National Journal has analyzed spending in the 2006 mid-term elections to see who got the most bang for their buck. (You need a subscription to read it at National Journal but it's also posted at MSNBC.) Patrick Ottenhoff took total spending, according to FEC reports, and divided that by how many votes each candidate received.

Among the thrifty was unsuccessful Senate Republican challenger Mike McGavick. He spent $13 a vote, including his own money, according to National Journal. McGavick spent far less per vote than his fellow '06 millionaires who had their own unsuccessful self-financed campaigns.

The 8th District House race, though, was one of the most expensive per-vote campaigns in the country. Ottenhoff called it one of the "fully charged, free-spending affairs" of the 2006 campaign. Reichert spent $49 a vote, tying for second among winning candidates. Burner spent $51 a vote, second among unsuccessful candidates.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has restarted the review process to have the experts look at Mayor Greg Nickels' narrower tunnel option. She and a bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter today to the Department of Transportation and the Expert Review Panel asking them to do a limited review of the design and cost estimates before Feb. 13.

There is a list of questions they want answered. And the letter says:

Separate from the questions above, we would like the Expert Review Panel to review the cost estimates for the hybrid tunnel proposal based upon the answers to the above questions. What is the real cost difference between the hybrid tunnel and the elevated alternative? The City has identified some cost savings that could be also applied to the elevated option. Please make a cost comparison of the elevated option and the hybrid tunnel proposal using common scheduling and cost savings assumptions.

The letter says, "We do believe that voters should have the opportunity to, as much as possible, make an informed decision."

The review is something Nickels has wanted. I don't read the letter as Josh Feit does as a demand that DOT "get some answers from Nickels about his tunnel lite option." But I also have reason to doubt that everyone who signed the letter did so with an open mind.

Here's what House Speaker Frank Chopp just told reporters about the letter:

"The idea is to point out the ... inconsistencies of the tunnel lite plan."

He said there are numerous questions about the feasibility, cost and capacity of the city's plan. And he thinks the review will bolster his argument that a new elevated structure is a better idea.

"I think when people see the answer to all those questions, they'll be convinced even more."

Feit says the letter is not a bad idea, but adds to what he says is sloppy policy-making.

This affair is the most uncouth and embarrassing stint of governance and "leadership" (from the city council, the mayor, and the governor) that I've witnessed since I began covering politics in Seattle nearly 10 years ago.

At his Eye on Olympia blog, the Spokesman's Rich Roesler has collected some entertaining sound bites of legislative action that are worth a listen.

Congressman Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, will co-chair a briefing Friday on China's recent satellite-destroying missile test. It's also a test of sorts for the U.S.-China Working Group that Larsen co-founded 18 months ago as a way to "build diplomatic relations with China and to make the Congress more aware of U.S.-China issues."

The Chinese missile test has alarmed some in Congress and Larsen worries that could lead to trouble for U.S.-China trade. He told me:

"There are many relationships we have with China. Some of them are going very well and some of them are not. ... What a test like this does is give some members of Congress another reason to try to tighten the screws down on trade with China. And that isn't good for China, and I don't think it's good for the U.S. either. My personal view is that we need to engage China on all fronts."

Soon after the Chinese test, Larsen and co-chairman Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., convened the bipartisan working group in a closed session for a briefing from U.S. intelligence officials. Friday they will hear in open session from a panel of academics.

It's the sort of issue the working group was formed to deal with. There are about 48 members, Democrats and Republicans, with varying views on China. Larsen is a strong proponent of trade with China. And with a Boeing plant in his district that's no surprise. But the working group is not all free-traders, he said.

"We don't have a litmus test for members. We have members who are strictly focused on the military relationship who are hawkish and some are focused on human rights. We're not panda huggers or dragon slayers."

In a trip to China last year Kirk and Larsen visited the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center. Not many outsiders have seen the remote spaceport and the trip attracted attention from those who watch space developments. Back in D.C., Kirk and Larsen made a joint appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies where Kirk said:

I would just say, my impression is the military developments in
space by China are profound and not well understood by the West.

Already critics of free trade with China have suggested the space weapon test calls for a rethinking of the U.S. economic relationship with China. At the American Spectator, Ralph Reiland closed a recent critique of free trade with this:

Still, we're getting better-than-ever bargains on those white-wire reindeer at Wal-Mart, except it's China that's getting the money. And the Chinese just conducted a satellite-killing missile test, successfully, on Jan. 12. In theory, it's all okay, i.e., economically efficient, unless they nuke us.

The China test didn't create huge headlines in the United States, in part because news in Iraq and of the Democratic takeover of D.C. was dominating media coverage. But it worried Japan, prompted calls for space treaties, a more aggressive U.S. military presence in space, as well as a warning about anti-satellite, or ASAT, weapons from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Moreover, the development and use of ASAT weapons threatens to undermine relationships and fuel military tensions between space faring nations.

The response by the Bush administration has generally been described as muted, both what came from military officials and diplomats.

Underlining the complicated politics of U.S.-China relations, Larsen supports the administration's response, while a leading Republican say it fell far short of what was needed.

Said Larsen:

"What the administration has done is express our concern that this test took place, express our concern about the way this took place and that it was inconsistent with our efforts to encourage the Chinese military to be transparent. They also said it's inconsistent with China's publicly-stated policies about peaceful uses of space. These are the kinds of messages the U.S. rightly needs to communicate to the Chinese."

On Monday Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation where he criticized some Democrat's response, but said the Bush administration response missed the point of the test and showed a "level of confusion in our government." During a Q & A, Kyl said:

Since the test was reported, there has been no public statement by the president or any cabinet official, no mentioned during the State of the Union speech, no congressional hearings have yet been scheduled, no indication has come out of the Pentagon that the space budget is being in any way revisited.

The State Department has provided no specific information about what our diplomats are or are not saying in response to the Chinese provocation.

Kyl wants congressional hearings to determine if any U.S. technology is being used in China's space missile program. And if it is, he wants tighter export controls on that technology. (You can watch his speech here.)

Kyl also was critical of some U.S. businesses doing China trade. He said that in pushing for fewer export restrictions on technology, American businesses become lobbyists for the Communist Chinese regime:

During debate on technology transfer, for example, many American business constituents came to my office, arguing the Chinese point of view, that there should be relatively unlimited tech transfer, arguing against limitations.

And some made it quite clear that a condition to their ability to do business in China was to successfully change American policy. And therefore they became the lobbyists for the Chinese government, in effect, to try to change that policy.

Larsen hopes to protect trade with China. But he worries over the effect of the missile test and is critical of a lack of openness on China's part.

"If the Chinese were hoping to get our attention with this test, they did and it may not be the attention they wanted. From a defense perspective we have pushed China to be more transparent with its military modernization and its military budget so we can understand their capability, of course, but also their intentions.

"This military test occurred and the foreign ministry is itself silent for 10 days. That's a problem. That's a problem for us and it becomes a problem for the Chinese because it begins to run counter to their recent efforts to try to be transparent."

I'm going to be mostly away from the blog today and not planning to post until maybe late in the day.

Earlier this month, on-line donors to Sen. Maria Cantwell's re-election campaign received an e-mail with the subject line: "Credit where credit is due." It opened with the standard post-campaign platitudes, with a bit of TIME's Person of the Year thrown in:

Since Election Day pundits have come up with every explanation under the sun for why we won. Well we have looked over the numbers and can now say that the factor that made the difference in Washington state, and helped up re-elect Maria, was you.

There's no money pitch in the e-mail from "Team Cantwell," closing instead with the promise that Cantwell will have more to say soon:

You will get more information in the coming months about what she wants to accomplish and how you can help.

And that's what's interesting about the e-mail. It is a piece of a long-term strategy by Cantwell to develop a powerful on-line presence. She has the tech credentials for it, if not the standard political makeup for the net roots. Surprisingly for a tech-center like Seattle, no local politicians have been able to do that on a national scale. (Democrat Darcy Burner may have come closest in her race against Rep. Dave Reichert, though without a win she never had a chance to see if there was longer life to her on-line base.)

There was a three-prong approach to building the Cantwell list. Before her re-election campaign officially kicked off, Cantwell began sending out calls for people to sign on-line petitions backing her positions on energy -- helped by on-line power MoveOn.org -- the environment and technology.

In March it was a bulletin about forest road policy:

Now I need to show the administration and other senators that the American people do not support destroying our forestland for a corporate giveaway. This week, I will be asking my fellow senators to cosponsor the legislation and today I ask you to join me as a citizen co-sponsor of the Roadless Area Conservation Act:

Sign as a Citizen Co-Sponsor now:

In June it was net neutrality:

I need you to join me now. We must tell my Senate colleagues we will fight for the principle of nondiscrimination on the Internet.

Sign the petition now.

Cantwell spokesman Katharine Lister told me by e-mail:

"Senator Cantwell believes in the strength of netroots activism and throughout the campaign she talked to online supporters about real issues that matter to her. During attempts to drill in the Arctic Refuge, remove protections from our national forests, and to eliminate net neutrality, members of the Cantwell.com community weighed in with the Senator and helped lead the public pressure that delivered important victories. Now that Senator Cantwell is in the Democratic majority she looks forward to continuing her work with online activists in pushing for real change."

Money played a part, too. Canwtell e-mailed her list during the campaign to raise more than $90,000 for Democratic Congressional candidates challenging Republican incumbents in the state.

That's key in building an on-line presence. It can't just be about raising money for yourself. Cantwell benefited from that approach, too. Her e-mail to donors specifically thanks Democratic senators Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and John Kerry for using their lists to raise money for her re-election campaign. She also credits Sen. Barack Obama who, without his own powerful list, e-mailed Cantwell supporters to ask for donations for her.

There's no thank you to Sen. Hillary Clinton who appeared in Seattle for Cantwell, or for Sen. Patty Murray. The e-mail was all about cultivating an on-line presence. And, I'd wager, doing that with something of a progressive bent.

So far it seems to have worked pretty well. Cantwell's on-line list grew from about 2,000 people as the re-election campaign began to more than 100,000, according to Lister.

The challenge for Cantwell now is to maintain and build the list absent her own re-election campaign. With Democrats in the majority in the Senate there'll likely be less call for the sorts of petitions Cantwell circulated to pressure Republicans. Will she use the list to push the Democratic majority? I could see that if there were circumstances similar to the dust up over earmarks where Cantwell found herself disagreeing with Democratic leadership.

There will also be an opportunity to flex the power of the list in the Democratic presidential primary. If Cantwell has a list of 100,000 Democrats, that's something that any Democratic presidential candidate would want to use, particularly in the early days. But that would require Cantwell to publicly declare a favorite, something she has been reluctant to do.

Luke Esser stopped by the office in Olympia today. He was here visiting the House and Senate Republican caucuses on his first day as chairman of the party. He is also still working for Attorney General Rob McKenna, but will be phasing out of that job over the next couple of weeks.

The party job will likely mean a raise for Esser. He is paid $84,000-a-year working the AG and the state party chairman's job pays between $85,000 and $90,000, he said.

DEAN RUTZ/THE SEATTLE TIMES

Esser in Olympia Monday.

Esser said he stopped by party headquarters in Tukwila this morning. He told the executive director and communications director they will be replaced. The political director position is vacant, so Esser gets to fill that, too, with his own choice.

Republicans will have a higher profile in Olympia under Esser. He said the party's communications director will be down full-time during the session as part of an effort to combat the Democratic communications operation.

"We as the Republican Party haven't done enough in Olympia," he said. That, he said, includes pointing out good things Republicans propose and bad things the other party does.

"As a state party our priority needs to be state government; Olympia and county courthouses. National stuff is important, but it is more out of our control. Some day I'd like to return us to the majority party. But first we need to return the state to two-party government. We're just barely over a third of the House and the Senate."

Esser said he ran into Dino Rossi today who also was visiting House and Senate Republicans. He said he encouraged Rossi to run for governor, as he does everytime he sees the party's '04 gubernatorial candidate.

State Republican Party Chairwoman Diane Tebelius was voted out this afternoon and replaced by former state Sen. Luke Esser. The vote of the state committee was 71-43.

Tebelius immediately left the meeting as a group of Esser's backers headed immediately to the party headquarters in an office building adjacent to the Tukwilla hotel where the vote took place.

Esser is presiding over the meeting and has not yet come out to talk to the press.

Tebelius, who yesterday said she'd be available for an interview no matter which way the vote went, said only:

"They made a decision and good for them. I'll support Luke."

Esser released this statement:

"The first step towards recovering from our defeat in 2006 is recognizing that we have a problem, and today we did that," said Esser. "Though we face difficult times I'm confident we will rebound. The Republican Party is overflowing with ideas for making Washington more prosperous and secure."

"The Democrats are using their majorities to restrict the initiative process and spend a massive 30 billion dollars on state government. They're governing way to the left of Washington voters."

Doug Parris of The Reagan Wing said that applause for the two candidates seemed pretty evenly split after their speeches. He said that Tebelius focused much of her speech on criticizing Gov. Chris Gregoire. Esser focused on Tebelius, and criticizing her financial management of the party.

Also: Doug Roulstone is here. He's the Republican who ran against Congressman Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens. He got 36 percent of the vote. But he's already running again. Roulstone said that he is not discouraged by his finish in November because of the national tide working against Republicans.

Roulstone said that the Republican candidates in the 1st, 3rd and 9th Congressional Districts have also said they will run again, too.

UPDATE: State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz was re-elected today in a meeting in Olympia. He had no opposition.

UPDATE: Esser just came out to talk for a minute. He said he was surprised by his margin of victory. "The late votes broke my way, which has not always been the case," said Esser, who lost his Senate seat to Republican-turned-Democrat Rodney Tom.

Esser said he focused on finances in his campaign because "we did not raise enough money to have a statewide get-out-the-vote effort." But there were more general issues, too, he said:

"It was a terrible year and people are looking for a way to make sure that never happens again."

Esser said he will meet with party staff Monday.

State Republicans meet tomorrow to elect a party chairman for a two-year term. Chairwoman Diane Tebelius, who won an election a year ago to fill out the last year of former Chairman Chris Vance's term, is being challenged by former state Sen. Luke Esser.

Tebelius won a year ago despite a lot of prominent Republican leaders backing her opponent, Wenatchee activist Fredi Simpson. When she won, Tebelius said:

"It was a great victory for the grassroots of the Republican Party. You can have all of the important people, but it's really about the message."

So where are the elite now? Quiet for the most part. Esser told me he's tried to run on his own as much as possible, though his boss, Attorney General Rob McKenna, will release an Esser endorsement letter tonight or tomorrow morning. Esser said:

"I know there was some concern last time around that there was too much reliance on endorsements from elected officials and others. I have tried to make certain that I am making my case myself, directly to the voters, and not so much relying on what others say."

Tebelius is glad not to have elected officials and prominent candidates involved.

"Basically I have recommended to most of them that they stay out of this. Most of them don't want to be involved. They know both of us, and I'm sure some of them are supporting my opponent."

Esser's campaign theme is to tell people that while it certainly was a bad year for Republicans everywhere, it was particularly bad in Washington state. "It is not the case that every state suffered equally," he said.

Tebelius says Republicans here were a victim of a national wave, not any shortcoming on the part of the state party. She says she had only 10 months to prepare for the election, including having to "resolve a lot of major financial issues." Tebelius tells members of the state committee who will vote tomorrow:

"Is it really time to change the chairman or should I be given a full two-year term to do the job that needs to get done. ... Sure everyone makes mistakes, no matter what business you run. But I have a great team, we have a good relationship with our legislators and I think that record is significant enough that people will not choose to throw the baby out with the bath water."

At the Herald, Jerry Cornfield points out that big Republican legislative losses didn't bring any upheaval in GOP leadership in Olympia.

In December, Sen. Mike Hewitt and Rep. Richard Debolt earned re-election as leaders of their respective and diminished caucuses. Their victories bode well for state Republican Chairwoman Diane Tebelius, who will seek to retain her job this week.

If you read Sound Politics, the campaign against Tebelius seems to be mostly about money. In fact no place has devoted as much space to the race as SP. Stefan Sharkansky and other writers there have kept up a steady beat of critical posts about Tebelius and her tenure, both as chairwoman and earlier as one of the attorneys challenging the 2004 governor's election.

The most significant allegation that Republican insiders have raised against Diane Tebelius is that she's been a disaster at all aspects of the #1 task of managing money — raising it, spending it wisely and accounting for it properly.

Esser talks about party finances, too, though at least with me in a less accusatory tone than you find at the dozen or so Tebelius posts at Sound Politics. Said Esser:

"The point I make is there is a lot of debate and dispute as to where money has come from and what it was spent on. And one of the things we definitely have to get to is to have our books more transparent. ... Another general conclusion I can draw is that fundraising was not robust enough for us to compete with Democrats as a state party."

There are 117 voting members of the state committee. They meet at 1 p.m. in Tukwila. The actual vote will be closed to reporters, but Tebelius and Esser said they'd talk to the press after the vote. I'll be there to see what happens.

Democrats meet tomorrow, too. They'll be in Olympia, but I've heard of no discontent with Chairman Dwight Pelz.

• Chris Mulick at the Tri-City Herald found this little prince of a bill:

  Establishing a prohibition on performing any body piercing below the neck on certain sensitive parts of the body for minors under the age of eighteen.

• At The Spokesman-Review, Rich Roesler says on his blog that support is building for delaying all WASL graduation requirements, not just math.

• Phil Talmadge and Richard Sanders still disagree, even years after Talmadge left the Supreme Court. This time, says Adam Wilson at The Olympian, about public financing of judicial campaigns.

• To get Josh Feit out of the office in Seattle, The Stranger has sent him to hang out in Olympia this session. I don't know yet if his bosses sent him with the right clothes to pass the dress code in the chambers, but he's been seen all over the committee hearings. And he's reading bills. He found one pushed by Democrats to "allow industry to get tax credits for limiting carbon dioxide emissions." It's voluntary, which Feit says doesn't go far enough.

Out of some 1,200 entrants in Dana Hork's State of the Union Quiz, a University of Washington official — and PoP reader — tied for second place. Randy Hodgins, the UW's director of state relations (lobbyist), scored 37 on the 50-question quiz. Two other people got the same score. And they were only one point behind the first place finisher.

Hodgins said this morning he thinks he chose wrong on tie color, guessing Bush would wear red after going blue in 2006. Bush, though, chose to stay the course.

Speaking of going blue, in his other life Hodgins hosts a comedy radio show with his pal Steve McLellan on KAOS, The Evergreen State College radio station.

Delegates at the Seattle conference of the American Library Association defeated a resolution calling for impeachment of President George Bush. Seattle librarian Lynn Lorenz, an active supporter of the resolution, said there was a move to rule it "outside the purview of the ALA" and avoid all debate. But after some yelling, it was brought up for consideration before the ALA Council, debated, and rejected.

Lorenz reported by e-mail last night:

Many ALA Councilors who spoke against the Resolution felt compelled to preface their opinion with comments like, "I hate Bush more than anybody." But the Resolution is not about hating Bush, it's about STOPPING Bush! It's about whether you allow a president, any president, to stay in office who, by any legal and moral standards, is subverting the Constitution and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity that are unprecedented in the history of this country. Those of us who brought this Resolution, and the dozen or so Councilors who voted to adopt it, believe the ALA has a social responsibility to take a decisive position aimed at reversing these grave abuses of our core values.

They'll try again in six months when the ALA meets in D.C.

House Speaker Frank Chopp covered a lot of ground at his media availability today. And he said, "We're working for one Washington" just one time, so all around it was a successful event.

On the Sonics and a NASCAR track, he said no one in the House seems to be pushing either of the projects.

"Actually, the silence is sort of deafening. It's amazing. ... I really haven't had anyone come to me in the caucus, or in the House, including Republicans, and ask for them."

When asked to react to the Sonics' proposal, Chopp said:

"We haven't gotten a proposal from them yet. They haven't picked a city. They haven't revealed the sources of funding they want to go after. So what are we responding to?"

The P-I's Chris McGann: "The amount."

Chopp. "You know, imagine what $300 million could do for school construction in this state. Imagine."

Chopp was confident that Gov. Christine Gregoire's call to delay the math WASL as a graduation requirement would pass the House. He sounded pretty ticked off about the math curriculum. In fact, he used just those words to describe his feelings about what he called a "war now among math curriculums." He said it's similar to the old ideological battles over phonics.

But Chopp said there is support to delay the reading and writing WASLs, too. "Clearly some people think it was a mistake to tie the WASL test to graduation," he said.

Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced resolutions opposing sending more troops to Iraq. Chopp tends to steer the House away from national political debates that the Legislature really has little say on. But, in part, because of the role of the Washington National Guard in Iraq, Chopp seems open to having the House debate the resolution.

"A lot of people talk about the speech last night and also how badly President Bush has led this country. ... So in the case of the war, yeah, it affects our folks and the fact that the National Guard, Gen. Lowenberg and others have told us it has affected their ability."

Chopp said Adjutant General Timothy Lowenberg will meet with House Democrats on Friday. He said Democrats will ask about Bush's Iraq policy and "how does that mistake affect our ability to help our citizens in times of emergency."

And one more: Chopp said he told Democrats in an early caucus meeting this session that "everyone in our caucus is going to be a leader." Just about. Of 62 Democrats, 58 are either committee chairs, vice chairs or hold a leadership position. I don't know who the four are that aren't leaders, but I'm sure they get plenty of direction from the 58 that are.

The fight over the viaduct is twisting political ties. It's hard some days to even be able to figure out where all the different players stand. It is even making some people turn on friends:

After 50 years as the ugly duckling of the Pacific Northwest, Seattle has the opportunity to become the beautiful city it is destined to be. Yet, politically we still have a long way to go, with some of my favorite politicians (Frank Chopp, Chris Gregoire & Nick Licata) acting as the obstructionists to this possibility and creating a smoke screen to the real issues involved.

That's from Ezra Basom writing at The Urban Environmentalist. Basom says environmentalists are stepping up to "save the Seattle waterfront" and opposing an elevated structure. He supports a tunnel, similar to what he says is now touted as "tunnel-lite" and backed by the mayor.

Since Friday, Mayor Nickels has been given the credit for proposing a 4-lane tunnel for the waterfront, popularly titled "tunnel-lite." This proposal, which has been known as the Urban Environmental Stakeholders Proposal, has been on the table for 5 years, as part of a center city strategy focused on improving mobility and transit in the downtown area. Why no elected official has pushed for this proposal in the past is because the state has refused to consider what they call "reduced capacity."

The governor, legislative leaders and WSDOT can be blamed for their refusal to consider any option that would reduce the current number of lanes on the viaduct.

Frank Chopp says he's no obstructionist. He just met with reporters and, of course, was asked about the viaduct. Most of his answers on that subject were some form of saying that he stood by the statement that Gov. Christine Gregoire released last week on behalf of her and legislative leaders.

When I asked him what he does next, he stood by the statement and then added this, in a slightly sarcastic tone:

I might want to add one other factor, one little factoid. There's this House of Representatives, I don't know if you knew about that, and it has 98 members. And I think at this point, I went though the list yesterday and I think there are about 90 who would oppose a tunnel and maybe eight that would support a tunnel. So you've got 90 opposed, eight in favor. If you want to do some of the counting, go down the list, you could count them yourself.

Me: There are some in Seattle, including some environmentalists, who focus their sort of criticism on you largely at this point, and say you are an obstructionist to what they want to see happen to the waterfront, to saving the waterfront.

Chopp: Oh, that's odd because I'm working very closely with the environmental community on a four-part environmental agenda that they're just ecstatic about.

Me: But not the viaduct. They're not on the same side you are.

Chopp: Actually, the environmental community says they're split on the issue. A lot of them are staying out of it. There are some who support a tunnel, also some support just simply nothing being built, but just have a surface transit option. And, as I said, that was some time ago, I said I was open to that sort of alternative if it was workable.

P.S.: I first read Basom's post at Evergreen Politics.

After the President finished his speech last night I e-mailed Clark Judge for his review. (You can read earlier posts here and here.) I asked him:

What'd you think? It seemed to me to have come off a little laid back, sober maybe. Maybe previous speeches that focused so much on the war were the same, but this one seemed more so. On NBC, Campbell Brown mentioned that this was the president's first State of the Union not written by Michael Gerson. She said White House aides told reporters "he's a tough act to follow." Do you think that played any role?

I liked the speech. I thought it was much better than the last two State of the Union addresses.

The domestic proposals dealt with big issues. The era of midnight basketball and school uniforms is over. We are now looking the challenges of continued economic growth, entitlement reform, energy independence, immigration and health-care policy full in the face. Big issues — and ones that must be addressed.

His handling of Iraq and the Middle East struck me as clear, realistic and, yes, sober. Of course, I feel he is doing the right thing — replacing the commanders on the ground, developing a strategy aimed not at getting out (as too many congressional Democrats appear bent on doing) but at getting the job done. For months I've felt that our operation in Iraq was defensive and drifting. Now the president is giving it focus and a sense of urgency.

Last night he was much better than before in explaining the dynamics on the ground, how they would play out if we pulled out and how and why he arrived at the new course.

The current team of writers is first class. It is not generally appreciated, but more than senior speechwriters in the past, Mike wrote as part of a team. Most of that team remains in place or comes back for big speeches. Those who are new rank among the best writers of their kind in the nation. This White House does not suffer from a talent gap in speechwriting.

So I thought the president and his writers did the job they had to do and did it well. I liked the president's graciousness at the top and his gracefulness at the bottom. I felt it all worked.

For the third time in as many years President Bush used his State of the Union address to call for reform of America's immigration laws, including a temporary worker program. Bush tonight called for a civil debate on what has been one of the country's most divisive issues.

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America — with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol — and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border — and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in — and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists. We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers — so there is no excuse left for violating the law. We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country — without animosity and without amnesty.

Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate — so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.

This is an issue where Bush likely has more support among Democrats than Republicans in Congress. I hope to talk to Congressman Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, after the speech to see what he thinks about the President's immigration proposal. In the past, Hastings has been a supporter of a guest worker program that other Republicans opposed.

The White House has some more details on Bush's proposal here.

In the temporary worker program, employers could hire temporary workers only for jobs "that Americans have not taken." The program "must be truly temporary" and workers would have to leave the country when the job ends.

Bush also renewed calls for one of the proposals that has been the most controversial piece of immigration reform, earned citizenship. He's trying to find a middle ground, as he said in the speech, a program that would treat undocumented workers "without animosity and without amnesty." The White House said that would require any worker who crossed the border illegally or overstayed a visa "to pay a substantial penalty for their illegal conduct." The briefing paper also says:

In Addition To Paying A Meaningful Penalty, Undocumented Workers Must Learn English, Pay Their Taxes, Pass A Background Check, And Hold A Job For A Number Of Years Before They Will Be Eligible To Be Considered For Legalized Status.

Any Undocumented Worker Seeking Citizenship Must Go To The "Back Of The Line." The program should not reward illegal conduct by making participants eligible for citizenship ahead of those who have played by the rules and followed the law. Instead, program participants must wait their turn at the back of the line.

Bush has tried this before. He has argued for immigration reform and a guest worker program as an economic boost, on fairness grounds and as necessary for national security.

In 2004 he said:

Tonight, I also ask you to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. ... A temporary worker program will help protect our homeland, allowing Border Patrol and law enforcement to focus on true threats to our national security.

In 2005:

America's immigration system is also outdated — unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border.

And 2006:

Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy. Our nation needs orderly and secure borders.

So what will be different this year? At a White House briefing today, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Joel Kaplan was asked by a reporter if the president would just be giving a rerun of earlier immigration talks.

Q: Will he be breaking any new ground at all on immigration? Or is this just going to be recasting of the longstanding proposal on that issue?

MR. KAPLAN: Well, what's new ground is that we've got a new Congress, and it's a Congress that we're hopeful will be very eager to take up in a serious, and as I said at the outset, conclusive way, this issue. The president is going to recognize that this is an issue on which convictions run very deep. But he thinks now is the time for the administration and the Congress to work together. He's laid out the principles of reform that, when packaged together, make up the type of comprehensive reform that's essential to really fix the problem. And I think he's hopeful, and we're all hopeful, that this new Congress is going to want to take up the challenge.

UPDATE: Hastings told me he is hopeful something can happen on immigration this year, but he didn't hear anything new from Bush.

I think that the President has been absolutely consistent on this, particularly as it related to my district. We do need a guest worker program for our agriculture-based industry.

Hastings said that there remains a lot of middle ground between what the House passed last year -- without his support -- that focused only on border security and what the Senate did that had a guest worker program, earned citizenship and other provisions opposed by the previous House GOP leadership. Any bill this year, he said, will have to be bipartisan because Democrats will not want to carry the full burden of the controversial issue. Besides, he said, both parties have members who will oppose Bush's plan and it will take consensus to pass anything meaningful.

Given the TV commentary, you'd think that President Bush and Congress just brought peace to Iraq, and maybe made America energy independent to boot. And the speech hasn't started yet as I write this.

Said Tim Russert just now as NBC showed Bush greeting people as he entered the House chambers:

It's a wonderful ritual of our democracy, ... a backslap, handshake; saying to the country and the world, "You know, we really are in this together, at least for tonight."

Somehow I am less than impressed that Democrats and Republicans in Congress can "set aside partisan differences" for about an hour while on national television. Seems that should be a minimum qualification for the job, don't you think?

More on crafting a State of the Union address from former White House speechwriter Clark Judge. Turns out he was at the White House Monday for a briefing on tonight's speech and may have better information about what the speech will focus on than some of what's been in the news.

I asked him:

How much outside input does the White House get for a State of the Union? Do the speechwriters meet with Republican congressional leadership, or RNC people or interest groups?

I wonder what you think about this take from TIME Magazine's political blog about lesson's for Bush from Bill Clinton's 1995 speech?

Twelve years later, aides to George W. Bush are studying the ways previous administrations salvaged presidencies that seemed to some to be beyond salvation. One of the lessons of the Clinton recovery, both in 1995 and later, during Monica, in 1999, is that Americans reward presidents who, even in the face of enormous distractions, focus on issues that matter to them.
Which is why, according to leaked previews, Bush won't spend much time tonight talking about surging troops in Iraq or the Global War on Terror. Instead, he'll put forward what for him will be progressive and bold policy proposals on health care, the environment and immigration reform.

And a question about those "leaked previews." Are those all authorized leaks designed to build interest in the speech?

Judge responds:

Re. Outside input: The White House is in some respects a giant ear — listening to everything and everyone it can around the country. That's what polling is about. That's what offices of congressional relations and offices for interest group relations are about. For that matter that's what the press office is about. So for the State of the Union as for everything else there is an attempt to respond to what the White House is hearing. Tonight's speech is an example. The president and his staff have heard and understood the criticism of the administration. On a number of fronts, they will be trying to respond.

Having said that, it is best to shield the speechwriters themselves from most of this consultation. The writers get readings of the public from the various White House offices and may be encouraged to talk with a member of Congress, a professor or someone else who might offer valuable insight. But if everyone in Washington had direct access to them, no speech would never get written.

Re. The Time blog: Yes. The President's agenda should and must focus on matters of interest to the American people. On the other hand, from what I heard at a White House briefing I attended yesterday, contrary to Time magazine, half the speech will be about the Middle Eastern situation.

Re. Authorized leaks: I am not sure what leaks there have been. The White House has conducted numerous briefings over the last week, but these are so public and so complete, I wouldn't call them leaks. The purpose is to seed discussion wherever it occurs, to build understanding of proposals and official thinking, including, for example, in blogs.

A hawkish D.C. think tank is running TV commercials in the Beltway area pushing the White House to get tough with Iran. The American Foreign Policy Council has bought time to run two 30-second spots for a week on D.C.-area cable news channels, going up in time to coincide with tonight's State of the Union address.

The council says the ad is "aimed at educating the American public about the growing threat posed by a nuclear Iran." I'm trying to get copies of the ads. In the meantime, here are the scripts:

The nuclear clock is ticking... and time is running out.

Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism — supporting attacks that have killed hundreds of Americans.

An Iranian group boasts 25,000 members who are ready to become suicide bombers in the U.S. and Europe.

Now, in violation of the U.N., Iran is developing a dangerous nuclear capability and has threatened to share it with others.

Stand up for peace. Call the White House and tell them to enforce sanctions against Iran today.

And:

Iran's President denies the Holocaust, says he wants to wipe Israel off the map and has supported attacks that killed hundreds of Americans.

Iran sent thousands of children marching to their deaths to clear minefields, armed only with plastic keys to unlock the gates of heaven.

Now, in violation of the United Nations, Iran is trying to go nuclear and has threatened to share the technology with others.

Stand up for peace. Call the White House and tell them to enforce sanctions against Iran today.

Annie Swingen, AFPC's director of communications, told me that these are the first TV ads the group has ever run. It has done print campaigns in the past, but went to cable now because "our principals strongly believe that this is a critical issue that merits more public debate."

The AFPC and its Iran Freedom Initiative have been pushing a tough line with Iran for some time. A report it did last year described Iran in terms that echo the build up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Iran is also actively expanding its ballistic missile arsenal, and will soon be capable of holding at risk targets far beyond the Middle East. At the same time, Iran has become a serial proliferator, demonstrating both the capacity and the intent to transfer WMD technology and know-how, including those related to nuclear weapons, to rogue states and terrorist organizations alike.

Among the recommendations the group had for the U.S. government was to:

Reestablish credibility vis-à-vis the Iranian regime by making clear, both in word and in deed, that continued rogue behavior will carry adverse consequences, up to and including the use of force.

And the use of force seems inevitable to at least some people at the Council. Ilan Berman, vice president for policy, is a frequent TV guest when news turns to Iran. On CNN Jan. 8, host Glenn Beck and Berman agreed it was only a question of whether the United States or Israel struck first. Asked Beck:

Am I being too fatalist to say that at some point, this is going to happen? Somebody is going to strike Iran?

BERMAN: That's certainly the way it's looking.I mean, let's be clear. What we're doing at the U.N. right now is far too little, far too late.

BECK: Right.

BERMAN: If there are sanctions that have passed — have run the gauntlet of the Russians and the Chinese, they`re not likely to offend Moscow or Beijing, and as a result, they`re not likely to offend Tehran either. And that means that when the Israelis look at this land to land. And right now they`re OK with subcontracting and allowing us take the lead. But when — when the Iranians cross the red line, an important red line, like for example, in March when they say at the end of the Iranian calendar year, which is in March, that they will be ready to begin industrial uranium enrichment. When the Iranians cross the red line — they`re about to — and the Israelis look at us. If we`re not doing anything serious, then they`re going to conclude, and rightly so, that they need to do this.

In the summer, the McClatchy News Service quoted Berman on Iran:

We are creating a situation where everything we're going to try short of military force is going to fail. ... By the spring of next year, we're going to be looking at very serious discussions about next steps, including military options.

To help set up tonight's State of the Union Address and to put the speech into some historic context, I contacted former White House speechwriter Clark Judge. He was a speechwriter and special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush.

Judge is now managing director of the White House Writers Group, a D.C. communications firm that includes other former White House speechwriters.

Judge agreed to take some questions from me and I hope to be able to do several posts today on how speeches like this come together, how the expectation game is played and how he views tonight's speech.

Q: One thing I've been curious about is how long it takes to write a speech like a State of the Union address. How long ago do you think a draft was begun? Can you tell me a little about the writing process? Is it a group effort from the beginning, or initially more the work of one person?

Is the speech locked down at this point, seven hours before, or are changes still being made right up until delivery?

Judge: Each State of the Union is handled differently, even within administrations. Sometimes the chief writer does it all. Sometimes two or three writers draft. Sometimes everyone on staff has a hand.

This year, as in the past, work began in December. According to media reports, the president identified major areas to touch on. Writers would then, as in the past, consult with the primary policy advisors for each set of issues. The writers would be, of course, very familiar with most of these questions anyway, but there are always policy initiatives to be understood and considerable thinking to be done about core themes and the balancing of sections.

Once a draft is complete, the State of the Union address — like all presidential speeches — goes into staffing. For a speechwriter, staffing is a tricky, sometimes infuriating, sometimes stimulating process. Comments come flooding back. Invariably a staffer who can barely compose a coherent sentence will edit for style. Imagine how speechwriters react to that. But more challenging is reconciling conflicting staffers. Several years ago, speechwriters in the current White House took heat for supposedly not accepting a CIA edit. But in fact speechwriters often must reject edits from supposed experts, usually when there are other equally credible experts involved. Typically — at least for me — the writer makes an effort to get the experts together and looks for a way to resolve the dispute. When differences can't be resolved, he or she may look to senior staff for guidance. Mediation and negotiation are among the least appreciated aspects of the craft.

Tonight's speech has been with the president for some days now. He has been rehearsing it and making edits of his own. If there are last-minute changes, they are personal ones, probably having to do with style and cadence. The main thing by now is not to tinker but to master, so that the president's performance does justice to all the many days put in by so many talented and truly brilliant people to give him a text worthy of delivery to the American nation.

If librarians can argue for President Bush to be impeached, why shouldn't Democratic state lawmakers vote to stop a troop increase for Iraq? Senate and House resolutions were introduced this week calling on President Bush to get "explicit approval from Congress if he wants to send more American troops to Iraq" and telling Congress to pass a law "prohibiting the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq, unless the President first seeks Congressional approval."

Would the Legislature and the governor really reject the will of the voters on the viaduct?

Ask the people who were in the majority voting against a new Seattle baseball park. A little history:

In September 1995, King County taxpayers voted against a hike in the sales tax to pay for a new ballpark as well as repairs to the Seattle Kingdome, present home of the city's baseball and football franchises.

But just weeks later, the Mariners entered the American League playoffs for the first time and triumphed over the New York Yankees. This exciting performance stirred state and local officials to reject the vote of the people. In October of that year, the state Legislature and the King County Council approved a $320 million plan for a new stadium.

Gov. Christine Gregoire's and House Speaker Frank Chopp's refusal to commit to abiding by the Seattle vote has people ticked off. Gregoire's statement that she wants to hear what voters say, but won't necessarily follow their direction, prompts The Stranger's Erica C. Barnett to say, "Well that's big of her."

The Friends of Seattle Blog takes the Speaker on, saying:

Chopp Doesn't Give a Damn about Viaduct Vote Results

Given Speaker Chopp's position, the Council should have skipped the charade of a public advisory vote and stuck to its guns by telling the state that the City does not want a rebuild, period. And then left it at that.

There's some sense that the fighting, stubbornness and lack of clarity as Democrats fight amongst themselves is providing an opportunity for political gain by Republicans.

"The Republicans must be licking their chops," they say at City Comforts, temporarily known as Viaduct, The Blog."

Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh Press thinks state GOP chair Diane Tebelius may get some traction on her criticisms of Gregoire's viaduct leadership.

She has been issuing a string of press releases likely to get a bunch of Western Washingtonians nodding their heads.

Republicans probably have been over-using the "flip-flop" verbiage the last few years, but it sticks this time: "After Governor Christine Gregoire tossed her decision back to voters on how to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct ... [she made] a major 'flip-flop' by saying 'no tunnel' choice for Seattle voters."

You only have until tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m. Seattle time to enter this indepth State of the Union Predictions Quiz. You have to guess all sorts of things, including the color of Bush's tie and Nancy Pelosi's suit, which presidential candidate will be shown in the audience cut-away and who will be seated with the First Lady.

Dana Hork, a photo-blogger and municipal bond trader at J.P. Morgan, has been doing SOTU quizzes since 2004.

(Hey, Bill the Ump, thanks for the tip.)

Fifth District Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Spokane is the new co-chairwoman of the Congressional Women's Caucus. The Democratic co-chairwoman is Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif. They officially take over tomorrow.

The caucus has gone through several iterations since its founding in 1977. First, it was women only and later men were invited. But in 1995, the new GOP-majority voted to end funding caucus organizations and the women's group created a non-profit, Women's Policy, Inc., and the membership is now back to women only.

The caucus has pushed for pay equity, tougher child support enforcement, women's health programs and law protecting victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

A group of librarians want the American Library Association to go on record during its Seattle convention this week in support of impeaching President George Bush, who they call a war criminal.

Lynn Lorenz, a Seattle librarian, e-mailed to say the impeachment resolution was adopted by the ALA's "Social Responsibilities Round Table" S