Pelosi's Empty (?) Threat

In the months leading up to the midterms, Democratic candidates and leaders were careful in how they spoke about Iraq. It was a failure, and 'a new direction' was needed, we were told, but without much in the way of specifics. But no matter what, we were assured, a Democratic Congress would not cut off funds for troops in Iraq.

Well, looks like that statement ought to have been parsed a little. Ms. Pelosi now says that while they won't limit funds for troops already on the ground in Iraq, they may cut off funds for additional troops:

Democrats now running Congress will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday, suggesting they could deny him the money should he call for additional troops...

Pelosi made clear that her party supported boosting the overall size of the military "to protect the American people against any threats to our interests, wherever they may occur. That's different, though, from adding troops to Iraq." She also said Democrats would not cut off money for those troops already in Iraq.

But dollars for a further buildup in Iraq — Bush's expected plan could send as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops — will get the strictest of scrutiny, she said.

"The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving."

"There's not a carte blanche, a blank check for him to do whatever he wishes there," she added in an interview taped Saturday and broadcast Sunday...

While leading Democrats reaffirmed their opposition to a troop buildup, several did not join Pelosi in suggesting it was possible Congress could deny Bush the money for the additional forces.

"I don't want to anticipate that," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.

"As a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop,'" Biden said, unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in persuading Bush that the strategy is wrong. "You can't go in and, like a tinker toy, and play around and say, 'You can't spend the money on this piece and this piece.'"

Apart from the fact that Biden's comments are 100% correct, there are political reasons to think that his point of view may prevail. Democrats gained control of Congress partly because they were seen as having no role in the 'mess' in Iraq. If they start micro-managing, then they will be part owners of the effort, and Colin Powell's famous 'you break it, you bought it' maxim will apply to them as well. That's not something they want.

Furthermore, John Edwards has started calling the surge 'the McCain plan,' something that other contenders are likely to parrot. If Democrats succeed in preventing it, they'll never be able to criticize McCain for leading the charge on a failed plan. And Presidential candidates will want to make sure that they preserve a line of attack.

So while Pelosi's comments might sound like a reason for concern, it's probably just sabre-rattling for the benefit of those folks lined up on the beach.

Back to the top.

Europeans Didn't Kill the Aztecs - Part II

First covered here some months ago, the AP picks up on the controversy in Mexico over whether diseases brought to the New World by the Spaniards were responsible for the death of millions of indigenous Americans:

Mexicans have long been taught to blame diseases brought by the Spaniards for wiping out most of their Indian ancestors. But recent research suggests things may not be that simple.

While the initial big die-offs are still blamed on the Conquistadors who started arriving in 1519, even more virulent epidemics in 1545 and 1576 may have been caused by a native blood-hemorrhaging fever spread by rats, Mexican researchers say.

The idea has sparked heated debate in Mexican academic circles...

"This wasn't smallpox," Acuna-Soto says. "The pathology just does not fit."

He says some historians in Mexico are offended by his theory.

"Much of the reason why these epidemics were left unstudied was that it was politically and institutionally easier to blame the Spaniards for all of the horrible things that might have happened," he said. "It was the official version of history."

Certainly, imported diseases such as smallpox, measles and typhoid fever did cause huge numbers of deaths starting in 1521. But the epidemics of 1545 and 1576 struck survivors of the first die-offs and their children, who would presumably have developed some immunity.

While there is no reliable figure on Mexico's population in the 1500s — estimates range from 6 million to 25 million — it is clear that by 1600 only around 2 million remained.

It's interesting how history can change hundreds of years later.

Back to the top.

From the 'Ho-Hum' Department

ONE THOUSAND PEOPLE!!!!! show up to spell out 'Impeach!' on the beach.

Did I mention it was in San Francisco? You could get 1,000 people to show up on the beach for a 'legalize sex with animals rally.

The event was organized by Brad Newsham, 'a local cab driver and author.'

The rally is clearly intended to intimidate Nancy Pelosi, since the event was held in her district, and she has said that impeachment is off the table. This contingent can't be too happy with her.

Back to the top.

Democratic Convention Watch

The DNC has had a major headache deciding on the site of the 2008 convention. New York refuses to pay, and Denver's unions refuse to accommodate.

But is it Denver's to lose? Reading between the lines here, that's what it sounds like:

Denver is competing with New York City for the right to host the Democrats, and national Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has said he'll make a decision by the end of January.

Bloomberg told a radio audience Friday that New York couldn't make the same financial commitment to the Democrats that it did to win the Republican convention in 2004. He said that, at the time, New York was still trying to recover from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and needed a boost, but doesn't have those problems now.

"Today, the hotels are full, the restaurants are doing well and the conventions don't bring the kind of economic activity they used to bring," Bloomberg said. "The city just can't afford to go on the hook."

Bloomberg has previously said New York has several major fundraising drives under way for other projects, and it might be difficult to raise the money for the convention.

On Thursday, Bloomberg said at a news conference that Denver was the city "which everybody says is the odds-on favorite" to win the convention.

If Denver wants it and New York is unwilling to pay, then is Howard Dean simply holding off on annointing Denver in the hopes of getting the union to crack? That would mean Democrats are pro-labor - but only until their ox is gored.

Back to the top.

Cognitive Dissonance Watch

I believe this is the first cognitive dissonance post here at the Influence Peddler. Cognitive dissonance is defined thus:

psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously

Looking for an example of cognitive dissonance to help make it more 'real' for you?

Well, how about promising 'the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history,' while at the same time thinking that federal investigations into Members of Congress are no big deal.

That my friends, is cognitive dissonance.

Back to the top.

State of the GOP

Interesting post by Ramesh over at the Corner. I think it captures the current situation pretty well.

Back to the top.

O, Brave New World

Or, signs of the apocalypse.

Andrew Roth tells us there's new hope for your fat dog.

Back to the top.

On Nuclear Power

Blue Crab points us to a Washington Post piece on the growing popularity of nuclear power worldwide.

This could be a really interesting issue, politically. I suspect that whichever party - or Presidential candidate - embraces nuclear power first, may have a significant leg up in the next go-round. It seems that the old arguments against nuclear power have lost some of their saliency - perhaps because a whole generation has passed since Chernobyl, and even more since Three Mile Island.

An embrace of nuclear power enables a candidate to appeal both to the energy-security crowd and the global warming crowd. That might prove to be a very valuable two-fer, politically.

I know little about what the major candidates have said about nuclear power, generally. The Washington Post noted in May that Hillary was 'cool to increased use of nuclear power, citing problems of cost, safety, proliferation and waste.' I've noted before that Hillary and Giuliani are currently facing off over the Indian Point nuclear power plant, with Hillary stressing the attractiveness of nuclear plants as a terrorist target.

I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

Back to the top.

Is the 'Bush Economy' a Liability in 08?

Novak has his usual interesting set of stories for a Saturday. Check him out for Colin Powell's skepticism about 'a surge,' and how the 'Giuliani playbook' issue affects McCain in Florida.

Also, Novak notes that Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with Bush administration economists and alumni to prepare a tax plan for his Presidential campaign:

ROMNEY ON TEXAS

During his family vacation in Park City, Utah, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney met with former Bush administration officials who comprise his economic policy team to discuss a tax reform for Romney's presidential campaign.

The meeting included Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) who is co-chairman of Romney's economic policy council. Also on hand were former Bush economic policy officials Brian Reardon and Cesar Conda. Gregory Mankiw, another former CEA chairman, is Romney's economic co-chairman but could not attend the Utah meeting because of a knee injury.

Romney, seeking to contrast himself with Republican presidential front-runner John McCain on taxes, has surrounded himself with architects of Bush's tax plan. Vice President Dick Cheney had to cast a tie-breaking vote on the 2003 tax cuts because Sen. McCain had voted against them.

This brings to mind an interesting question.

If Romney is perceived as the heir to Bush on economic policy, is that a good thing or a bad thing in the primaries (and the general election)? Certainly, Republican primary voters ought to be predisposed to support policies that they are likely to believe are responsible for low unemployment, relatively strong and steady economic growth, and a reduced federal tax burden. One would think that if Romney can claim to be the best person to continue this legacy, it would be helpful among primary voters.

Beyond primary voters however, it's a very different story. Polls have consistently shown that voters disapprove of the job Bush has done on the economy, even as they give a strong assessment of their personal outlook. (See this recent ARG poll, for example).

Will primary voters shy away from a candidate who might inherit this liability? Analysts tell us that primary voters sometimes look for the candidate they like best - regardless of electability - and sometimes opt for the candidate they think can win. For Republicans, 2008 is thought to fall into this latter category. If the Democrats are seen to be nominating someone who can win - whoever that might be, because I have no idea whether Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is truly a likely winner or loser - then will GOP primary voters vote strategically against Romney?

It'll be interesting to see.

I'll also be looking to Greg Mankiw's blog to see what he has to say.

Back to the top.

Is This for Real?

Saw the preview for Stomp the Yard today. It looks like the silliest movie I have ever seen. Seems to be a mix of Breakin 2, Electric Boogaloo and Officer and a Gentleman, or something. Check out the preview for a laugh:



I thought for sure it was a Saturday Night Live sketch.

Back to the top.

Just One Little Nit to Pick Re. Pelosi's Speech

Rep. Pelosi made a reference in her accession speech to the Prayer of St. Francis in the context of being from San Francisco.

The so-called Prayer of St. Francis was not in fact written by St. Francis of Assisi (who is in fact the patron of San Francisco), and cannot be dated any further back than 1912. I cannot presume to judge the authenticity of feeling of those who are edified by imagining that St. Francis wrote it, but its historical authenticity as such is nil.

St. Francis (who accompanied the Fifth Crusade to the Siege of Damietta, for heaven's sake) suffers enough from attempts to reimagine him and enroll him as the patron saint of hippies and antinomianism generally that he should be kept clearly separated in mind, at least initially, from those who invoke his sanctity for their own projects.

Rauch: Target Farm Programs for Real Reform

National Journal's Jonathan Rauch says that if Democrats want to demonstate their reformer bona fides, they can do it by rewriting our depression-era farm programs. He makes a number of good points:

No one, not anyone, would sit down today and design the current farm programs. Although much revised in their details, they remain a paradigm of New Deal heavy-handedness, distorting markets in a way that accomplishes little at high cost. Subsidies are absurdly lopsided: 93 percent of payments flow to five crops (corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat), which together account for only a fifth of U.S. farm receipts. Meanwhile, 60 percent of farmers and ranchers get nothing.

Payments flow disproportionately to large farms and wealthy farmers. Much of the subsidies' value is sopped up by higher land prices, often benefiting absentee landowners instead of working farmers. Worst of all, the steepest price is paid by desperately poor farmers in the developing world, who must compete not only with American farmers but also with the U.S. Treasury.

Expert opinion has in recent years converged on an alternative approach, called revenue assurance. If the goal is to give farmers more income stability than volatile agricultural markets provide -- and that, these days, is the only goal that most people agree has a public-policy justification -- then revenue assurance is, in principle, a fairer and more efficient way to do it. The government and subsidized private insurers could indemnify farmers against sharp declines in earnings; government-supported "farm savings accounts" could provide further protection...

Environmentalists, anti-hunger groups, and international development organizations are also lobbying for change. Environmentalists want a shift toward conservation, and some, such as the American Farmland Trust, call for replacing crop-specific subsidies with revenue insurance. Bread for the World (motto: "Seeking Justice. Ending Hunger") likewise calls for a subsidy phaseout and an emphasis on mitigating farmers' financial risk. Development organizations want to curtail subsidies that hammer poor farmers in developing countries.

Something else: "Latino groups are rallying around the farm bill," says Rick Swartz, a Washington consultant who is organizing an alliance of reformist groups. Latinos, many of them former field laborers, are the fastest-growing demographic cohort of new farmers, Swartz says, and most of them grow unsubsidized specialty crops. In September, the National Latino Congreso passed a resolution calling for reform -- a first, Swartz says.

Democrats will not have failed to notice that many of these change advocates are core Democratic constituencies.

Nor, probably, will they have missed that today's subsidies flow in vast disproportion to deep-red Republican states in the South and Midwest. Hmm. Then there is the fact that the farm bill is must-pass legislation. Congress will have to send something to President Bush, and he will have to sign something. That is an advantage that welfare reformers never had.

To realize all of this reform potential, two things must happen. First, the Democrats' leaders must seize the issue from the back-room farm interests, elevate it to national prominence, and demand a transformational farm bill instead of a transactional one. Second, Bush must join the effort, as former President Bill Clinton did with welfare. One party can't overhaul a bipartisan program, and only Bush's threat to veto a business-as-usual bill can prevent backsliding.

There are several other reasons Rauch fails to note that this approach makes sense for Democrats.

First, the promise by the Democratic leadership to effectively bring war spending back within the unified budget, to implement 'pay-go' rules, and to expand spending on their own priorities means that they need to find savings elsewhere. Reform of farm subsidies offers a way to save billions of dollars annually.

Second, Democrats are at great risk of being painted as know-nothing protectionists - not without reason. Reduction of US farm subsidies is perhaps the first target of our developed trading partners in negotiations with the US. If Democrats linked the reduction of farm subsidies with an effort to restart world trade talks, they could kill a whole range of birds with a single stone.

Hopefully they have the good sense to take advantage of this opportunity.

Back to the top.

House Democrats Elect New Cardinals

Andrew Roth carries the story at Club for Growth. It's worth checking out:

The Democrats have selected their new "cardinals" for the House Appropriations Committee. The cardinals are the earmark-happy chairmen of the 12 subcommittees, which includes the chairman of the overall committee (David Obey). Here they are, along with their Club for Growth scorecard ratings for 2005 along with their voting record on the Jeff Flake anti-pork amendments. This, of course, is not an encouraging list.

Also, notice anybody missing? Here's a hint: Last June, he said that if the Democrats gained control of the House, he would earmark the @#$% out of the Approps subcommittee that he expected to chair.

That's right. Jim Moran got denied. I wonder what the story is behind that.

And while Andrew notes that Jim Moran did not get a subcommittee to chair, I will point out that the Democrats seem to have resolved another knotty ethical question. Specifically, is it OK for West Virginia's Alan Mollohan to chair the subcommittee that funds the Department of Justice, when that same DoJ is investigating his shady financial dealings?

You'll be shocked to know that in this, the most ethical of all Congresses, the Democrats think it's A-OK.

Back to the top.

Meditation on Marble Ceilings

It is taken as a given throughout the media today that all persons of good conscience must be gratified, at least in the abstract, by Pelosi's elevation to the office of Speaker of the House as a triumph for the dignity of women. Isolated contrarians such as Jonah Goldberg have at most professed yawning indifference.

On the other hand what were the qualifications of her rivals for this position? In point of fact she had no rivals at the current moment; her elevation was largely cemented at the time of her elevation to the position of House Whip in October of 2001, defeating Rep. Hoyer, her current intra-party rival, in a 118-95 vote. That victory coupled with Rep. Gephardt's retirement as minority leader in 2002 put her in a strong defensive position to reach the office of Speaker whenever the Democratic Party's fortunes finally turned. Bob Novak contends that Pelosi's elevation in 2001 represented mostly the resurgence of the socially liberal wing of the Democratic Party (embodied by such things as the Progressive Caucus) succeeding in the aftermath of President Clinton's longtime boosting of the New Democrats, aided by the ability of the San Francisco/Sacramento members of that wing to win the support of more moderate California Democrats in that vote.

Given Hoyer's later ability to thwart Pelosi's attempt to prevent him from moving up to Majority Leader, it would seem that the calculations of self-interest of Californian Democratic representatives were decisive, moreso than Pelosi's personal qualifications. That she was a woman was important in making her initial appeal to the identity-politics consciousness of the Progressive Caucus in 2001, to most everybody else it is ancillary to her fortunate family alliances and geographical location.

House Democrats Still Breaking the Law

Roll Call reports that due to 'tremendous, tremendous staff error,' Congressman Bill Jefferson accidentally sent out a fundraising request to his colleagues on Congressional letterhead:

You might think that a guy who’s still the subject of a federal bribery investigation would be more careful than to use taxpayer resources to raise campaign money. But nope, not Jefferson. And heck, he still hasn’t provided us with that “honorable explanation” he promised for the bizarro (and alleged) $90,000 in cash federal agents confiscated from a freezer in his Capitol Hill home.

Last week, House Democrats were shocked to receive a letter from Jefferson — on his official Congressional stationery, no less — asking colleagues to donate money to help him retire his campaign debt.

“As you know,” the letter, dated Dec. 29, 2006, began, “I recently won a grueling race for re-election.” (And won resoundingly in a runoff, despite the ongoing federal probe in which two people have already pleaded guilty.) “In order to get our message out and otherwise compete, we incurred over $200,000 in debt.

“Therefore, I would deeply appreciate it if you would assist me in retiring my debt by contributing $1,000 (or whatever amount you can afford) to my campaign,” Jefferson wrote.

It would really take a 'tremendous' error for something like this to happen innocently. It would mean that the campaign somehow got its hands on official letterhead, or someone in the Congressional office was 'accidentally' doing campaign work on taxpayer time. Typically, Congressional staffers are pretty clear on the fact that neither one of those is allowed to happen.

One would have thought that given John Conyers' recent agreement with the ethics committee, the topic would have been fresh on the mind of the Jefferson staff.

Hat Tip: TPMMuckraker

Attorney General Joins the New York Yankees

Still trying to figure this story out:

The Yankees reached a tentative agreement with Arizona on Thursday to trade Johnson to Arizona for reliever Luis Vizcaino and three minor leaguers, a move that allows the Big Unit's agents to get him a contract extension.

Arizona general manager Josh Byrnes confirmed what he called "an agreement in principle" but did not identify the players that would go to the Yankees.

New York would receive Vizcaino and minor league right-handers Ross Ohlendorf and Steven Jackson, and shortstop Alberto Gonzalez, a baseball official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The Yankees also would pay $2 million of Johnson's $16 million salary this year.

I know that things have not gone the way the Bush administration would like, and Gonzalez faces some tough Congressional oversight hearings, but becoming a shortstop seems a drastic response.

Back to the top.

Can Anyone Explain With a Straight Face...

Why Rep. Cohen Can't Join the CBC?

New Memphis Rep. cordially uninvited to join Congressional Black Caucus. This despite the fact that the 9th district is 60% African-American. The more-or-less open reason given is that the CBC has a colour line and Cohen may not cross it.

I submit that the Democratic Party's professed commitment to equality either of opportunity or of outcomes is in fact merely a posture calculated for political advantage, not one which they would ever seriously inconvenience themselves to realise.


Rep. Ellison of Koran-oath-swearing-fame offers this unselfconsciously hilarious coda in his preening Washington Post editorial breathtakingly entitled " Choose Generosity, Not Exclusion":



"Will the preacher tell our young couple, “God loves you – but only you and people like you?” Or will the preacher say “God loves you and you must love your neighbors of all colors, cultures, or faiths as yourselves”? One message will lead to be a stinginess of spirit, an exclusion of the “undeserving”, and the other will lead to a generosity of spirit and inclusion of all."


Powerful words; more powerful if there were any evidence he meant for them to be applied to anyone but people like himself.

New Orleans Repeating Same Mistakes

An extremely disturbing story in today's Washington Post details how a lack of organization and a rash of political cowardice has led residents of New Orleans to rebuild in the same vulnerable neighborhoods, employing the same risky construction techniques:

After Katrina, teams of planners recommended that broad swaths of vulnerable neighborhoods be abandoned. Yet all areas of the city have at least some residents beginning to rebuild. With billions of dollars in federal relief for homeowners trickling in, more people are expected to follow.

Moreover, while new federal guidelines call for raising houses to reduce the damage of future floods, most returning homeowners do not have to comply or are finding ways around the costly requirement, according to city officials.

"It's terrifying: We're doing the same things we have in the past but expecting different results," said Robert G. Bea, a professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and a former New Orleans resident who served as a member of the National Science Foundation panel that studied the city's levees...

Mike Centineo, the city's building chief, said, "Legally and morally, we're doing the right thing," but he acknowledged that most returning homeowners are not raising their houses to meet the new flood guidelines. "You wouldn't want to put people through more than they can endure. It's a catastrophe that happened. No one wants it to happen again. But they're just rebuilding as best they can."

The chairman of the federal Gulf Coast rebuilding office, Donald E. Powell, said recently that "tough decisions" about where to repopulate this half-empty city are necessary.

"The President and I believe planning decisions should not be made in Washington, but rather at the local level," he said in a statement. "However at some point, there needs to be strong local leadership, and that includes making tough decisions about the city's size and the safety of her citizens. Federal tax dollars should not be used to rebuild in places that repeatedly flood or are damaged due to Mother Nature -- in New Orleans or elsewhere."

Whatever decisions are to be made, however, none is likely to come soon. And as time rolls on, and as more houses in vulnerable neighborhoods are reinhabited, it will grow more difficult, politically and financially, to lead residents to safer areas...

But Nagin, who was hearing complaints that shrinking the city's footprint was unfair, particularly to African Americans, rejected the idea. Everyone should be able to return to their homes, he said.

"I'm not ready to concede that neighborhoods need to be demolished," Nagin said at the time.

Officials in St. Bernard Parish, meanwhile, rejected closing off a particularly hard-hit 36-block section of Chalmette because they could not afford to buy out property owners.

Once the idea of neighborhood closures was dropped, many pinned their hopes for added safety on the new federal guidelines for elevating homes. "Substantially damaged" houses in the area now must be raised, often three feet above the ground. But the requirements contain enormous loopholes, and there is a huge financial incentive to avoid them.

Raising a house can cost upwards of $50,000, especially for the modern suburban homes built on concrete slabs in some of the most flooded areas. The federal government offers grants of as much as $30,000 for repairs, but in many cases much more is required.

"The vast majority simply do not have the financial resources to rebuild differently," said Greg Rigamer, chief executive of GCR & Associates and a consultant in the rebuilding.

Residents could avoid having to comply with the new guidelines by getting permits before the rules were enacted locally -- thousands in New Orleans did -- or if their houses were determined to be less than 50 percent damaged by Katrina.

Many homes, even those that took on 10 feet of water for weeks, have been designated beneath that threshold, including hundreds whose owners appealed larger initial damage assessments...

It's stunning that given the level of attention to this disaster, such a foolish reconstruction plan is being allowed to go forward. And while it's no surprise, it's still pathetic that the city's local leadership supports it. If there is anything that Mayor Nagin has demonstrated, it's that he is incompetent, and cannot be trusted to protect the city from natural disaster. The city's policy on reconstruction demonstrates that reputation will remain intact.

Perhaps the new Democratic Congress can demonstrate its commitment to oversight by finding out why the Bush Administration isn't doing everyhing it cann to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted, while simultaneously endangering more lives.

Back to the top.

Mighty Mouse, Explained

I know a fellow who, as part of the labwork for his M.D., had to anesthetize mice. I am told that the easy way to do it is to pull firmly on the tail, in order to snap the neck.

He would not have been so dispassionate I imagine, if he were dealing with these super-mice:

Throwing a genetic switch helps mice grow more of a mysterious muscle fiber that lets them run farther and longer than normal mice, a paper in the January issue of the journal Cell Metabolism reports.

A team at Harvard Medical School was able to increase the activity of a gene called PGC-1 beta in the mice.

The gene increases the growth of a little-understood muscle fiber called IIX, which is very efficient and very quick.

Usually a muscle fiber is one or the other.

The more IIX fibers in a muscle, the longer and harder it can work.

This could lead to drugs that change the composition of muscle, boosting strength and endurance in patients with muscle-wasting conditions, such as paraplegia and muscular dystrophies, says Bruce Spiegelman, who led the research.

Back to the top.

Sen. Johnson Recuperating over Long Term

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports on a Wednesday interview with Sen. Johnson's spokeswoman, revealing that it will be several months before he can be expected to be back on the Senate floor.

But the overall prognosis seems good, so we wish him a speedy recovery.