Q: What's on Congressional Republicans' agenda this year? How might the legal troubles of the leaders of both Houses change their priorities?

The Republicans had an ambitious legislative agenda, but no longer. President Bush had wanted to overhaul Social Security by adding private accounts, revamp the income tax, and extend expiring tax cuts that he has pushed through Congress earlier in his administration. The hurricanes, especially Katrina, blew those proposals away. Now it's all hurricane all the time except for the occasional Supreme Court nomination. There just isn't enough money in the budget to pay for much more, especially since the hurricane recovery could cost as much as $200 billion, the same amount that the U.S. has already spent on the war in Iraq.

I'm not sure that the legal woes of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay will have much impact on the cratering Republican agenda. On the margin, I think the federal investigations into Frist's stock sales and DeLay's state indictment on criminal conspiracy will make it harder for the Republicans-in-charge to muster partisan unity for any initiative. But, in fact, that unity has been declining all year as President Bush's poll ratings fell for all sorts of reasons, including the bungled Katrina recovery and the messy war in Iraq. Frist and DeLay aren't helping matters but the agenda was already in serious jeopardy.

Q: How has Tom DeLay changed Washington politics in the last decade? Does the indictment of DeLay indicate an end of his strong influence?

For the indefinite future, Washington will remain Tom DeLay's capital. Even though the Texas Republican was dislodged by a criminal indictment last week from his post as House majority leader, DeLay has changed for a long time how power is amassed and used on Capitol Hill and beyond. His proteges still hold virtually every position of influence in the House, including the office of speaker. DeLay's former staff members are securely in the lobbying offices for many of the largest corporations and business advocacy groups. And even more than people, DeLay's lasting influence is an ethos. He stood for a view of Washington as a battlefield on which two sides struggle relentlessly, moderates and voices of compromise are pushed to the margins, and the winners presume they have earned the right to punish dissenters and reward their own side with financial and policy favors. In addition, his take-no-prisoners style of fundraising -- in which the classic unstated bargain of access for contributions is made explicitly -- has been adopted by both parties in Congress. Democrats, likewise, increasingly are trying to emulate the methods that DeLay perfected (but didn't invent) for enforcing caucus discipline -- rewarding lawmakers who follow the dictums of party leaders and seeking retribution against those who do not. Most of all, DeLay stood for a blurring of the line between lawmakers and lobbyists so that lobbyists are now considered partners of politicians and not merely pleaders -- especially if they once worked for Republicans on Capitol Hill. What's more, DeLay insists that he will come back to power after he is vindicated in the Texas court.

Q: Lobbyist Jack Abramoff , one of DeLay's close associates, is still under investigation by the Justice Department. What's the latest on that front? Are there more troubles to come for Mr. DeLay?

Superlobbyist Jack Abramoff hasn't been charged with any wrongdoing in connection with his lobbying of lawmakers, including DeLay. But the federal investigation is continuing and many insiders expect that Abramoff will be nicked somehow and in not too long. Another option for complaint against his will come in the arena of public opinion since a Senate committee is also looking into his efforts to in effect buy influence. He collected more than $80 million in a short period from American Indian tribes and may not have given much service for all that money, though he denies it. DeLay has asked the House ethics committee to look into trips that he took with Abramoff to places like Scotland and to clear him of any potential wrongdoing. Ethic lawyers, however, say that DeLay may be in technical violation of at least some ethics rules because, for instance, Abramoff, who is no longer lobbying, paid for some of the majority leader's travel, which is forbidden. The ethics committee probably won't get to this and other DeLay-related issues until next year.

Q: Have Democrats benefited from the apprent trouble for the Republicans? How are they handling the developments?

The Democrats haven't capitalized yet on the Republicans' problems. Analysts have said they have neither the charismatic leaders nor the compelling set of issues or messages needed to knock the Republicans on their heals, despite the GOP's missteps. Maybe now that both congressional majority leaders are operating under an ethics cloud, the Democrats can make hay with voters. All they need to do is be quiet and let anger well up. Usually, though, that isn't enough. In order to create the wave of anti-Republican incumbents they would need to regain majorities in the House and Senate, they probably need to put forward an agenda that, so far, they don't have.

Q: This morning, President Bush nominated his White House counsel Harriet Miers to be associate justice of the Supreme Court. What do you know about Ms. Miers judicial philosphy? By nominating someone without a strong conservative track record, does the President risk alienating his conservative base?

The good news for Bush about Harriet Miers is that she doesn't have any paper trail. She hasn't been a judge and therefore hasn't expressed many opinions on major issues that would anger constituencies. But that's bad news, too. Conservatives, which form Bush's base, are angry with him for choosing someone who could turn out to be less than an ideological lock for them. They saw this second nomination, after John Roberts, as the chance of a lifetime to turn the Supreme Court in a conservative direction. Now, they aren't sure if that will happen because Miers is such a cipher on all of the important issues from abortion to states rights. What's more, she's not likely to reveal much during the upcoming Senate hearings, following in the tight-lipped tradition of Roberts and others. The more Democrats say they are willing to give her a look, the more outraged conservatives and Republicans get with the Miers nomination.