don't think you'll find that I've abused any witness. And I don't like vindication.”

Said Sessions, after meeting with the nominee: “I'm very impressed with her knowledge, her experience, her energy level. It was a delight to talk with her.”

Confirmation assured? “It could be with 75 votes or it could be with 57 votes, and it depends on whether she assures people,” one Republican Judiciary committee member tells The Hill’s Alexander Bolton.

Reid, D-Nev., speaking the truth, as always: “I haven't read a single one of [her opinions], and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them,” Reid said, per The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank.

All over but the timing? “The only area where there was any outward tension in the halls of the Capitol was over the timing of hearings and a vote on her installment to the high court. Republican Senators on Tuesday pushed to have the vetting occur in the fall, while Democrats made clear they were in no mood to draw out the process,” Roll Call’s John Stanton writes.

“But even as Democrats were disciplined in sticking to their main talking point — that Judge Sotomayor would put the rule of law above all else — Republicans began drawing battle lines for a long and potentially confrontational confirmation process that would focus on the extent to which the judge will let her personal background and experiences influence her opinions from the bench,” David M. Herszenhorn and Carl Hulse report in The New York Times.

Vice President Joe Biden’s back on stimulus duty Wednesday, with a noon ET event roundtable with governors co-hosted by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

He continues to stimulate press releases and cable chatter: “Some people are being scammed already,” Biden said Wednesday, Reuters reports.

And wait — the stimulus hasn’t kicked in yet? “You're going to see things start to really change in the second hundred days,” Biden said Tuesday in New York, per the Daily News’ David Saltonstall.

On healthcare — is this a good number, or a not-so-good number? “I'd like to think it was better than that. But . . . having had all the experiences over time that I've had in Congress, I would say it's no better than 50/50,” Tom Daschle said of the chances of healthcare reform passing, per ABC’s Elizabeth Gorman.

Does this help or hurt the odds? “Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus on Tuesday indicated that President Barack Obama may be warming to the idea of taxing employer-provided health-care benefits to pay for an overhaul of the nation's health system. But the White House, and a key Democratic senator, quickly shot down the idea that the president has had a change of heart,” The Wall Street Journal’s Janet Adamy writes.

Or did he? “President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage,” Ceci Connolly reports in The Washington Post.

“Yeah, it's something that he might consider,” said Baucus, D-Mont. “That was discussed. It's on the table.”

On the other fun piece of the equation: “Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, one of two dozen Democratic senators who met with Mr. Obama, said the president ‘spoke very enthusiastically about a public plan’ that would compete directly with private insurers,” Robert Pear and Sheryl Gay Stolberg report in The New York Times.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., checked in with the White House Tuesday — but isn’t back at work yet: “Senator Kennedy is doing a good job at balancing his work on health care reform with his treatment plan, but he's not planning to be back on the Hill this week,” spokesman Anthony Coley said in an e-mail to The Boston Globe’s Lisa Wangsness.

When is a retirement nothing of the sort? “Tim Pawlenty claimed Tuesday to have no plans after his governorship beyond cutting the lawn and watching his daughters play sports,” Mark Brunswick reports in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “But few believe the political journey is over for this 48-year-old son of South St. Paul, whose up-by-the-bootstraps narrative has potential to beguile a national Republican Party searching for a winning direction.”

“Although he says he doesn’t know what his plans are or what the future holds for him, none of us should be too surprised if we see him touching down in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina before too long,” ABC’s David Chalian writes.

On that lingering piece of business, that might someday give Minnesota a second senator again: “I’m going to do whatever the court says. If the court directs me to sign that certificate, I will,” Pawlenty said.

In New Jersey — it wasn’t close. “Chris Christie, the former U.S. Attorney whose aggressive pursuit of political corruption in New Jersey led to the downfall of some of the state's most powerful elected officials, won the Republican nomination for governor last night, beating back conservative Steve Lonegan in an unexpectedly bloody, hard-fought primary campaign,” the Star-Ledger’s Josh Margolin and Claire Heininger report. “Christie's victory sets the stage for what could be the most competitive gubernatorial race in more than a decade, as he takes on incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine in November.”

The statement from RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “By selecting Chris Christie as their nominee, New Jersey Republicans signaled they are ready for a Governor that will work hard to create jobs, protect small business and turn New Jersey’s economy around. . . . Chris offers New Jersey Republicans and Democrats alike the chance to break with Jon Corzine’s failed Wall Street policies and once again make New Jersey’s cities and small towns engines for economic growth.”

From the Democratic Governors Association’s executive director, Nathan Daschle: “One after another, though, Christie’s personal and professional ethical problems came to light — undermining the entire foundation for his candidacy. From allegations of ‘pay-to-play’ contracting to telling voters the truth, Christie’s lapses show, at best, a troubling lack of judgment and, at worst, a deeply eroded moral compass.”

Day Three of the “America’s Future Now” conference is Wednesday. Two days into the straw polling among progressives, some early results from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner: “While participants found a lot to like in the first 100 days plus, they are very focused on health care as the highest priority: 42 percent say it should be the President’s top priority, with all other responses in the teens. And while the participants strongly support the president and his priorities, 62 percent say they will not support a health care plan without a public option for health insurance, even if that was the only way to get the planned passed.”

Plus: “While two thirds of conference attendees (67 percent) favor Congressional investigations into the practices of the Bush Administration in their handling of suspected terrorist suspects, an even stronger majority (81 percent) would like to see Congress investigate the fraud and excesses of Wall Street that led to the financial crisis.”

Next for the Edwards family: “Elizabeth Edwards plans to open a furniture store in Chapel Hill this October, the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau reports,” per the News & Observer’s Mark Schultz. “Edwards has leased space in Rosemary Village at 400 W. Rosemary St. downtown, near the Greenbridge condo towers. The store, called Red Window, will feature a mix of styles and prices patterned after a charity store called The Red Door that her mother managed when she lived in Japan, the visitors bureau says.”

And ABC’s John Berman runs for president — with the help of Democratic strategist Chris Lehane and Republican strategist Kevin Madden. (A team with a batting average that’s better than David Ortiz’s.)

The Kicker:

“I am a lefty.” — President Obama, to former First Lady Nancy Reagan, making up for a perceived snub.

“We had to figure out how to deal with a former president who was just lying, engaging in bald-faced lies.” — President Obama, in the new Richard Wolffe book, on that other lefty, former President Bill Clinton.

Today on “Top Line,” ABCNews.com’s daily political Webcast: Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.; and Ana Marie Cox of Air America.

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

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

White House Report: Stimulus Will Create or Save 1.5M Jobs — We Think

ABC’s Lisa Chinn and Rick Klein reports:

The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report today predicting that the stimulus package will save or create 1.5 million jobs by the end of this year. That’s in line with previous White House estimates.

But there’s a big caveat: Because there is no uniform, reliable reporting formula for states and agencies to use to calculate real jobs saved and created, there is no way to fact-check the projections.

Rather than measuring actual jobs created, the CEA estimate is based on a formula widely used by economists: that a 1 percent increase in GDP equates to approximately 1 million jobs.

The council also makes the assumption that GDP will grow, due to an increase in government purchases, and tax decreases that have only just taken effect.

It is, the report concedes, “an imperfect” measurement.

“The macroeconomic methodology used to derive the aggregate jobs estimates provides only an imperfect way to try to separate out the different types of jobs created by government spending,” the report states.

Actual reports of jobs created, while required by Congress for entities receiving stimulus funds, will provide “some independent documentation of jobs created or retained by the Act” — but won’t be the way the White House measures progress, according to the report.

“While such independent documentation is immensely valuable, it is important to be aware of the limitations of the reported jobs numbers,” the report states.

The administration continues to defend its initial assessment that the Recovery Act will ultimately create or save 3.5 million jobs. But the new report includes the caveat that the bulk of that increase will be seen at the end of 2010.

President Obama said at a news conference last month that the stimulus bill had already “saved or created over 150,000 jobs.”

The Labor Department, meanwhile, reported last week that the economy shed 539,000 jobs last month — fewer than analysts were predicting.

The CEA must also release a report to Congress in August on its analysis of the economic impacts of the Recovery Act.

Obama Ally: EPA Finding Will Boost Cap ‘n’ Trade

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Ferdous Al-Faruque report:

Rumors of cap-and-trade’s death have been greatly exaggerated, according to Sen. Barabara Boxer, D-Calif., the chair of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

Why the optimism?

The Environmental Protection Agency is poised to issue a finding that greenhouse gases are pollutants that could endanger human health and welfare.

The EPA’s endangerment finding will open the door for the Obama administration to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act.

Although the president would prefer not to tackle this issue through his administration’s regulatory power, aides to Boxer are hoping that the threat of EPA regulation can be used as a hammer to persuade moderate senators of both parties to get behind cap-and-trade legislation.

“What it says to the senators on the fence is that it’s not really a question of whether regulation is happening. It’s a question of how it will happen,” a senior aide to Boxer told ABC News.

An outspoken conservative opponent of cap-and-trade legislation said it would hurt the economy and decried Boxer’s tactic as legislative blackmail.

“I think that’s definitely the strategy,” said Phil Kerpen, the director of policy at Americans for Prosperity. “Hold the gun to the head of the US economy and say: ‘Hey, we are going to blow it up with this EPA regulation if you don’t give us this legislative program.'”

Boxer thinks her critics are overlooking the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“If Congress does nothing . . . We will be watching EPA do our job, because they must under the Clean Air Act,” said Boxer in a March 19 speech on global warming.

Under a cap-and-trade system of the type envisioned by Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill, the federal government would set a ceiling on carbon emissions and require companies to bid for permits to emit greenhouse gases. The government would gradually lower the amount of credits available. Firms that reduced their emissions below the required level could sell leftover credits to other polluters.

Proponents of cap-and-trade legislation were dealt a setback earlier this month when the Senate voted against fast-tracking the measure through the budget reconciliation process.

LaHood: Stimulus Jobs Will be Sustainable — if Congress Acts

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: With the Obama administration selling the on-the-ground-impact of the stimulus bill, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told us today that infrastructure projects are on their way to creating “thousands” of new jobs — jobs that he said will be sustainable if Congress follows up with a comprehensive transportation bill.

“They’ll be sustainable because Congress, right on the heels of this, is gonna pass an authorization bill to authorize another highway bill for another five years, which will include additional projects,” LaHood said on ABCNews’com’s “Top Line.”

“Not the ones we’re funding . . . but additional projects — more roads, more bridges, more light rail, high-speed rail, thinking a little bit differently about how we do transportation,” he added. “So, are they sustainable? They’ll be sustainable if Congress passes the authorization on the heels of the stimulus 18 months down the road here.”

On Thursday, President Obama is set to unveil a major high-speed rail initiative — paid for, at least initially, by money that’s already been approved by Congress as part of the stimulus.

LaHood also suggested he would be taking a relatively hands-off approach on the always-controversial issue of earmarks.

“I think the leadership of Congress has gotten the message on earmarks,” said LaHood, who requested and received earmarks frequently when he represented an Illinois House district. “They’re really — the American taxpayer doesn’t like them, the President has sent a pretty loud message that he doesn’t like them, and it’ll be up to the Congress to decide whether they really want to go against the will of the people here.”

He added: “Well, look, it’s not going to be up to me. I’m not going to write the bill. I didn’t get elected to anything. But these members of Congress will have to make a decision whether they want to continue with the level of criticism that’s been leveled against earmarks, or whether they really want to do it in a way that reflects what the needs are around the country.”

Though LaHood joined President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden yesterday in celebrating the 2,000th transportation project to get approved, work has begun on only a small fraction of those projects.

But that’s about to change, LaHood said.

“As soon as the weather breaks in most of the country, you’re going to see an enormous number of people working on roads and bridges, and I think it’s probably another month,” he said. “You know, I was in Illinois over the weekend and it was snowing, so it’s pretty hard to get a shovel in the ground when you have that kind of weather. But within the next 30 days, a lot of these projects are going to begin and you’re going to see working — in good paying jobs, by the way.”

In addition, as something of an Obama emissary to Republicans — LaHood is the only former GOP elected official in the Cabinet — he all but guaranteed Republican support for some major Obama initiatives later this year.

“I think Republicans want to be helpful on energy, on education, and on healthcare,” he said. “And I think — I’ve heard the President say this — we’re gonna continue to reach out to Republicans, we want them to be a part of helping us solve these very, very complex problems, and you know, it’s not a political slogan with the President. I’m proof of it, I’m a Republican, I’m included in the Cabinet, and so it’s not a political slogan, and I think you’ll see the President and some of the rest of us reach out to Republicans.”

Click HERE to see our interview with Secretary LaHood.

We also chatted with Republican strategist Kevin Madden about the politics of stimulus spending, the Minnesota Senate race, and tomorrow’s nationwide “tea party” protests.

Click HERE to see the interview with Madden.

GOP Rep. Brady: Obama is Wrong; Republicans Will Offer Alternative Budget

ABC News’ Rick Klein and David Chalian report: Pressed on Republican critiques of his budget plan at Tuesday night’s press conference, President Obama had a ready answer

“I mean, we haven’t seen an alternative budget out of them,” the president said.

But what will the response be when that’s no longer the case?

“We’ve offered a lot of comprehensive proposals on this stimulus, on the omnibus, but we’re gonna also have a complete budget that, unlike his, does not use funny money, does not have tax increases,” Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said on “Politics Live” today.

“We always offer a comprehensive budget alternative, even if it’s rejected by the Democrats,” Brady added, “but we’ve seen what happens when Democrats spend. Deficits go through the roof. We have a better idea.”

Deficits rose dramatically during the Bush administration. But Republicans are trying to assign blame to the Democratic Congress; Democrats have held majorities in the House and Senate since 2007.

House Republicans say they will offer a full alternative to the president’s budget, though the same may not happen in the Senate, where GOP leaders say they’re more inclined to offer point-by-point amendments.

Brady, a deputy Republican whip who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, said the congressional versions of the budget aren’t really improvements on the president’s request.

Though the GOP alternative has little chance of passing, Republicans will be offering up their vision, he said.

“You see in [the president’s] budget major tax increases both on the middle class, on those who invest and save, a lot on small businesses,” Brady said. “And when you see the price that average families have to pay for this cap and trade — this climate-change legislation that’s in his budget — it’s gonna go through the roof.”

“We take the opposite approach,” he added. “We avoid this controversial cap and trade, a program that raises taxes on the middle class. I think Democrats here say they want to control spending, but looking at the budget, looking at the stimulus, looking at how they voted on the omnibus bill, man they’re spending and borrowing just as much as the president.”

Will Obama Bypass Senate GOP on Health Care?

ABC News’ Teddy Davis reports:

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that congressional Democrats and the Obama White House are likely to employ a parliamentary procedure – the budget reconciliation process – to win passage this year of comprehensive health-care reform, according to unnamed sources familiar with conversations on this subject.

This would make it possible to get significant components of health care reform through the Senate with a simple majority, which would only require Democratic votes, rather than having to win some Republican support to get to the 60 votes typically needed in the Senate. With the Minnesota Senate race still unresolved, Democrats currently control 58 votes in the Senate.

The same Wall Street Journal story reports that congressional Democrats and the Obama White House are unlikely to use the budget reconciliation process to pass cap-and-trade climate change legislation, an issue which is much more divisive among Senate Democrats than health care. As we reported earlier this week, eight Democratic senators joined 25 Senate Republicans in signing a letter urging the chair and ranking Republican on the Budget Committee not to use budget reconciliation on cap and trade.

When Obama budget director Peter Orszag recently appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” he said that the Obama administration would prefer not to use budget reconciliation to pass major legislation while also saying that it was premature to take the option off the table.

At a Tuesday lunch with reporters, he once again left the Obama administration room to maneuver while also emphasizing that the budget reconciliation process has been used more often than its detractors like to acknowledge.

According to The Wall Street Journal, reconciliation was the main subject of conversation when Orszag met with Democratic leaders on Wednesday night.

One Democrat to watch is venerable West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd (D) who vehemently opposed the use of reconciliation when former President Bill Clinton tried to overhaul health care in the 1990s.

It will also be interesting to watch Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, who has been working closely with Democratic Chairman Max Baucus on health care. Asked about reconciliation on Thursday while participating in a roundtable with reporters at the Kaiser Family Foundation, Grassley made it clear that he was taking Senate Democrats at their word that “regular order” would be followed.

The Washington Post has more details on this topic — reporting that Republicans will have until September to compromise on health care, or else Democrats will use this tactic to avoid a filibuster threat. That deadline may not be quite as generous as it sounds, though, considering the August congressional recess.

ABC News’ Rick Klein and Jonathan Greenberger contributed to this report.

Obama Advisor: Stimulus Will Impact the Economy Immediately

ABC News’ Tahman Bradley reports:

White House senior adviser David Axelrod predicted Sunday that Americans will see early signs that the $787 billion stimulus is improving the economy but cautioned that a complete economic recovery is a ways off.

“I think that there will be signs of activity very quickly,” Axelrod said of the stimulus legislation, which awaits President Obama’s signature.

“All over the country you’re going to see shovels in the ground. You’re going to see construction projects under way. The other thing you’re going to see are people not being laid off – police and firefighters and teachers – because states now are going to have funding to forestall those kinds of things. So I think you’ll see an effect of it, but in terms of the overall economy we’re in the worse recession since World War II and it’s going to take – it took us a long time to get into this mess – and it’s going to take us a while to get out of it.”

Axelrod, who made his comments on “Fox News Sunday,” also predicted that unemployment numbers would begin to stabilize by the end of the year.

“It is true that without this program it could be much much worse and so I don’t expect the arrow to bend down by the end of the year, but I do expect that the rise in unemployment to be retarded by the things that we’ve done this week.”

On other matters, Axelrod hinted that President Obama might soon issue an executive order lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research put in place by his predecessor, President Bush. “We’re going to be doing something on that soon, I think. The president is considering that right now.”

In 2001, President Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research to cell lines that already existed because he did not want cells to be created and then destroyed. Federal money cannot be used on stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001.

Obama has promised to change the Bush ban.

Some scientists see stem cell research as a way to potentially find cures for diseases like diabetes and Parkinson’s.

With General Motors and Chrysler set to submit viability plans to the government on Tuesday, Axelrod talked up the importance of the U.S. having a retooled auto industry.

“We need a thriving auto industry in this country. There are millions of jobs that rely on it, not just in the auto industry itself, not just at the Big Three, but in all kinds of related spinoff businesses. So we have a vested interest in seeing the auto industry continue. But, as the president has said many times, that’s going to involve significant restructuring of the industry so that they’re looking forward and not back in producing the kinds of cars that people are going to buy in the future.”

GM is seeking another $4 billion in government aid after borrowing $9.4 billion, and Chrysler wants another $3 billion on top of its $4 billion loan.

Transparency Department: Will Dems keep open conference pledge?

ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf reports: This gets into the parliamentary weeds just a bit, but it bears mentioning that conference committees have been a rarity on Capitol Hill in recent years.

Time was after the Senate passed a bill and the House passed a bill, representatives of the two would get together and have a conference.

The way legislation has been moving through Congress, however, there have not been many conferences in recent years. And the ones there have been have often been closed. The 2008 Farm Bill was a notable exception.

When Democrats took control of Congress, they promised to be more open, unlock the doors and let the sun shine in on conference committees.

Here is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November 2006, after it was clear Democrats had won the House and just before George Allen conceded defeat to give Democrats control of the House, too.

“We have so much to work on,” Reid said. “And I think it would be untoward for us to talk about what we’re going to do when we take control of the Senate. A lot of things to do. Whatever we do, we’re going to try to do it on a bipartisan basis. If we are fortunate enough to pass something — we’re going to have something that a lot of you young journalists have never seen, and that is an open conference committee, where we — the Democrats and Republicans — sit down in a room just like this around a table, and you raise issues and you say, oh, is this a good or bad issue? And there’s a vote that takes place. That’s what we’re going to do.”

Later that same month, he reiterated the point.

Reid: “My goal is to reestablish the legislative branch of government as deemed to be so important in checks and balances by our Founding Fathers,” Reid said. “We’re going to do things that haven’t been — that have not been done in many years. We’re going to treat the minority, the Republicans as they did not treat us. They’ll be involved in decisions when we have legislation that passes this body. We’re going to have conferences with the House. I’ve already spoken to Leader Pelosi — real conferences, public conferences, where public issues will be debated and voted upon before taking a conference report back to the two bodies.”

There has been only one conference since Democrats took control of Congress; most bills have been passed when the House accepted the Senate’s version. But today Reid is in the predicament of actually having to hold a conference on the stimulus bill, which passed the Senate only with a delicate compromise crafted behind closed doors by centrist Republicans and Democrats.

At a press conference on Capitol Hill today, Reid said the simple fact that the conference was taking place was a step in the right direction.

“Normally what we do in conferences — now, remember, the Republicans, when they controlled the Congress, we’ve had no conferences. The few conferences that were held were done in secret with only the Republicans being part of the conference. And then, during the eight years of the Bush administration, there were absolutely none done,” he argued. “This is all new. As I explained to my caucus today, the majority of senators who are Democrats have never been involved in a — in a conference. So this is going to — this is a conference.”

So, will the upcoming conference be public and open with cameras rolling? No word yet and the conference is supposed to start tonight.