An Unwelcome Compromise

" 'I think Social Security should be changed,' said James, who said he's thought hard about the subject, even though he hasn't held a job yet. 'We should have some of the money to put in a personal account and they should keep part of it for us.' " I wrote in my Friday column about the new twist in Bush's Social Security events: Exploiting the misconceptions of young people who believe, in spite of the facts, that Social Security won't be there at all when they retire.

And Devlin Barrett writes for the Associated Press: "When President Bush makes his pitch for personal Social Security accounts at a town-hall meeting Tuesday in suburban Rochester, he may finally win over some key undecided voters: the three Republican congressmen representing the area."

First Lady Heads Home

Jim VandeHei writes in The Washington Post: "First lady Laura Bush on Monday praised Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's controversial plan for elections this year, which some opposition groups say would prevent them from participating. . . .

"Opposition groups, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, say the election plan blocks a serious challenge to Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for 23 years. 'I think it's a very wise and bold step,' Bush said of the planned election, when asked about complaints from opposition groups."

Reuters reports this morning: "Opponents of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday rejected U.S. first lady Laura Bush's interpretation of Egyptian politics, saying they could not even see the progress she was praising."

Here are the transcripts of the first lady's interviews yesterday morning with NBC's Today Show, CBS's Early Show, and ABC's Good Morning America .

Nedra Pickler reports for the Associated Press this morning: "Laura Bush encouraged leading Egyptian women to continue speaking out for equality and peace Tuesday as she wrapped up a Mideast tour that raised her own voice.

" 'And I know from visiting women around the world, from visiting with Palestinian women this week and Israeli women this week that women want to be involved in civil society,' she told the women who have influential positions in Egyptian government, academia and culture. 'Women want to be able to contribute to their countries, just like men do, and that women want peace.' "

New Meme: Laura the Truth Teller?

Here's a USA Today editorial: "After staying in the White House bubble for much of her husband's first term, Laura Bush is emerging in his second as a refreshing truth-teller cutting through political spin. In fact, on her current trip to the Middle East, the first lady is showing a transformation so substantive that it could have an impact on her husband's legacy."

And here's a commentary from CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer: "The president has surrounded himself with a lot of smart public-relations advisers who give him all kinds of advice about dealing with the press. But Mrs. Bush has developed a strategy of her own: When reporters ask her questions, she just answers them, truthfully, as far as I can tell.

"Memo to the White House staff: This is a different approach, to be sure. But you may want to check it out. It sure seems to work for her."

Memo Watch

At yesterday's briefing, blogger Eric Brewer of BTC News posed his second question to McClellan, this one about something that appears to still be off the regular press corps' radar:

"Scott, last week you said that claims in the leaked Downing Street memo that intelligence was being fixed to support the Iraq War as early as July 2002 are flat-out wrong. According to the memo which was dated July 23, 2002, and whose authenticity has not been disputed by the British Government, both Foreign Minister Jack Straw and British Intelligence Chief Sir Richard Dearlove said that the President had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. Dearlove added that intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Do you think these two very senior officials of our closest ally were flat-out wrong? And if so, how could they have been so misinformed after their conversations with George Tenet and Condoleezza Rice?"

See my May 17 column for the background.

McClellan replied: "Let me correct you on the -- let me correct you on the characterization of the quote you attributed to me. I'm referring to some of the allegations that were made referring to a report. In terms of the intelligence, the -- if anyone wants to know how the intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and look at all the public comments over the course of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and that's all very public information. Everybody who was there could see how we used that intelligence.

"And in terms of the intelligence, it was wrong, and we are taking steps to correct that and make sure that in the future we have the best possible intelligence, because it's critical in this post-September 11th age, that the executive branch has the best intelligence possible."

Unsurprisingly, McClellan's response did not address the core question: How could our allies have come to such a conclusion?

Instead, the way I read it, he vaguely reasserted that whatever unspecified nefarious conclusions one might in any way reach from the memo were flatly wrong.

Maybe someone should ask again.

See my April 5 column to learn more about blogger Brewer and his first question to McClellan.

EPA Watch

John Heilprin writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush, in a rare visit to the Environmental Protection Agency, pledged Monday that science would be at the heart of the nation's air, water and land policies."

Here's the text of his remarks.

Ann McFeatters of Scripps Howard noted archly in her pool report that the entire trip, including the motorcade there and back, took Bush a total of 28 minutes.

Business Watch

Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum write in The Washington Post: "From Wall Street to Main Street, the small-government, pro-business mainstay of the Republican Party appears to be growing disaffected with a party it sees as focused on social issues at its expense."

Poll Watch

Bush's approval rating has dropped 4 points in three weeks, to 46 percent according to the latest Gallup poll.

Susan Page writes in USA Today: "President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday."

On CNN's Inside Politics show, William Schneider played the poll results against videotape of Bush statements:

"SCHNEIDER: President Bush's numbers continue to drop. The president's current job approval rating, 46 percent. Half the public disapproves of the way President Bush is handling his job. That's the president's worst rating in over a year. What's the problem?

"BUSH: We're going to permanently solve the Social Security issue so you can grow up with peace of mind.

"SCHNEIDER: Not working. Fifty-nine percent now disapprove of the president's handling of Social Security. Eleven points higher than in early February, when the President started his Social Security campaign.

"And on the economy?

"BUSH: The economy is getting better. Today we got some good news. We added 262,000 new jobs last month.

"SCHNEIDER: Not much celebration. Fifty-eight percent disapprove of the way the President is handling the economy, the worst all year.

"How about Iraq?

"BUSH: And I'm confident we're making great progress in Iraq.

"SCHNEIDER: The public is not. Fifty-six percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.

"Does President Bush get a positive rating on anything?

"BUSH: America is answering new dangers with firm resolve.

"SCHNEIDER: Yes. The President continues to get high marks for his handling of terrorism. But terrorism may have faded in importance.

"A whopping 57 percent of Americans say they disagree with George W. Bush on the issues that matter most to them. That number has never been higher than 51 percent."