The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the news of this Tuesday; then a debate about talking directly to Iran; a Darfur update from Margaret Warner in Sudan; the latest on the Abramoff lobbying scandal; a NewsHour report on the troubles of homeowners' insurance after Katrina; and a conversation about what makes for great American poetry.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Iraq appeared close today to putting a new government in place. That word came from the prime minister-designate, Nouri al-Maliki. He said he expects to present the new cabinet to parliament by the weekend. Maliki told a news conference political leaders have agreed on who will get key positions. He did not give details. In northern Iraq, a suicide truck bomber attacked a market in Tal Afar, killing 17 people and wounding dozens. Elsewhere, police found the bodies of 17 more Iraqis. They'd been tortured. And the U.S. military reported another American soldier was killed Monday in east Baghdad.

Permanent members of the U.N. Security Council failed to agree today on how to halt Iran's nuclear program. Instead, Britain, France, and Germany will craft new incentives and sanctions to present to Iran.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said that effort might help bring the Security Council together.

JOHN BOLTON: I think we've been fairly candid that the state of play in the discussions on the draft resolution had not reached that point. So to the extent that there's an opportunity to continue to pursue unity among the five permanent members, I think that's a desirable objective, and that certainly we will continue here in the course of the negotiations to see if we can't make progress as well.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on Iran right after this News Summary. The U.N. humanitarian chief appealed to Sudan today to help aid workers in Darfur. Jan Egeland met with officials in Khartoum. He urged them to ease travel curbs and red tape, as a food shortage looms in refugee camps. Yesterday, rioting broke out during Egeland's visit to the Kalma camp. Later, an African Union translator was hacked to death.

Today Egeland called for calm.

JAN EGELAND: Yesterday was nothing short of a symbol of the tension now building within the camps, not only in Kalma but in other camps that we saw the people doing things that are totally unacceptable; namely, attacking both humanitarian workers and African Union colleagues.

JIM LEHRER: Later, Egeland reported his talks led to new cooperation by Sudan's government. We'll have more on Darfur from Margaret Warner later in the program.

Egyptian police today killed a militant leader wanted in a series of Sinai bombings. The most recent was last month, in Dahab, a beach resort on the Red Sea. In that attack, a series of three explosions killed 21 people and wounded more than 150 others. Some of the victims were foreign tourists. Police said the man killed today also masterminded earlier bombings in Sinai.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld today praised the nomination of Air Force General Mike Hayden to run the CIA. Some in Congress have criticized having a military man take over the CIA, a civilian agency. But Rumsfeld rejected the criticism. He also said talk that he's trying to take more control of intelligence is "off the mark."

DONALD RUMSFELD: We do not have issues between John Negroponte. We do not have issues been Porter Goss or George Tenet, nor will we have with General Hayden, assuming he's confirmed. I feel very good about the relationships. There's no power play taking place in Washington. People can run around and find somebody who will tell them anything they want. But it's interesting how little facts get attached to any of these thumb-suckers that get printed in the press.

JIM LEHRER: Hayden made the rounds at the Capitol today. He met with senators who will vote on his confirmation.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 55 points to close above 11,639. The NASDAQ fell more than six points to close at 2338. That's it for the News Summary tonight.

Now, the pros and cons of speaking directly with Iran; Margaret from Sudan; the growing Abramoff storm; Katrina insurance fallout; and what makes great poetry.

FOCUS DIRECT TALKS?

JIM LEHRER: Talking directly to Iran, and to Gwen Ifill, who begins with some background.

GWEN IFILL: These images of 52 Americans held hostage at the United States embassy in Tehran have defined the United States' strained relationship with Iran for nearly 27 years.

Although the U.S. has officially severed ties with Iran, there have been sporadic efforts at communication over the years.

After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Iran helped the United States overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. But Iran's nuclear ambitions have escalated tensions between the two countries.

Yesterday Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sent President Bush a letter that marked the first direct communication in decades between U.S. and Iranian heads of state. In it, he took the United States to task for its support of Israel, the war in Iraq and obliquely its criticism of Iran's nuclear development program. Why is it,' he wrote, that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime?' Those in power have specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely,' he continued. But their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies.'

The U.S. has asked the United Nations Security Council to demand that Iran stop its program of nuclear enrichment. Go-betweens in Europe, mainly Britain, France and Germany, have led that charge attempting to declare Iran a threat to international peace as a first step towards sanctions.

But those negotiations reached another impasse today after China and Russia resisted. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is involved in talks this week at the U.N., weighed in.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The political directors are examining how to show Iran that there is a path that could lead them to a civil nuclear program that would be acceptable to the international community.

We are also, however, very clear that there is a path that if Iran continues down it is going to lead them to isolation, and that is why we are continuing to discuss and, indeed, intend to propose and pass a resolution that makes very clear to Iran that living up to their obligations, the obligations set out by the board of governors is obligatory.

GWEN IFILL: There are some officials, among them U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who say the U.S. should deal with Iran directly. Annan spoke to Jim Lehrer last week.

KOFI ANNAN: And I think it would be good if the U.S. were to be at the table with the Europeans, the Iranians the Russians to try and work this out. If everybody, all the stakeholders and the key players were around the table, I think it would be possible to work out a package that would satisfy the concerns of everybody.

GWEN IFILL: In Florida today President Bush repeated his desire for a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear dispute but did not comment directly on Ahmadinejad's letter.

GWEN IFILL: Now more on the tough talk on Iran. Flynt Leverett, a former CIA Middle East analyst served on the National Security Council staff during President Bush's first term. He was then an advisor to the John Kerry presidential campaign and is now a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Michael Rubin worked on Iran policy as a staff assistant in the office of the secretary of defense from 2002 to 2004. He's now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of the book "Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos."

Let's talk first of all about the Iranian president's unusually long kind of rambling, scolding letter that he sent to President Bush yesterday. Anything significant about that, Flynt Leverett?

FLYNT LEVERETT: I think what's significant is that what it underscores is that the Iranian leadership has over the time that the Bush administration has been in office tried a number of times to open a direct channel, open direct negotiations with the United States. This letter simply highlights those efforts.

Those efforts have gone on not only before President Ahmadinejad was elected but since President Ahmadinejad took office in Tehran last year. And it really raises the question: If the Iranian are willing to pursue direct negotiations with the United States, why isn't the administration taking them up on it?

GWEN IFILL: It raises the question, but the letter doesn't actually say -- in fact, the letter seems to be a series of questions about the shortcomings of the United States. Did you read it as an opening?

MICHAEL RUBIN: I certainly did not. If anything, I think it's going to raise real concerns in Washington about the nature of the Iranian regime. The letter questions once again the Holocaust. It questions once again whether there was any cover-up to 9/11. It's going to make people in Washington very, very worried about who we would be dealing with in Iran and whether we should throw our lot to the Iranian government, rather than reach out more towards the Iranian people as a way to try to moderate the Iranian government.

GWEN IFILL: Excuse me. Why dismiss it out of hand like the administration did, just give it the back of its hand?

MICHAEL RUBIN: Well, there's two reasons. First of all, Iran has been conditioned to be rewarded for intransigence. The United States has cast its lot with the multilateral diplomacy of the EU-3 and that process is still ongoing. Iran needs to deal not just with the United States but with the IAEA and the European Union. And Secretary of State Rice has said we support that process.

The other reason is 80 percent of the Iranian people are pretty fed up with their own government, with its economy, with its politics, with the system. And the last thing we want to do is what we did in 1953 and 1979, which is throw our support to an unpopular regime against the will of the Iranian people. We shouldn't make the mistake three times.

GWEN IFILL: How about that, Flynt Leverett, why wouldn't going to the table to speak eye-to-eye with the Iranians, why wouldn't that be accommodations on the part of the United States?

FLYNT LEVERETT: I don't think negotiations in themselves are an accommodation or a concession to the Iranians. Negotiations are how the United States pursues its interests with regimes with which it has differences in situations where you may not immediately want to resort to the use of military force.

Negotiations are the way that we pursue our interests and for us to forego that channel on I don't know quite what grounds on the part of the administration that make any sense, to forego that channel doesn't serve our interest and makes no strategic sense.

GWEN IFILL: What should be on the table if there were to be discussions even back-channel discussions? Should it just be the nuclear weapons program? Should it be WMDs of a different kind? Should it be human rights?

MICHAEL RUBIN: Well, U.S. policy has been pretty consistent across the Clinton and the Bush administrations. The U.S. has three main concerns: Iran's violent opposition to the peace process; weapons of mass destruction; and Iran's support for terrorism. Throw into that the Bush administration's concern with regard to democracy and human rights, that's what the Americans would want on the table. Iran, of course, has its own concerns. The question is, again, why should we sit down and just talk about one issue when there's so much that we could discuss and also there's the other question of who within the Iranian system would we be discussing it with.

GWEN IFILL: Why not direct talks as part of this whole mix if you're going to broaden this out to just talk about everything?

FLYNT LEVERETT: I would agree. I don't think an issue-by issue approach is going to work. We've actually tried that with Iran on a limited basis in the past and even where we've made progress on single issues, we've never been able to leverage it into something bigger.

I would agree if we're going to do this, we need to be willing to take on all the outstanding bilateral differences between Iran and the United States and resolve them in a package. That's the only way this is going to happen.

GWEN IFILL: Assuming that Iran believes -- we've heard the president saying repeatedly, we're not taking anything off the table in terms of what we're willing to do to force action or to force concessions which leads to the impression that military action, for instance, is on the table. Is it?

MICHAEL RUBIN: I think U.S. military action is very much on the table, but it's at the end of a very long process. Where I would fault the Bush administration is that there's lots of tools that could be used between just engagement, the speaking softly and carrying a big carrot' approach and just military action, speaking loudly and carrying a big stick.'

GWEN IFILL: Where do you think we are today?

MICHAEL RUBIN: Today we're in a muddle. But I would argue we could replicate the Gdansk model that worked in 1981 with solidarity and reach out to independent labor unions. We could be doing much more with civil society, not with any particular political group, but the key problem with Iran right now is that the government isn't accountable to their own people.

The Iranian people are a lot more moderate than the Islamic republic's leadership. And that's what the letter has shown.

GWEN IFILL: Sounds like you're saying that regime change is the ultimate goal here, not just negotiating different bits of this.

MICHAEL RUBIN: The problem, I do believe, is ideology but there's no reason why Iran should get a free pass. For example, why we should support independent labor in Poland or the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon or the Rose Revolution in Georgia and yet say to Iran, we're not --we're going to give you a free pass to do a Tiananmen Square when you don't give a hoot about civil society.

GWEN IFILL: It sounds, Flynt Leverett, like he's talking about you can only make fundamental change if you change the leadership. Is that something that you think is at the root of all of this?

FLYNT LEVERETT: I think that is very much a widely shared belief at the higher levels of the Bush administration. I think it under girds the reluctance of the administration to engage directly with this regime.

Unfortunately, I think the president will be reluctant to do a deal with the regime if it ends up that he's, in effect, legitimating this regime that he considers fundamentally illegitimate. I say that's unfortunate because I think it means we are foregoing real opportunities to get very serious security and political problems addressed. And I don't think that serves American interests very well.

GWEN IFILL: Iran helped the United States in Afghanistan. Iran helped the United States at least it's offered to help the United States in Iraq by at least participating in some conversations. Why isn't there some reward due them?

MICHAEL RUBIN: Well, with friends like these, I would very much disagree with the assessment that Iran has been that helpful in either Afghanistan or in Iraq. Back in 2003, one of the problems was that Iran was sheltering al-Qaida, according to Agence France-Presse inside revolutionary guard bases, not just passively in the country. Within Iraq -- you know, a friend of mine just came back from Tehran and picked up a magazine called Psychological Operations, which had all various articles about how the Iranians were trying to thwart the liberation of Iraq and the democratization of Iraq. That's not very helpful. And it's one of the reasons why there's so little trust in Iranian sincerity because the talks which Flynt had talked about back in 2003 and earlier didn't really produce

much.

GWEN IFILL: Is that at the root at the lot of this is basic old-fashioned lack of trust?

FLYNT LEVERETT: I think that's an inaccurate reading of the record. I think that Iranian cooperation with the United States on Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks was critical to the success of our efforts to get rid of the Taliban and stand up the Karzai government in its stead.

From an Iranian perspective, their reward for that was to be labeled part of the axis of evil in President Bush's January 2002 State of the Union Address. There is considerable distrust and historical baggage on both sides. That's part of what makes this a difficult issue to move forward. But to say that that baggage and that mistrust is a reason for not trying when it is manifestly in U.S. interest to try, I think, is a real strategic misjudgment.

GWEN IFILL: Probably understating it to call this baggage, but there are two big issues, sticking points which seem to always come back: One is Israel and the hostility which Iran or at least this current president and past leaders have expressed toward Israel. And the other is Iran's nuclear ambitions. How huge a sticking point are those two issues for anything that might come out of the United Nations or anything that the United States might be willing to do?

MICHAEL RUBIN: I don't think Israel would be that huge of a sticking point. First of all, there's a pattern that people like to negotiate with chips they don't have. Saddam Hussein did the same thing after the invasion of Kuwait. But when you talk to Iranians, their main concern on the ground in Iran tends to be much more Pakistan because when Pakistan tested its nuclear weapon, it did so not too far -- a couple dozen kilometers away from the Iranian border and the Iranians saw that as a message to them.

However, the big thing we need to get over with this is the fact that Iran doesn't seem to be a status quo power. And it's all well and good to say that we can achieve things through negotiations, that it would be an American interest.

But if your partner is not sincere, then it would be detrimental to American interests to allow the Iranians to run the clock down.

GWEN IFILL: Flynt Leverett.

FLYNT LEVERETT: I think I would agree with Michael that Israel doesn't need to be a major sticking point. Apart from President Ahmadinejad, Iranian leaders have communicated to the United States in previous overtures that they would be prepared to accept a two-state approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, which at least implies they are prepared to recognize the state of Israel.

The issue is really what do we want to accomplish in terms of our relationship with Iran and how best do we get there? I don't think either regime change, unilateral military action against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure or vainly hoping that the Security Council is going to impose serious sanctions on Iran will get us there. The channel that might get us there is direct strategically grounded diplomacy with Tehran.

GWEN IFILL: Flynn Leverett, Michael Rubin, thank you both very much.

FLYNT LEVERETT: Thank you.

MICHAEL RUBIN: Thank you.

UPDATE CRISIS IN DARFUR

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner is reporting this week from Darfur and Sudan. Today she's in the Sudan capital of Khartoum.

MARGARET WARNER: The ink is barely dry on the Darfur peace deal. And in Khartoum today, the Sudanese government was coming under pressure to help make the agreement a success and preserve lives in the meantime.

Jan Egeland, the U.N. Undersecretary-General who yesterday wrapped up a two-day visit to South Darfur, was today in the Sudanese capital, hoping to make headway in talks with government leaders and acknowledging that much hard work lies ahead.

JAN EGELAND: This is the only agreement that we have, and we need to embrace it and we need to realize this agreement. It will take time. That's why I say this is the moment of truth. This is the critical phase. This is when we either turn towards something better or something worse.

The next few weeks will be fateful. I do foresee a lot of tension, a lot of problems, a lot of uphill now for all of us, but I think we're heading towards something better. To continue like now is really a disaster scenario.

MARGARET WARNER: One key issue Egeland raised with Sudanese officials: His demand that a Norwegian Non-Governmental Organization be allowed to resume its work overseeing one of Darfur's largest refugee camps. Egeland says yesterday's incident right after his visit to the Kalma camp where a Sudanese interpreter working for the African Union was killed by a mob is proof that simmering tensions have gone unmanaged since the Norwegian NGO was ordered out by the government in Khartoum.

At a news conference today, a reporter with Sudan's state news agency challenged him saying that government sources were blaming Egeland for sparking the violence by telling refugees of impending cuts in U.N. food rations.

JAN EGELAND: I am right and they are wrong -- as simple as that. What I said in the camp to the people was, yes, what you have heard, that the food rations will be cut is true. It will happen for several months. They did not like to hear this confirmation, but it did not provoke any anger.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Egeland is not the U.N. official chiefly responsible for implementing the peace agreement, but the answers he gets here in Khartoum on the humanitarian issues that are his concern can be read as indicators of the Sudan government's willingness to take the other steps needed to make the peace deal work.

In the meantime, without progress on the humanitarian front, the U.N. warns that Darfur could be facing catastrophe. The first signs of that can be seen near the town of Garada in South Darfur. The refugee camp here now houses 120,000 residents. It has tripled in size in just four months. There are no structures to shelter new arrivals, no tents, no plastic sheeting. Only the trees offer protection from temperatures that can reach 115 degrees by early afternoon.

Asha Ibrahim Ali has been here for two weeks now after being driven from her village under what she says was a coordinated assault by the Sudanese military and the government-backed Janjaweed militia.

ASHA IBRAHIM ALI (speaking through interpreter): The military came and attacked first. After that the militia came. They killed our children. They looted the house. They even took all our clothes. They did not leave anything for us.

MARGARET WARNER: With only a small African Union force deployed in Garada, she and other refugees remain deeply worried about their personal security.

What's more, the African Union force is completely incapable of bringing security to the vast, lawless area between the camp and the nearest sizable city. The road into Garada is a no-go zone for humanitarian aid groups that are trying to truck desperately needed food and supplies to the camp.

The refugees do have access to water. Aid workers have dug some wells and work has begun on one project that should vastly increase the supply. But the machines they're using to dig this bore hole need fuel. And the local governor appointed by Khartoum won't allow fuel trucks, arguing they're susceptible to being hijacked by rebel groups.

During his visit to Darfur, Egeland protested the fact that aid workers are being physically intimidated by rebel and government forces alike and hit with onerous new visa, travel and work permit restrictions by the Khartoum government. Aid workers themselves won't voice those complaints publicly for fear that Khartoum will retaliate by kicking them out entirely.

LEONARD TEDD, OXFAM: OXFAM and ICRC are the only agencies with significant bases here largely because of logistical and security concerns.

MARGARET WARNER: And who is to blame for that?

LEONARD TEDD: I can't answer.

MARGARET WARNER: Egeland said today that he had a good meeting with Sudan's minister for humanitarian affairs on the four issues that could improve the situation in Garada and throughout Darfur. Providing real security the camps, lifting the new restrictions on aid workers, getting the Norwegian NGO back into the Kalma camp and donating Sudanese government food stocks to make up for the shortfall in food aid from the international community.

But when we talked with the minister, Kosti Manibe, he said that regretfully none of the first three issues was handled by his department.

Would the Sudanese government lift all the new restrictions on NGOs?

KOSTI MANIBE, Minister, Humanitarian Affairs, Sudan: That is our hope. I also will tell you that it is not humanitarian affairs that does everything to facilitate the work of humanitarian organizations.

For example, visas are not issued by the minister of humanitarian affairs. It is issued elsewhere.

MARGARET WARNER: But late tonight after meeting with Sudan's powerful vice president, Egeland said he had received a firm commitment to allow the Norwegian NGO back into Kalma camp and had been substantial progress in the other areas.

He said he was elated to hear Sudan was willing to donate food which, coupled with President Bush's announcement of enthusiasm shipments, could make it possible to maintain Darfur refugees' food rations at full strength.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: the latest on the Abramoff lobbying scandal; post-Katrina homeowners insurance; and a poetry conversation.

FOCUS LOBBYING PROBE

JIM LEHRER: Judy Woodruff has our Abramoff update.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The list of former Jack Abramoff associates who have pleaded guilty to criminal corruption charges has now grown to four. The latest came yesterday when Neil Volz, a one-time chief of staff to Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney, admitted in court that he tried illegally to influence his former boss on Abramoff's behalf. Guilty pleas also have come from two former staffers of ex-Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

So where do those pleas, plus Abramoff's own admission of guilt back in January, take the federal investigation into the congressional lobbying scandal?

For that, we're joined by James Grimaldi of the Washington Post, who, along with two of his colleagues, recently won a Pulitzer Prize for their investigative reporting on Jack Abramoff. We're also joined by Amy Walter from the Cook Political Report who has been watching the election-year fallout from the Abramoff affair and other alleged congressional misdeeds.

Amy Walter, James Grimaldi, thank you both.

James, to you first: With this latest guilty plea, where does this leave the whole Abramoff investigation?

JAMES GRIMALDI: Well, as we reported last fall, we think there are at least a half dozen lawmakers who may still be under scrutiny. And with every additional Abramoff aide who comes in to the picture and pleads guilty, you may have the possibility of even more lawmakers. You don't know what deals or what schemes those particular people who have pled might be able to provide information to the government nor to just sort of build on the case. So, you know, in many ways we're just getting close to the end of the beginning when it comes to the Abramoff scandal.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What makes you and others think that other members of Congress may be involved?

JAMES GRIMALDI: Well, when you look at the records, the people who have been subpoenaed, some of the emails that have been released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and many of the stories that we investigated last year, we see that there are up to half a dozen people. We've named some of them in some of our stories. And we've talked to many of the lawmakers' lawyers. We know that they've subpoenaed certain pieces of information. So we gather it from the public record largely and through interviews.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mostly Republicans? Some Democrats?

JAMES GRIMALDI: In the Abramoff case right now, we only know of Republicans. There is certainly a potential for Democrats.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's talk quickly about Bob Ney, the congressman from Ohio. That's who Neil Volz worked for. Does this -- does the fact that Neil Volz has pled guilty now, does that -- is that a problem? How much of a problem is it for Congressman Ney?

JAMES GRIMALDI: Well, Neil Volz was very close to Bob Ney. He was his confidant. Bob Ney hired him out of college at Ohio State when Ney was in the legislature and then brought him to Washington. Then after he left -- after he had worked for Bob Ney in Congress for seven years, he then went to -- Mr. Volz went to work for Jack Abramoff.

He's now admitted that he gave gifts to Congressman Ney when he worked for Jack Abramoff, and he accepted gifts from Jack Abramoff, as did Mr. Ney.

You know, the case is going to get difficult in terms of whether they're proving bribery or they're going for this honest-to-dishonest services clause in the legal findings. A bribery case requires a quid pro quo, a specific act in exchange for a gift; whereas, the government seems to be going for a stream of things of value in exchange for a stream of actions. And that might be a somewhat novel approach in this case.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Amy Walter, James is saying so far mostly Republicans -- there could be some Democrats -- but right now mostly a headache for the Republican Party?

AMY WALTER: Well, it's interesting in the paper today, in the Washington Post, you look at the front page and the story is about Bob Ney but flip on the inside and there's story about Democrat Bill Jefferson from Louisiana.

There have also been stories in other papers now about another Democrat, Alan Mollohan from West Virginia. Both are now being investigated on ethics issues.

Interestingly enough, Mollohan is the ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee, agreed to step down off the Ethics Committee. It really doesn't help your case when you're on the Ethics Committee and have to step off in terms of making this a Republican culture of corruption, as Democrats are trying to do.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And they are saying that. You have the Democrats right and left all over the map saying, look, generic polls, these so-called these polls where you ask people would you rather have a Republican or a Democrat representing you in Congress leadership, the majority in Congress and without a name attached, people say -- for the last few months have given a pretty distinctive to the Democrats. But --

AMY WALTER: Right but I think it's absolutely right that Democrats are going into this election with a very strong tail wind. And a lot of that is about the president's low approval ratings, voters feeling overwhelmingly pessimistic about the direction of the country. The fact that Congress right now does have a 23 percent approval rating certainly doesn't help. And, yes, it's controlled by Republicans. And, yes, the Jack Abramoff scandal is focusing almost exclusively on Republicans.

I think the problem, however, when you also look at polls you ask voters, well, who do you think is responsible for these ethics problems in Washington? What party is most responsible? And, overwhelmingly, voters say it's both parties; it's not Democrats, it's not Republicans. They're all responsible for this.

So I think the danger for Democrats first of all, they have some of their own members, as I mentioned, in ethical hot water -- so that makes it more difficult to make this case.

The other part is that voters right now don't want -- I think the reason the approval ratings are so low is they don't want to continue to see this partisan bickering -- this back and forth and pointing fingers. And I think it's dangerous for Democrats to try to build a case for changing Congress simply on this idea about culture of corruption.

I think the overall message of change works for Democrats but it has to be much broader.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, in fact, it's a number of issues that are going to be on voters' minds when they go to vote in November from economy to Iraq to gas prices, and so forth.

AMY WALTER: Exactly.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It's not just going to be --

AMY WALTER: It's not just going to be -- running simply on that issue is not going to help Democrats.

JUDY WOODRUFF: If you step back, James Grimaldi, and you are -- whether you're Bob Ney or someone else, what are you worried about at this point? I mean, where do you expect the next shoe to drop?

JAMES GRIMALDI: Well, I think we've got a trial coming up with a GSA, Government Services Administration official later this month, David Safavian. We also have another government official in the Interior Department, Steven Griles, who is under investigation.

I think what you're going to see is an unfolding investigation at the Justice Department. We don't know how long it's going to last though. You know, there's lots of predictions here and there about whether, you know, many of this will come in election time or not.

I think you've got a long haul to go. It could go on for several years. And, you know, any politicians who may be expecting indictments or other developments in order to advance their particular political agendas, I can tell you the Public Integrity Division is not one that is looking at the electoral calendar.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, just quickly, Amy, if you're a member of Congress and you're worried about your party looking bad on this ethical question, what do you say to the voters to help yourself? Is there anything?

AMY WALTER: Well, I think what we're going to see in this election is incumbents, as well as challengers, trying to distance themselves as far as they can from Washington, really trying to isolate themselves from here, running -- even when you're an insider, you're going to brag about what you've been doing as an outsider.

So no one -- I don't think you're going to see a whole lot of folks running on the idea that being an insider is what voters right now are looking for.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. And all this on May 9 -- we've got a lot more to think about.

Amy Walter, James Grimaldi, thank you both.

JAMES GRIMALDI: Thank you.

AMY WALTER: Thank you.

FOCUS INSURANCE WOES

JIM LEHRER: Now, big problems with homeowners insurance in Louisiana after Katrina. NewsHour correspondent Lee Hochberg of Oregon Public Television has our story.

(MUSIC)

LEE HOCHBERG: Last week star-studded jazz festival at the New Orleans fair grounds with music legends Dr. John, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen tried to send a message that New Orleans is back on its feet.

But elsewhere in town, the obstacles the city faces are acutely clear. Miles of houses sit gutted and empty, some still strewn on their sides in the low-income Ninth Ward.

Others like rows of empty doll houses in upscale Lake View. Little is being done to restore them. Still unresolved damage claims are one problem, but acquiring homeowners' insurance to help residents purchase new homes has become another.

Thousands of New Orleanians simply can't get insurance. And without it, they're unable to qualify for a mortgage.

EMPLOYEE ON PHONE: Louisiana Department of Insurance.

CALLER: Yes, I need help.

LEE HOCHBERG: Workers at the Louisiana Insurance Commission are receiving some 15,000 complaint calls per month.

CALLER: We're desperate here.

EMPLOYEE ON PHONE: Okay.

CALLER: I can't get insurance. I need to find out who do I talk to about it?

LEE HOCHBERG: New Orleans needs families like Nelson Alexander's to return if it's going to recover. His wife and kids are 300 miles away in Shreveport. He's living in a FEMA trailer. There's not much left to his house.

NELSON ALEXANDER: If you were to pull that wall, it would come tumbling down. It's barely hanging on.

LEE HOCHBERG: But Alexander's insurance company of 20 years, All State, refused to sell him homeowners insurance after he put down money for a new house. Other insurers refused as well.

NELSON ALEXANDER: We just want to come home. We want to come home and get on with our lives again. We want to be normal. Give us the insurance that we need to come home.

MARY ANN CASEY: There's no reason that we should be experiencing that.

LEE HOCHBERG: New Orleans real estate broker Mary Ann Casey says she lost several recent sales when home buyers were unable to acquire insurance.

MARY ANN CASEY: You can beg people to come home. You can spend any amount of effort afternoon energy that you want but if you can't put properties back into commerce and repopulate the part of the city, it's going to be virtually impossible to rebuild the city.

LEE HOCHBERG: All State and State Farm, the two companies that dominate the New Orleans insurance market, have stopped writing new policies in most of its neighborhoods. It's part of a move by the insurance industry to reduce its risk in hurricane-prone areas.

For those All State already insurers, premiums have soared as much as 52 percent. The New Orleans Times Picayune called the increases devastating and said they could well hamper the redevelopment of greater New Orleans.

Bill Davis is an insurance industry spokesman.

BILL DAVIS: The problem here is the huge amount of payouts that we've had to make. 25 years' worth of premiums, homeowners' premiums wiped out with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That's a major, major problem that has to be dealt with.

LEE HOCHBERG: The way all state and other top insurers dealt with the problem was to stop writing policies in New Orleans and among much of the Gulf Coast. Davis said the Gulf Coast is in a new cycle of violent weather.

BILL DAVIS: A lot of this looks like instead of every ten years or so, we're into this cycle where the storms are going to be hitting more and more frequently. A lot of the companies are concerned about this. They're trying to make sure that the risks they have, they can meet.

LEE HOCHBERG: But some Louisiana officials argue the industry should already be able to meet that risk. Since Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the industry has collected increased premiums based on 100 years of weather records that reflect how often hurricanes occur.

Steven Ruiz of the State Insurance Rating Commission argues the industry had a $427 billion pre-Katrina surplus last year and $43 billion in earnings. He says it's really trying to maximize its profit.

STEVEN RUIZ: For the last ten years I've been giving them rate increased based on the fact that some day we were going to have this hurricane and we were going to have this kind of devastation. But what did they do with the money? You know. They pay out a lot of bonus money to high executives. They don't want to talk about that. That's private. These guys need to make money in this business but they don't need to gouge people.

BILL DAVIS: We don't believe we're gouging. We're just prohibited from that. But we have to take the necessary financial steps to ensure that we can pay our future obligations. We're helping the people down here. We've paid out millions in claims over millions of claims and we're continuing to pay out. We will -- we're working to try to solve all of these problems and continue to do business down here.

JIM DONELON, Commissioner of Insurance, Louisiana: It keeps me awake at night.

LEE HOCHBERG: The state's top insurance regulator, Jim Donelon, says he can't do much about the availability and the affordability issues. He notes a few insurers are underwriting niche markets like homes valued at $500,000 or more. And some 75,000 Louisiana residents have turned to the state-sponsored Louisiana Citizens Plan, a policy that offers insurance for those who can't find it elsewhere. That policy by law is more expensive than the marketplace average, and Donelon says really a choice of last resort.

JIM DONELON: It's not a pretty picture, not a cheap or inexpensive route but it's there by law for anyone who needs it.

LEE HOCHBERG: He says prospective home buyers may just have to wait one to four years for new players to enter the insurance market.

JIM DONELON: I truly do believe that this crisis is going to create opportunities for new entrepreneurs, for companies that we're not aware of here today that are going to come to Louisiana and make money writing homeowners in those abandoned markets by the big guys. But if we have bad hurricanes again, that will scare the dickens out of them again, no doubt.

LEE HOCHBERG: Then your one- to four-year --

JIM DONELON: Goes longer, goes longer.

LEE HOCHBERG: Ruiz says New Orleans can't wait that long.

STEVEN RUIZ: When you have this type of situation, you need to have regulation to make insurance affordable and available to the people here.

LEE HOCHBERG: And if it's not --

STEVEN RUIZ: If you don't have it, they're going to leave. They're going to go where they can afford it. They're not going to come back to this area.

LEE HOCHBERG: Those determined to come back may need to take a financial risk. Paul Varisco and his wife have lived in 15 homes since Katrina destroyed their house. Though he says he continued to pay All State $700 a month on his damaged house, the company refused to underwrite this new house.

Unable then to get a mortgage, he and his son ended up buying it with $400,000 cash. He's angry at his insurer of 36 years but doubts any new companies that come to town would be any better.

PAUL VARISCO: I don't have a lot of confidence in that. You know, it may have to happen. Again, if you don't know who they are and how strong they are financially, you know, what are we doing? We're spending money in hopes that they'll have enough money if something should happen.

WOMAN: Cut, cut, cut.

LEE HOCHBERG: Darlene Schnatz says she's just thankful her family decided to repair their damaged home, rather than buy a new one. She thus was covered by a state emergency declaration that prevents insurers from dropping her coverage until the repairs are complete. She's also glad she didn't cancel her policy on her own even as they are house sat under 12 feet of water.

DARLENE SCHNATZ: I think that I was given some inspiration there to just not make any rash decisions. I'm very grateful I did not cancel the policy because I don't think I would be able to have insurance.

LEE HOCHBERG: Late last week there was a solution in at least one case. After many phone calls, Nelson Alexander and his wife were granted homeowners' insurance by the AAA auto club. The couple hopes to close on their new house soon. Some insurers say the only larger solution is a proposed federal catastrophe fund to back them up, but a plan to create one is stalled in Congress.

FOCUS POETRY ACROSS TIME

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, another in our occasional series on poets and poetry. Tonight, a new look at the canon of American poetry. Jeffrey Brown has our conversation.

JEFFREY BROWN: When Walt Whitman wrote his poem "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" in 1856, he spoke directly to his readers, both in his time and in ours.

DAVID LEHMAN, Editor, The Oxford Book of American Poetry' (reading poem): I am with you, you men and women of a generation, wherever so many generations hence. Just as you feel when you look on the river and sky, so I felt.'

JEFFREY BROWN: For David Lehman, the editor of the newly revised Oxford Book of American Poetry,' Whitman shows both the timelessness and the freshness of American poetry.

DAVID LEHMAN: Just as you are refreshed by the gladness of the river and the bright flow, I was refreshed.'

JEFFREY BROWN: Lehman, himself a poet and teacher, says his revision the first in 30 years was a chance to update and look anew at the American canon to see a line from Ann Bradstreet in the 17th century to Emily Dickinson in 19th, Langston Hughes in the 20th and Jorie Graham --born in 1950 -- the cutoff date for this volume -- writing in our own time.

To see new or little known names like Angelina Weld Grime besides the famous ones like T.S. Eliot -- even to shake up the mix by including lyrics from Bessie Smith and Bob Dylan.

I talked with David Lehman in New York recently.

JEFFREY BROWN: What did you want to accomplish here? What's the goal in putting together this collection?

DAVID LEHMAN I think you want to fix a canon or establish a canon of what are the works we want to perpetuate for this generation and for our children. And I am always guided by the aim of wanting to bring poetry to the people. I think our poetry is a great cultural glory. And there sometimes is a disconnect between the creation of poetry and the consumption thereof.

JEFFREY BROWN: One thing looks like you did is you're just more expansive than your predecessors. You have more poets and more poems.

DAVID LEHMAN: Richard Ellmann in 1976 had 78 poets in a very good volume called the New Oxford Book of American Verse.'

We have 210, and that reflects, I think, a decision to widen the canon and to operate not on a star system exclusively but to represent the whole gamut of American poetry.

And, also, there have been so many figures who have come back or been revived who were neglected or unknown for a long time.

JEFFREY BROWN: One example of a person you brought in is Jean Toomer.

DAVID LEHMAN: Jean Toomer is a really interesting case. He's a black poet who at certain points was said to have passed as white but his great book was "Cane" in 1923.

I think his poems are outstanding like Reapers' or Georgia Dusk' or Beehive.'

DAVID LEHMAN (reading poem Reapers'):

REAPERS

Black reapers with the sound of steel on stones

Are sharpening scythes. I see them place the hones

In their hip-pockets as a thing that's done,

And start their silent swinging, one by one.

Black horses drive a mower through the weeds,

And there, a field rat, startled, squealing bleeds,

His belly close to ground. I see the blade,

Blood-stained, continue cutting weeds and shade.

JEFFREY BROWN: So help us understand what makes a poem great.

DAVID LEHMAN: What makes a poem great is its eloquence, its passion, its thought, its generosity of spirit, its shapeliness, its form or whether it has one -- the artistry with which it may reveal some things and conceal other things.

But as with so many other things in life, it's a great deal easier to recognize a great poem than it is to explain greatness or what makes a poem great.

JEFFREY BROWN: You mean you can enjoy it before you understand it or before you understand why?

DAVID LEHMAN: Yes, exactly. In fact, The Snow Man' is this fantastic poem of Wallace Stevens', and you can interpret it endlessly. It's a great sort of brain teaser but it also has a magnificent music.

DAVID LEAHMAN (reading poem The Snow Man):

THE SNOW MAN

One must have a mind of winter

To regard the frost and the boughs

Of the pine trees crusted with snow.

And have been cold a long time

To behold the junipers shagged with ice,

The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think

Of any misery in the sound of wind,

In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land

Full of the same wind

That is blowing in the same bare place

For the listener, who listens in the snow,

And, nothing himself, beholds

Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.

DAVID LEHMAN: I think people are made nervous by poetry. They feel as they don't understand it; it's in another language. They have anxiety.

And if you could shed that anxiety and just have the experience of the poetry, you would be in a better position, instead of worrying analytically about what it means.

JEFFREY BROWN: Of course you can have fun, shorter poems. One of the ones I love is the two-liner by A.R. Ammons..

DAVID LEHMAN: Their Sex Life.'

JEFFREY BROWN: Their Sex Life.'

DAVID LEHMAN RECITING POEM (Their Sex Life'):

One failure on

Top of another.

So, it's great. I mean, you can explain that failure has a double meaning and that there's a really smart stroke in putting the word top in the bottom. One failure on top of another.' And the title has three words. The first line has three words and the second line has three words. There's real symmetry. But you really don't have to explain very much about this poem. It's funny. And it's sad -- both.

JEFFREY BROWN: What's the point though of even having a canon?

DAVID LEHMAN: Well, we have the responsibility to perpetuate our own greatest cultural products, be they music, art, poetry, sculpture. You want to present in a way that will appeal to people the greatest achievements that you have.

I think you would be as an American the poorer if you did not read Whitman's Song of Myself' and come to terms with it. I think these are poems that will enrich your life and they will enrich your life for as long as you live.

Once you possess these poems you will never lose them they will come back to you.

JEFFREY BROWN: David Lehman, thanks for talking to us.

DAVID LEHMAN: It's my pleasure.

JIM LEHRER: Much more on our poetry project is available on our web site at pbs.org.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: Iraq's prime minister-designate said he expects to have a new government ready by the weekend. Key members of the U.N. Security Council agreed to let European states try new talks with Iran. And the U.N. Humanitarian chief appealed to Sudan to help get aid into Darfur. He reported "substantial progress."

Tonight's edition of "Frontline World" includes a story about the Palestinian group Hamas. Please check your local listing for the time.

We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.