And it isn't like they believe in either morality of the censorship of sexually explicit material -- so how they can object to a clearly non-obscene book is beyond me, other than hypocrisy.

The book is back in Susan Combs' life like an old boyfriend who is best forgotten but keeps popping up at the most inconvenient times.

A Perfect Match is a steamy romance novel published in 1990 by Combs, who was in between jobs when she wrote it but is now the state's agriculture commissioner and the Republican nominee for state comptroller.

It tells the story of Emily Brown, a "cryptanalyst" for the National Security Agency, who "spent her days decoding secret messages with the zeal that most people applied to solving crossword puzzles," the book jacket says. Then she meets her match in superspy Ross Harding.

"Their mouths had fused hotly, desperately, a feverish urgency in his touch," reads one passage, referring to the pair's passion for each other.

Now those words, and others, are being used against Combs by her Democratic opponent, Fred Head, who has labeled the torrid tale pornography.

"Would you vote for a candidate who wrote a trashy, pornographic romance novel that glorifies premarital sex and seeks to arouse sexual interest as your State Comptroller of Public Accounts?" Head asks in a campaign flier.

Oh, puh-LEEEEEEEEZ! Have you no dignity Mr. Head? Don't you have any qualifications to run on, rather than objections to the current incumbent's literary skills? Especially since your a member of a party whose former president performed significantly more pornographich acts in the Oral Orifice Oval Office? And on a related note, how can you and your party possibly expect us to vote for anyone with such an indecent name as "Head", which clearly seeks to arouse sexual interest?

Maybe we in the GOP should just let them have CD-22 -- it might be the only way the Loser-Crats can win an office currently held by a Republican in the state of Texas. Nah!

Posted by: Greg at 06:26 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I think the quality of romance writing is as relevant as most of the nonsense that gets raised as campaign issues . . .

(While I agree with you that this is stupid, it is also the sort of thing that could swing the votes of stupid people, and that's a significant constituency.)

Posted by: Dan at Tue Aug 1 01:25:22 2006 (aSKj6)

2 "how can you and your party possibly expect us to vote for anyone with such an indecent name as "Head", which clearly seeks to arouse sexual interest?"

snicker, snicker.

Is that the worst of the book? Seriously, I've not read the book, and it probably wouldn't interest me, but that's hardly damning. It's just plain silly, in fact. This from the party that sees nothing wrong in condom distribution, birth control or abortion for minors all of which tend to encourage and glorify "premarital sex and seeks to arouse sexual interest". Can you say "hypocrisy"?

Posted by: Anna Venger at Tue Aug 1 03:40:19 2006 (ZXStJ)

3 I think it takes great courage to write, and even get published genre of this nature.

I think it takes even more insight, and creativity to think of new ways to describe and define by either name or action, acts of romance.

If Susan did this during the "lean" years for her. At least she was doing something creative and not destructive.

I've met her on many occasions, and find her reasoning, and politics to be very refreshing. We need people like her in these positions that know how to think and create solutions outside the box of conventional wisdom and be effective at the same time, and be able to express themselves in a way that doesn't make me go to sleep!

I doubt we'll see anything mentioned in any reports from her office concerning the plight of "Lance" and "Holly Goodbody" in regards to the current task at hand in her professional life. But its good to know she's not afraid to address things like this in her past either.

Good for her! I'm glad the dunderheads in the liberal party have to stoop so low to think this revelation is going to do them any good in November.

I say keep it coming Dems! At least your consistent, pathetic but consistent.

Posted by: boyo at Tue Aug 1 08:59:30 2006 (iL9qH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Some folks are no doubt outraged by this decision. I'm not, and I'll tell you why -- it appears to me that the appellate court has already implicitly ruled against Jefferson on the issue of privilege.

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that prosecutors may not examine documents seized from Rep. William J. Jefferson's Capitol Hill office until the congressman has a chance to review them for privileged legislative materials.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the Justice Department to copy the seized materials and show them to Jefferson. The Louisiana Democrat will have two days to go through them and submit any challenges. A district judge will determine whether challenged materials relate to legislative activity and should be withheld from investigators.

Now think about this one for a moment -- this means that the concept of a broad claim of privilege for the everything seized by the FBI is most likely out the window. After all, if the judges were going to rule that way, there would be no need to duplicate everything for Jefferson to review and assert specific claims of privilege. What this seems to mean is that the appeals court is going to rule the search warrant valid, the seizure of materials constitutional, and then consider the possibility that some smaller portion of the seized material might fall under the Speech and Debate Clause or other specific instances of congressional privilege. In other words, Jefferson (and the Congressional leadership that has backed him) have lost before they even walk into the courtroom.

MORE AT Occidentality, Conservative Musings, Mac's Mind

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Conservative Cat, Adam's Blog, Stuck on Stupid, Freedom Watch, Blue Star Chronicles, Third World County, Madman Returns, Random Yak

Posted by: Greg at 07:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 3 kb.

Johnson malAdministration relic Ramsey Clark wants to make foreign policy issues the basis for impeachment.

Clark claimed that U.S. funding to Israel, which is battling Hizballah terrorists in southern Lebanon, is grounds for impeaching President Bush. "If we'd acted on impeachment before now, Lebanon wouldn't be subjected to this misery," said Clark at the National Press Club Thursday. "If we fail to act now, who is next?"

The National Council of Arab-Americans, Partnership for Civil Justice, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and the ANSWER Coalition are partnering to show their dissent of U.S.-Israeli policy in a march planned near the White House on Aug. 12.

"It is important to let the people of Lebanon and the people of Palestine know that even though the Bush administration speaks in our name -- spending our tax dollars to fund and finance these wars both in Iraq and in Lebanon -- it does so without the consent of the American people," said Brian Becker, national coordinator for the ANSWER Coalition.

If, of course, one defines the American people as consisting entirely of members of the National Council of Arab-Americans, Partnership for Civil Justice, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and the ANSWER Coalition. Polling data of the American public at large says something different.

(H/T Strata-Sphere)

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Do you want evidence of why John Kerry should never be president? Expose the Left has it for you, from the Bolton Confirmation hearing.

SENATOR JOHN KERRY: This has been going on for five years, Mr. Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON: ItÂ’s the nature of multi-lateral negotiations, Senator.

KERRY: Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done? ThatÂ’s what the Clinton administration did.

BOLTON: Very poorly, since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed.

That Kerry would hold up one of Clinton's (numerous) foreign policy failures as an example of how the US should conduct itself in the international word should make all but the moonbattiest of Americans glad he lost in 2004.

Posted by: Greg at 09:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

And I guess some folks either don't get it or just plain hate it.

After all, how else can you explain this ignorant comment at a NOW breakout session?

I gleaned the startling information that the "merchant of shame"--i.e., Wal-Mart--"seeks to dominate the retail industry through customer acquisition."

In othr words -- they are trying to get more people to shop with them than their competitors.

And this is a bad thing, ladies?

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

John over at Right Wing News snagged this from Drudge.

Maybe the good doctor can start by resigning -- or surgically removing his own tongue.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY AT Captain's Quarters, Iowa Voice, Say Anything, Wizbang

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

To be honest, I cannot say I am surprised. After all, the matter is on appeal. Just as you cannot unring a bell, you also cannot unviolate a privilege -- and if by some chance the appeals court finds for jefferson, the entire investigation could be derailed if the Justice Department were permitted to proceed.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday temporarily delayed a Justice Department bribery investigation of a Louisiana congressman while he challenges the legality of an unprecedented FBI raid on his Capitol Hill office.

The decision by two members of a three-judge panel means the Justice Department cannot begin a review set to begin Wednesday of more than a dozen computer hard drives, several floppy discs and two boxes of documents seized during a May 20-21 raid on Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's Rayburn Building office.

"The purpose of this administrative injunction is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion," wrote Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas B. Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The identity of the third judge is not known.

And I think that this statement, coming from two highly respected judges, really says everything that needs to be said on the matter. We are looking at a procedural action by the court, not one based upon the merits of the case.

Posted by: Greg at 02:44 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't object to a candidate trying to put distance between himself and President Bush -- it is a legitimate strategy. But I do object to a candidate going to the national media and saying that is what he is doing -- but not being willing to say it on the record.

The candidate, immersed in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country, sat down to lunch yesterday with reporters at a Capitol Hill steakhouse and shared his views about this year's political currents.

On the Iraq war: "It didn't work. . . . We didn't prepare for the peace."

On the response to Hurricane Katrina: "A monumental failure of government."

On the national mood: "There's a palpable frustration right now in the country."

It's all fairly standard Democratic boilerplate -- except the candidate is a Republican . And he's getting all kinds of cooperation from the White House, the Republican National Committee and GOP congressional leaders.

Not that he necessarily wants it. "Well, you know, I don't know," the candidate said when asked if he wanted President Bush to campaign for him. Noting Bush's low standing in his home state, he finally added: "To be honest with you, probably not."

The candidate gave the luncheon briefing to nine reporters from newspapers, magazines and networks under the condition that he be identified only as a GOP Senate candidate. When he was pressed to go on the record, his campaign toyed with the idea but got cold feet. He was anxious enough to air his gripes but cautious enough to avoid a public brawl with the White House.

Still, his willingness to speak so critically, if anonymously, about the party he will represent on Election Day points to a growing sense among Republicans that if they are to retain their majorities in Congress, they may have to throw the president under the train in all but the safest, reddest states.

personally, I'm betting it is Lincoln Chafee -- but I could be wrong. It could be any number of incumbents or challengers this year.

And that is where the problem lies. Voters have a right to know where the candidate stands -- and if a candidate is unwilling to come out and make such statements publicly, how can voters be sure that they are voting for the sort of candidate they want? How can donors know that their money is going to support candidates who stand where they do?

UPDATE: I wondered if this was who made the statements above. And given that he has made such statements publicly in the past, I'm not as troubled.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's Senate campaign acknowledged yesterday that he was the anonymous candidate quoted by a Washington Post political reporter as saying that being a Republican was like wearing a "scarlet letter" and that he did not want President Bush to campaign for him this fall.

The campaign made the disclosure after a day of speculation in the blogosphere and among political reporters about which Republican Senate candidate had made the disparaging remarks reported by Dana Milbank in the Washington Sketch column in yesterday's Post.

But interestingly enough, it seems that Milbank took a few isolated comments that were negative about the president and ignored those positive statements that were made by Steele.

Steele spokesman Doug Heye did not dispute the accuracy of Steele's quotes in the paper but said Steele spent little time at the luncheon talking about the subject and said the article did not include some comments Steele made praising Bush.

"When he agrees with the Republican administration, he absolutely does so," Heye said. "When he disagrees, he speaks his mind."

We know that with Michael Steele we will get a moderate-conservative -- not a liberal like certain New England senators, but not a hard-right ideologue. That is fine with me, because it is the best we can get out of Maryland. He isn't Alan Keys -- but then again, who would vote for Alan Keyes?

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

I first noticed this bit of information back in May, but didn't have much time to pursue it during the hub-bub over the search of William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office. It is nice to see the matter looked at a bit more closely by the Washington Post.

The corruption investigation of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) has taken many strange twists: an FBI sting that caught the lawmaker on videotape accepting a large payoff; a subsequent raid that turned up $90,000 of that cash in his apartment freezer; and a weekend FBI search of his congressional office that triggered a constitutional uproar.

But one of the most puzzling and intriguing facets of the case is Jefferson's ties to Atiku Abubakar, the vice president of Nigeria. Abubakar, a wealthy businessman and one of the leading candidates in next year's race for president of Nigeria, divides his time between his homeland and Potomac, Md., where he and one of his four wives maintain a $2.2 million mansion.

Jefferson, who was a member of a House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, got to know Abubakar after the Nigerian was elected vice president in 1999. Later, Jefferson turned to Abubakar for help in winning a lucrative Nigerian telecommunications contract for a high-tech firm in Kentucky that was paying Jefferson bribes, according to an FBI affidavit. Jefferson told a business associate in a secretly taped conversation that Abubakar was "corrupt" and needed a hefty bribe and a cut of the profits in return for his help -- allegations Abubakar has strongly denied.

Abubakar's involvement in the case has created a buzz in Washington's diplomatic circles and generated intense political controversy and media attention in Nigeria -- a country that is trying to shed its long-standing reputation for corrupt government.

"I don't think it will be simply excused or trivialized," said J. Stephen Morrison, director of the Africa program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I think his opponents will use it, certainly. Nigerian politics is hardball."

Nearly a year ago, the home in Potomac was searched by the FBI, which has indicated that Jefferson may have brived a foreign official.

For his part, Abubakar denies any involvement in Jefferson's corruption, claiming that Jefferson just used his name to further his own illegal schemes. Still, Abubakar rose from modest beginnings in a civil service known for its corruption -- and today is a multi-millionaire whose wealth came from sources which are difficult to determine. When one considers tht teh pair met shortly before the discovery of $90,000 in Jefferson's freezer, it is not unreasonable to connect the dots.

Intrestingly enough, though, it may be that $90,000 that clears the Nigerian Vice President.

Following the meeting (with Abubakar) on Sorrel Avenue, Jefferson told Mody that the vice president had demanded a cut of the profits (from Mody's iGate scheme). He said they also needed to give him a $500,000 payment "as a motivating factor," the affidavit said.

On July 30, Mody gave Jefferson a $100,000 bribe to pass on to Abubakar, and shortly after, Jefferson assured her that it had been delivered.

On Aug. 3, FBI agents found $90,000 of the marked FBI bills in Jefferson's freezer at his Capitol Hill apartment. None of cash had gone to Abubakar, according to the FBI affidavit.

Edward Weidenfeld, the vice president's Washington lawyer, called Jefferson's comments implicating Abubakar "false, self-serving statements."

Judy Smith, a Jefferson spokeswoman, said: "It should be clear from the statement by the vice president's counsel that the vice president never accepted or agreed to accept any money from the congressman. The congressman . . . maintains that he is innocent of any wrongdoing."

It will be interesting to see where further investigation leads.

Posted by: Greg at 06:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.

But I feel like there is less to this than meets the eye. After all, Tom DeLay has indicated he is leaving the political arena, so agreeing to fold the group fits with those plans.

The political action committee used as a vehicle to power in Congress by Representative Tom DeLay has agreed to pay $115,000 in fines for violations of federal campaign rules and will close its doors permanently, the Federal Election Commission said Thursday.

According to an agreement with the commission, Mr. DeLayÂ’s committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, agreed to the fines to settle accusations that it had failed to report more than $322,000 in debts and other obligations to its vendors and had misrepresented more than $240,000 in other financial activity in 2001 and 2002.

The pact did not provide a timetable for the shutdown of the committee, which for years was Mr. DeLayÂ’s chief fund-raising arm, allowing him to make millions of dollars in contributions to political allies who then supported his rise in the Republican leadership in Congress.

An audit last year disclosed problems -- though there appeared to be no wrong-doing on DeLay's part. The FEC has since changed teh rules that were violated on the grounds that they were confusing and at times contradictory -- with artificial distinctions between hard money and soft money and how each could be spent tripping up many groups. Campaign finance law experts also indicate that the amount of the fine was not unusual, which would further indicate taht any violations were not knowingly or willfully committed.

Posted by: Greg at 05:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Proving once again that the law applies to corrupt Democrat elected officials, a federal judge has permitted the FBI to continue investigating Louisian Rep William Jefferson (D-$90K in the Icebox).

A federal judge said Wednesday that investigators could examine documents seized in a search of Rep. William Jefferson's office, denying a request to delay the bribery probe while the Louisiana Democrat appeals the judge's earlier ruling that the search was legal.

Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said granting the delay "would harm the public's interest in a prompt and final outcome of the government's investigation of serious crimes involving a sitting United States congressman running for re-election in November."

Last week, Hogan rejected arguments by Jefferson and House leaders in both parties that the May 20-21 search of Jefferson's congressional office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials.

For 16 months, investigators have been looking into whether the congressman promoted the sale of telecommunications equipment and services in exchange for stock and cash.

Unfortunately, certain executive branch officials are blocking the probe for teh time being.

At issue is whether a review of the seized documents can begin by an
FBI "filter team" unconnected to the prosecution team looking into bribery allegations. Jefferson contends no one in the executive branch of government should examine the documents until the question of returning the material to Jefferson is resolved on appeal.

Get otu of the way, Alberto -- let the G-Men get teh goods on this crook.

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

(WELCOME TO ALL OF THE READERS FROM FRESH POLITICS AND REASON"S HIT & RUN -- THANKS TAYLOR)

Talk about misleading terms -- there is no such thing as a "ghetto tax". There is, however, a real issue of higher costs to life in poverty, or in certain areas of a city, county, state, or country.

But let's look at the NY Times scare story.

Drivers from low-income neighborhoods of New York, Hartford and Baltimore, insuring identical cars and with the same driving records as those from middle-class neighborhoods, paid $400 more on average for a yearÂ’s insurance.

Gee -- my insurance would be $200 less a year if I lived on the other side of the 100-yard wide body of water separating Harris County and Galveston County -- because Harris County has a higher rate of auto claims than Galveston County.

The poor are also the main customers for appliances and furniture at “rent to own” stores, where payments are stretched out at very high interest rates; in Wisconsin, a $200 television can end up costing $700.

Because of the choice to buy new rather than used items -- and the resulting cost associated with going to the rent-to-own stores. That is simply bad economic decision-making.

But I will agree, in part, with the proposals made by the Brookings Institution -- though not with the alarmist cries of these liberals about the unfairness of it all.

Part of the problem, the study found, is a discrepancy between the poor and the middle class in consumer skills and mobility: people who comparison-shop, especially on the Internet, tend to pay hundreds less for the identical car than those who walk onto a city lot and buy.

But the disparities can be reduced, the report said, not only by consumer education but also by some combination of incentives to lure banks and stores into poor neighborhoods and tighter regulation on things like the fees of storefront lenders.

And those considerations are real. When I lived in St. Louis 20 years ago, I watched one neighborhood blossom after it got a major supermarket plunked down in the middle of it. Rather than shopping at the corner gas station or the little mom & pop store on the corner, the people in the neighborhood tended to shop at the bigger store. They also got jobs in the enighborhood. The extra cash began tob e saved, banks came into the area, and you saw growth.

But the notion of a "ghetto tax", with its demeaning implications and hints of racism in policy choices, is wrong. What you are dealing with is the natural working of the capitalist system.

Posted by: Greg at 09:44 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

A new form of socialism has come to San Francisco. And with it comes mendacity from the local press.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to make the city the nation's first to provide all residents with health care, approving a plan that would give adults access to medical services regardless of their immigration or employment status.

Financed by local government, mandatory contributions from employers and income-adjusted premiums, the universal care plan would cover the cost of everything from checkups, prescription drugs and X-rays to ambulance rides, blood tests and operations.

Let’s clarify this for you. The new program will be paid for by “local government” (read that “current tax dollars”), “mandatory contributions from employers” (read that “a new tax on employers”) and “income adjusted premiums” (read that “a new income tax on workers”).

Why not come right out and call it what it is -- tax-funded health care?

Posted by: Greg at 02:55 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

But I thought the left insisted that big-money donations from wealthy individuals was a source of corruption to the political process, and that secrecy in government and politics was antithetical to "the public's right to know."

I guess that doesn't apply when the donors and recipients are left-wingers -- but then the Left has never believed it should play by the rules it seeks to impose on its opponents.

An alliance of nearly a hundred of the nation's wealthiest donors is roiling Democratic political circles, directing more than $50 million in the past nine months to liberal think tanks and advocacy groups in what organizers say is the first installment of a long-term campaign to compete more aggressively against conservatives.

A year after its founding, Democracy Alliance has followed up on its pledge to become a major power in the liberal movement. It has lavished millions on groups that have been willing to submit to its extensive screening process and its demands for secrecy.

These include the Center for American Progress, a think tank with an unabashed partisan edge, as well as Media Matters for America, which tracks what it sees as conservative bias in the news media. Several alliance donors are negotiating a major investment in Air America, a liberal talk-radio network.

But the large checks and demanding style wielded by Democracy Alliance organizers in recent months have caused unease among Washington's community of Democratic-linked organizations. The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors. Public interest groups said the alliance represents a large source of undisclosed and unaccountable political influence.

And then there is this aspect of the super-secret group.

To become a "partner," as the members are referred to internally, requires a $25,000 entry fee and annual dues of $30,000 to cover alliance operations as well as some of its contributions to start-up liberal groups. Beyond this, partners also agree to spend at least $200,000 annually on organizations that have been endorsed by the alliance. Essentially, the alliance serves as an accreditation agency for political advocacy groups.

This accreditation process is the root of Democracy Alliance's influence. If a group does not receive the alliance's blessing, dozens of the nation's wealthiest political contributors as a practical matter become off-limits for fundraising purposes.

Ideological screening and litmus tests as a condition for receiving donations. Deviation from the ideology is the kiss of death.

Yet somehow, the groups funded claim to be non-partisan, despite the stated objective of the Democracy Alliance to fund groups dedicated to electing Democrats.

Likewise, a Democracy Alliance blessing effectively jump-started Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). It bills itself as a nonpartisan watchdog group committed to targeting "government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests." Alliance officials see CREW as a possible counterweight to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch, which filed numerous lawsuits against Clinton administration officials in the 1990s. A CREW spokesman declined to comment.

But hold it -- isn't the Democracy Alliance, a consortium of millionaire and billionaire ideologues, a classic example of a special interest group? Why don't you start by investigating yourself?

Let's apply the Left's own standards to these donations -- they are clearly a sign of corrupt bargains with special interests seeking to impose their own extreme ideology to the detriment of the American people. After all, these are coordinated donations to Left-wing organizations by millionaires and billionaires -- and we all know that these super-rich individuals must be evilevilevil, because that is what the Left tells us is the case.

But then again, what Leftist activities and proposals are NOT harmful to America?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Mudville Gazette, Conservative Cat, Mark My Words, Pursuing Holiness, Third World County, Is It Just Me?, Random Yak

Posted by: Greg at 03:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 641 words, total size 5 kb.

Former Vice President Dan Quayle made it clear what he thought of the tacky anti-Americanism of has-been rocker John Cougar Mellencamp.

Dan Quayle took time out from participating in the American Century Celebrity Golf Championship in Stateline, Nev., on Friday to attend John Mellencamp's concert only to run into a political statement.

He then made a statement of his own by walking out during Mellencamp's rendition of ``Walk Tall.'' Before launching into the song, Mellencamp told the Harveys casino crowd, in effect, that it was dedicated to everyone hurt by policies of the current Bush administration.

Quayle, who served as vice president for President Bush's father in 1989-93 walked out of the venue before Mellencamp finished the song.

Quayle said through a publicist: ``Well, I think Mellencamp's performance was not very good to begin with, and the comment put it over the top.''

Mellencamp couldn't be reached for comment.

More of us need to make such statements when performers make such statements.

After all, they have a First Amendment right to speak -- but no right to an audience.

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

If you can't beat your opponent, buy him off. That is the secret of Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell, who is paying one of her primary opponents to get out of the race.

A vocal former opponent's silence is important enough to Sen. Maria Cantwell's re-election effort to pay him $8,000 a month -- nearly as much as her campaign manager -- to join her campaign staff.

The Cantwell campaign initially refused to say last week how much it would pay Mark Wilson to drop his Democratic primary challenge to the senator and his harsh criticism of her opposition to immediate U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

But campaign manager Matt Butler issued a statement Thursday disclosing Wilson's salary.

It isn't much lower than Butler's salary, which, according to Cantwell's quarterly Federal Election Commission report, was $26,192 for the first three months of 2006, or $8,731 a month.

I don't know about you, but if that isn't illegal it sure ought to be. It looks suspiciously like a bribe to me.

Oh, ">by the way -- go take a look at what he was saying about her until he took the bribe new job.

(H/T GOPBloggers)

Posted by: Greg at 06:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.

Bob Dunn over at Fort Bend Now is reporting that the 5th Circuit will expedite the GOP appeal in the Tom Delay replacement case. The schedule is as follows.

Ruling late Thursday afternoon, the 5th Circuit agreed to a schedule proposed by BenkiserÂ’s attorneys, by which they would file their opening brief tomorrow, the state DemocratsÂ’ attorneys would file a response by July 21, the GOP would file a reply by July 26 and an appeals court panel of judges will take the case July 31.

The panel of judges will determine on July 31st whether theyÂ’ll hear oral arguments in the case.

That would permit them to rule by the August 4 date that the Texas GOP is claiming it needs to name a replacement -- and to come up for a replacement for THAT candidate if he/she is on the ballot for another office.

UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle, being the local paper of record, contains only a small blurb with significantly less information.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday granted an expedited hearing to the Texas Republican Party on its quest to replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the ballot.

An order signed by Judge Fortunato "Pete" Benavides said the court will take up the case on July 31, but did not commit to hearing oral arguments.

Attorneys have until July 26 to file briefs.

The Texas Republican Party is appealing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks that GOP Chair Tina Benkiser cannot declare DeLay ineligible to appear on the ballot and that the Republicans can take no action to replace DeLay. The lawsuit was brought by the Texas Democratic Party.

So much for fully informing the constituents of CD22 about a situation that directly impacts them. And only 9 hours later than the much more informative Fort Bend Now post cited above.

Thank God for Bob Dunn.

Posted by: Greg at 07:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Texas Republicans have told the 5th Circuit that it needs a quick decision -- and that August 4 is the latest date for a decision that would allow for the replacement of Tom DeLay on the November ballot. It also asked Judge Sparks to stay his decision pending appeal.

Republicans pleaded with federal courts Tuesday to allow them to replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the November ballot, saying that time is running out to make the change.

In separate motions to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and to U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, the Texas GOP said picking a DeLay replacement could "easily take 28 days" and must be completed by Sept. 1 so the state has enough time to print ballots.

Last week, Sparks ordered that DeLay's name remain on the ballot, saying efforts by Republican Chair Tina Benkiser to replace him by declaring that DeLay has become a Virginia resident violated the eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution sets residency eligibility for election day.

The Republicans asked Sparks to set aside the portion of his order that prevents the party from moving forward with selecting a new nominee.

"Given the time it will take (the Republican Party) to fulfill the requirements in choosing a replacement nominee, or nominees if the replacement candidate is already on the ballot, as is likely, the Court of Appeals' decision in (the Republican Party's) favor would have to issue before Aug. 4," the party said in a motion to Sparks.

The motion filed by party General Counsel Donna Garcia Davidson told Sparks the party wants only to proceed with the replacement process while the case is appealed to the 5th Circuit.

Party attorney James Bopp Jr. asked the federal appeals court for an expedited hearing because of the tight time frame. He proposed that all briefs be filed in the case by July 26 and that a hearing be held July 31.

While I don't think that the selection process would take that long, there is no legitimate reason for not permitting Galveston and Brazoria Counties to pick their representatives for teh District Executive Committee -- or for them to meet and decide on a replacement candidate in the interim.

After all, what is the worst possible outcome? Wasted action and Delay remaining on the ballot.

Unless, of course, you are a Democrat -- in which case the worst outcome is the selection of a candidate even more likely to beat Lampson than Tom DeLay is.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

Is internet gambling such an overwhelming problem that we need to effectively ban it? I don't think so.

The House easily approved a bill yesterday to curb online poker games, sports betting and other Internet-based wagering that gained infamy as a central focus of a major lobbying scandal.

The 317-to-93 vote came nearly six years to the day after a similar measure went down to surprise defeat. At the time, unknown to its conservative supporters, the bill was derailed by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the office of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, on behalf of the disgraced lobbyist's gambling clients.

"This is the opportunity to expunge a smear on this House done by many lobbyists," Abramoff included, said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), one of the legislation's chief sponsors. "Now is the time to set the record straight."

The bill that was passed yesterday seeks to restrain the booming but difficult-to-regulate Internet gambling business. Proponents of the crackdown said the industry, which is mostly based overseas, provides a front for money laundering, some of it by drug sellers and terrorist groups, while preying on children and gambling addicts. Americans bet an estimated $6 billion per year online, accounting for half the worldwide market, according to analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Critics said the bill overreaches and would be difficult to enforce. At its heart are two provisions. One would update the 1961 Wire Act, which bars gambling entities from using wire-based communications for transmitting bets, to include the Internet. The other aims at cutting off the money flow from players to Internet gambling sites by barring the use of electronic payments, such as credit-card transactions.

The biggest losers could be the estimated 23 million Americans who play poker over the Internet. "This bill would needlessly make outlaws of the millions of adult Americans who enjoy online poker, and is the latest example of how our representatives in Congress are ignoring real issues facing our country," warned the grass-roots Poker Players Alliance, in an alert to its more than 25,000 members.

While I consider the "ignoring the real issues" line to be a red herring (Congress can do many different pieces of legislation at once -- it isn't like nothing else was going on while this one worked its way through the committee and the full House), I agree that this is an area where there is no genuine reason to intrude. Given teh fact that we are legalizing gambling in more and more states, it seems absurd to prevent people from using the latest technology to gamble from their homes -- or to ban the most practical method of dealing with the financial transactions that go along with it.

And for the record, i don't gamble on the internet.

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Rogue prosecutor Ronnie Earl, the political hack who needed no fewer than six grand juries to indict Tom DeLay on crimes that didn't even exist under state law, doesn't want to let the people have a view into the operations of his office.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is suing to keep secret the details about his investigation of indicted former House majority leader Tom DeLay.

The Houston Chronicle filed a request under Texas' open records law in March seeking vouchers, hotel and airfare receipts, budget documents, memos and e-mails describing the expenses for the DeLay inquiry and related investigations.

DeLay, indicted last year on conspiracy and money laundering charges connected to the financing of 2002 state legislative races, resigned from Congress on June 9.

Earle, in his attempt to keep details of his investigation out of public view, appealed to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, arguing that releasing the information could compromise the prosecution.

The state's lawyer, who reviewed examples of the information, generally ruled that Earle didn't have to disclose secret information related to grand jury investigations. But the attorney general noted that the public records law requires disclosure of "information in an account, voucher, or contract" relating to the expenditure of public monies, the Austin American-Statesman reported Tuesday.

Now this is the same Ronnie Earle who allowed his investigation to be followed by a friendly documentary producer who has released the film before the trial, prejudicing the ability of Delay to get an impartial jury. But he doesn't want to let the newspaper in the largest city in the state -- the one most read in CD22 -- have access to public douments that would show the lenghts that this latter-day Captain Ahab has gone to harpoon his nemesis.

Furthermore, what is he trying to hide? Any evidence this investigation produced would have to be turned over to the DeLay defense team as a part of discovery. Is he contemplating a (or should I say "another") violation of DeLay's rights by withholding some of that evidence?

Seems to me that Ronnie Earle's refusal to produce document under the Public Information Act is the basis for an independent investigation of the Travis County prosecutor's office, and his conduct in the DeLay case.

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

The kind folks over at GOPBloggers highlighted this group this morning. After the press has raised questions about Romney's ability to get support from evangelicals because of his religion, I'm glad to see this response.

ButÂ…HeÂ’s a Mormon.

Yes, Gov. Romney is a Mormon. We are not. According to the liberal media, this is an unbridgeable gap, and evangelicals will never turn out to support a faithful Mormon like Mitt Romney. As usual, the media have it wrong. And they root their error (as usual) in a fundamental misunderstanding about American evangelicals—seeing us as ignorant and intolerant simpletons who are incapable of making sophisticated political value judgments.

To be perfectly clear, we believe Gov. Romney is not only acceptable to conservative Christians, but that he is clearly the best choice for people of faith. He is right on all the issues, and he has proven his positions with actions. He is a gifted and persuasive spokesman for our political and moral values. Here is the bottom line: the 2008 election is for president, not pastor. We would never advocate that the Governor become our pastor or lead our churches—we disagree with him profoundly on theological issues. But we reject the notion that the president of the United States has to be in perfect harmony with our religious doctrine. In fact, that is not a test that has been applied before—after all, Jimmy Carter was probably more theologically in line with evangelicals than Ronald Reagan, yet we believe that Reagan was clearly the better choice in 1980.

Let’s leave the absurd religious litmus test to the Democrats. What we want is a president who shares our moral and political values and will put them into action. A President Romney would do that—just as he’s done in Massachusetts—making him stand head and shoulders above the rest of the field.

Finally, it is not just our theory that evangelicals will support Governor Romney. In March, 2006, he shocked the political establishment by finishing second at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll in Memphis, Tennessee. We led the grassroots effort that put him above John McCain and George Allen, and where did he get the vast majority of his support? From the very Southern evangelicals who the media is convinced will not support a Mormon from Massachusetts.

Go by and take a look at the group's site.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

I've noted more than once that Judge Sparks' ruling might mean DeLay coming back to Texas and making the run for Congress.

Well, look at Time Magazine.

A source close to the ex-Congressman tells TIME that DeLay is planning an aggressive campaign to retake the House seat he quit in June if an appeals court lets stand a ruling by a federal judge last week that his name must stay on November's ballot—even though he has moved to Virginia.

"If it isn't overturned, Katy bar the door!" says a G.O.P. official. "Guess he'll have to fire up the engines on the campaign and let 'er rip."

So it may be that the result of the lawsuit by the JackAss Party is the return of Tom DeLay to Congress -- because after all, they went to court demanding that he remain the GOP candidate.

(H/T Captain's Quarters, Strata-Sphere, Texas Rainmaker, Outside the Beltway, Blogs for Bush & GOPBloggers)

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 2 kb.

Tax revenues are up and the deficit is dropping, even though total spending has increased and we are "suffering" from the Bush tax cuts and a "bad" economy.

An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.

Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.

What we are seeing here is that the economy is, in fact, robust, and that the tax cuts have helped stimulate it to produce the new revenues. As the GOP constantly reminds folks, tax cuts raise tax revenue.

The potential problem, though, is that the government has been borrowing from Social Security for decades -- and no the Boomers are preparing to start drawing on the plan in the next two years. Thus there needs to be a long-term fix for taxes, the deficit, and Social Security -- something the Democrats are loath to allow to happen.

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 2 kb.

Despite the fact that international observers say that the election was clean, the left-wing loser of last week's Mexican presidential election is seeking to use a dual-pronged legal strategy to overturn the results -- including one that that appears to be specificly barred by the Mexican Constitution.

Downtown Mexico City swelled Saturday with the accumulated frustration and rage of the poor, who were stoked into a sign-waving, fist-pumping frenzy by new fraud allegations that failed populist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador hopes will overturn the results of Mexico's presidential election.

López Obrador ignited the smoldering emotions of his followers Saturday morning, alleging for the first time that Mexico's electoral commission had rigged its computers before the July 2 election to ensure the half-percentage-point victory of Felipe Calderón, a champion of free trade. In a news conference before the rally, López Obrador called Calderón "an employee" of Mexico's powerful upper classes and said a victory by his conservative opponent would be "morally impossible."

López Obrador added a new layer of complexity to the crisis by saying he not only would challenge the results in the country's special elections court but also would attempt to have the election declared illegal by Mexico's Supreme Court. That strategy presages a constitutional confrontation because according to many legal experts the special elections court is the only body that can hear election challenges.

Calderón was declared the winner Thursday and has begun publicly presenting his plans for Mexico, even though López Obrador has refused to concede. European Union election observers have said they found no significant irregularities in the vote, and many Mexicans appeared to accept Calderón as their next president.

López Obrador is also using his popularity in Mexico City, where he was mayor, to intimidate the Mexican government into handing the office to him, even though he lost. Mass rallies in the heart of the capital city and unsubstantiated claims of fraud seem designed not to bring about an accurate vote count, but rather a favorable one.

Posted by: Greg at 05:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

Why is a US Senator using his influence to get a celebrity out of a foreign prison after his conviction on drug charges?

U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a musician in his own right, helped secure the release of Atlanta R&B producer Dallas Austin from a United Arab Emirates jail after a drug conviction, the senator's office confirmed Saturday.

In a statement released through his staff, the conservative Republican said he was contacted by Austin's attorneys, then called the ambassador and UAE consul in Washington on Austin's behalf.

A Grammy winner who has produced hits for Madonna, Pink and TLC, Austin was arrested May 19 and convicted of drug possession for bringing 1.26 grams of cocaine into the UAE city of Dubai.

On Tuesday a court sentenced him to four years in jail and said Austin, 34, should be deported after serving the term. Hours later, Dubai ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum pardoned and released Austin.

Simply unacceptable.

Posted by: Greg at 05:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll be damned -- an option I thought unlikely may come to pass if Judge Sparks' decision is not overturned.

Former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay suggested Friday that he may not be ready for retirement just yet, a day after a federal judge ruled that his name must remain on the November ballot even though he resigned from Congress.

DeLay, who came home to Sugar Land for a previously scheduled event, also criticized U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks' ruling that the former House majority leader's name had to remain on the ballot.

"For this guy to say he can't tell where I'm going to be on Election Day, and that I am forced to be on the ballot, well, they may get exactly what they want," DeLay told supporters to raucous applause. Sparks is a Democrat appointed by Republican former President George Bush.

Later, reporters asked Delay if he now planned to run. He didn't say no.

"We have to wait and see what the 5th Circuit does on appeal," he said.

We may just have to kick Nick Lampson's ass with Tom Delay -- and start grooming GOP candidates for 2008. Because while I believe there is still enough support for Tom DeLay to win this race, I think he is toast in the next primary after this year's mess.

Posted by: Greg at 03:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

Over time, BDS enters a terminal phase, complete with suicidal ideations.

Some days the pain is so searing and hot you want to cut off your own head with a nail file. Other days it is numb and pain free and seemingly OK, to the point where you think it might finally be all gone and you allow yourself a whisper of a positive feeling, right up until you look in the mirror, and scream.

George W. Bush is just like that.

Everyone I know has had enough. Everyone I know is just about done. There is this threshold of deadened disgust, this point where the body simply resigns itself to the pain, where the disease, the poison, has seeped so deeply into the bones that you just have to laugh and shrug it all off and go for a drink. Or 10.

Let's help Mark Morford out -- send him a nail file or two.

Mark Morford
San Francisco Chronicle
901 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Bacon Bits, Bullwinkle Blog, Stuck on Stupid, Dumb Ox, Blue Star Chronicles, Third World County, Madman Returns, Uncooperative Blogger, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Stop The ACLU, Wizbang

Posted by: Greg at 07:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.

Republicans are presumed to be bigots by the Left, despite the long history of Democrat intolerance. Not to mention comments like this that regularly fall from the mouths of Democrat politicians.

They say the main thing standing between Joe Biden and the White House is Joe BidenÂ’s mouth.

The would-be presidential candidate proved it again on a recent trip to New Hampshire, where C-Span cameras caught him telling an Indian-American activist that Indian-Americans are the fastest-growing immigrant group in Delaware.

In fact, Biden said, “You cannot go into a Dunkin Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

I'm curious -- where is the uproar? Where is the outrage? Certainly this is much more offensive than Trent Lott's courtly compliment to a centenarian.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Real Clear Politics, Hotline Blog, Hot Air, Iowa Voice, Ed Driscoll, Plains Feeder, Old War Dogs, Two Babes & A Brain, Stuck On Stupid, Irish Pennants

Posted by: Greg at 03:06 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 2 kb.

The other shoe has dropped.

Judge Sparks has ruled that Tom DeLay must remain on the ballot as the GOP candidate in CD22.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, a Republican appointee, ruled that DeLay must appear on the Nov. 7 ballot as the GOP nominee for the congressional seat that he abandoned last month.

Sparks said DeLay could "withdraw'' from the race under Texas election law, but that still would not allow the Republicans to replace him on the ballot.

DeLay had sought to have state Republican Chair Tina Benkiser declare him ineligible by moving from Sugar Land to his condominium in Virginia. But Sparks said that would not make him ineligible because the requirement under the Constitution is whether DeLay is an inhabitant of Texas on election day.

Sparks said contradicting evidence raised questions about whether DeLay planned to remain a resident of Virginia, but he said that did not matter because DeLay could not say where he would be on election day. READ RULING

Texas GOP lawyers are already preparing the appeal to the 5th Circuit Court, and the filing is expected tomorrow.

In the mean time, the District Executive Committee selection meetings of the Galveston and Brazoria County Precinct Chairs from CD22, scheduled for this evening, have been cancelled by their respective county chairs. We Harris County chairs selected Kathy Haigler for the position last Thursday; Fort Bend County chairs selected SREC member Terese Raia last night. While many argue there would be no legal impediment to the meetings being held and selections for the committee members being selected in the other counties, it appears to have been decided that it was better not to prejudice the issue by taking action after the ruling.

Two weeks ago I laid out three possible scenarios if this ruling went against the GOP.

I see three possibilities.

The first, of course, would be that Tom DeLay could reestablish residency between now and Election Day, reentering the race as a candidate. This would be one logical outcome of the Democrat argument that DeLay cannot be determined to be ineligible before Election Day.

But the other option is more interesting, and contained in one of the GOP arguments in court yesterday.

Attorneys for the Republican Party of Texas say GOP voters would be hurt if his name appears on the ballot because DeLay wouldn't be the guy filling the seat if he won. A special election would have to be called if that scenario played out.

In such a scenario, the GOP would urge voters to select DeLay, with a view towards defeating Lampson and creating the need for a special election to fill the seat. But would enough voters be willing to go along with such a plan?

The third, and least likely, option would be to throw GOP support to Libertarian candidate Bob Smither, with the goal of making him the first Libertarian Congressman – and of making him the first Libertarian ex-Congressman after the 2008 election.

Judge Sparks did give an additional option -- DeLay could ask the Secretary of State to remove his name from the ballot entirely, leaving the GOP line blank. We would still be without a candidate, but it would be an improvement over the first two options and would facilitate the third.

I'll be real honest here -- I'm not terribly hopeful right now. While I disagree with the ruling, I cannot say that I have discerned any flaw in it substantial enough to get it overturned. If anything, the strongest argument that seems available to me is the presumption in favor of contested elections -- but the satutory scheme and the determination that DeLay remains the nominee may well be sufficient to meet the technical requirements for such a contested election.

Hopefully addressing the election code isues raised in this case will be a priority in the next legislative session.

UPDATE: Over at Capitol Annex, there is an interesting piece of speculation about redistricting as a result of the SCOTUS decision the other day. Could it be that the remap will be the basis for giving us (and lots of other folks around the state) a new round of primaries, and a chance to start from scratch? Vince also offers several other possible GOP options -- though some of them are vague enough that I don't quite get what he is suggesting.

MORE AT Isolated Desolation, Off the Kuff, Burnt Orange Report

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Customer Servant, Dumb Ox, Jo's Cafe, NIF

Posted by: Greg at 10:17 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 757 words, total size 6 kb.

Even though I oppose the flag desecration amendment, I'm no fan of flag burning. That's why I find this "celebration of the First Amendment" to be distasteful and disrespectful.

About 25 revelers celebrated their freedom of speech and welcomed the Fourth of July on Monday night with the "2nd Annual Old Time American Flag Burn."

Around a burn barrel at Seabright State Beach, organizer Brent Adams, 41, of Santa Cruz, declared flag burning not a protest, but a celebration of the Constitution's First Amendment.

"It seemed like a good idea to burn some flags just because we can," added fellow organizer Sha Lar, 32, of Santa Cruz.

Burning a flag just because you can is simply an exercise in juvenile narcissism.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Plagued by liberals in his own party who reject his support of the Iraq war, former Democrat VP candidate Joe Lieberman has announced plans to make an independent bid for Senate if he loses his party's primary next month.

Under increasing pressure from Ned Lamont, a businessman and political newcomer who has criticized the senator for supporting President Bush on the war and other issues, Senator Lieberman said today, the eve of Independence Day, that he would begin gathering the 7,500 petitions necessary to run on his own should he lose to Mr. Lamont in the state Democratic primary, which is Aug. 8.

"While I believe that I will win the Aug. 8 primary," Mr. Lieberman said in a news conference today, "I know that there are no guarantees in elections. I'm very confident that if every Democrat or even a majority of them vote on Aug. 8, I will be nominated by a comfortable margin."

He added that the heat of August or a last-minute media barrage by his opponent could affect the results.

"My friends," the senator said, "after 18 years of working for, fighting for and delivering for all the people of Connecticut, I want the opportunity to put my case for all the people of Connecticut in November. They, after all, are the voters who have been good enough to elect me to the United States Senate in the November elections of 1988, 1994 and 2000.

Now this raises an interesting question -- what will national Democrats do in the event that Lieberman is defeated in the primary? Do they support him, or do they back his opponent, Ned Lamont? After all, Lieberman has indicated that he will continue to call himself a Democrat even if the primary voters reject him, and indicates he plans to caucus with the Democrats if reelected as an independent.

And what of Lamont? Would his victory signal a likely rejection of Lieberman in the general election? Probably not, despite his support by KOSsacks and DUmmies and other "Netroots" activists seeking to punish Lieberman for his failure to hew to the liberal line.

Lieberman is being challenged for a fourth Senate term by Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, a multimillionaire owner of a cable television company with little political experience. Lamont has put more than $1.5 million of his own money into his campaign, calling Lieberman a Republican lapdog and accusing him of straying from his Democratic roots.

The strategy has been effective. A recent Quinnipiac University poll shows Lamont gaining ground among likely Democratic voters, although Lieberman maintains high ratings among Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Unaffiliated voters are the state's largest voting bloc, followed by Democrats and Republicans.

So while Lamont may be able to get the nomination by appealing to the Left, it seems unlikely that he could beat Lieberman with the general public.

Posted by: Greg at 08:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.

The problem is that both major candidates have less than 40% of the vote, and the one behind in the count is claiming victory.

Election officials declared Sunday that they could not immediately determine a winner in the tightest presidential race in the country's history. Minutes later, the two front runners each declared victory, setting in motion an electoral crisis.

The contest pitted Felipe Calderón, a conservative former energy minister backed by business leaders, against Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the firebrand leftist former mayor of Mexico City, supported mostly by the poor.

Mr. López Obrador said at a downtown hotel he would respect the decision of the election institute even if he lost by one vote. Yet in the same breath he maintained he was convinced he had won by 500,000 votes. "This result is irreversible," he said.

Appearing before supporters a few minutes later at his party headquarters, Mr. Calderón rattled off the results of several surveys of voters leaving the polls and counts of key districts that showed he had won. "There is not the slightest doubt that we have won the election," he said.

Surveys of polling stations by election officials showed the contest was too close to call, and they urged people to remain calm until official results could be reported. The only thing clear was that a third candidate, Roberto Madrazo, the former governor of Tabasco State, was trailing the two front-runners.

At 11 p.m., with a quarter of the polling places counted, Mr. Calderón led the race with 38 percent the vote, compared to 35 percent for Mr. López Obrador. Mr. Madrazo had 19 percent.

Now my concern is what happens next. The votes will take a couple of days to be counted -- and if the trends hold, Calderón will be the winner. But López Obrador is the former mayor of the capital city, and could easily instigate a crisis by formenting an uprising among the many poor in Mexico City. After all, he has declared the result ireversible -- will he be willing to step back from the precipice if the final count proves him wrong, especially given his appeals to the people in earlier in the election to keep from being removed from the ballot?

Posted by: Greg at 06:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, that seems to be the position of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Four districts stand out as leading prospects for Republican gains, but none is considered a guaranteed win.

The House Race Hotline, a nonpartisan publication, lists Iowa's 3rd District as the top contender for a Republican pickup. Rep. Leonard L. "Boswell's facing a well-funded, politically experienced opponent this cycle in state Senate President Jeff Lamberti," House Race Hotline Editor Josh Kraushaar said.

"And the district narrowly voted for Bush in the last presidential election. If there's one incumbent that Democrats are worried about, it's probably Leonard Boswell, especially given recent concerns about his health."

Mr. Boswell, 72, recently had a noncancerous tumor removed from his abdomen and has been restricted in his ability to make campaign appearances.

The top three other prospects for Republicans are two seats in conservative Georgia districts and the home of embattled West Virginia Democrat Alan B. Mollohan, who faces accusations of corruption from critics who say he delivered lucrative private contracts to his campaign's financial supporters. Mr. Bush carried the district by 15 percentage points in 2004.

That does not, however, take into account the possibility of lost seats -- including the chance that my own beloved CD22 might fall into Democrat hands if they manage to keep us from replacing the ineligible Tom DeLay.

Republicans say they are also targeting Reps. John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina and Melissa Bean of Illinois. Both districts voted for Mr. Bush by more than 10 points in 2004, but both incumbent Democrats are considered likely winners.

Posted by: Greg at 05:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, they are not wasting any time on this one.

A federal panel gave both sides in Texas' redistricting fight two weeks to propose fixes to a congressional district whose borders were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge T. John Ward said proposed changes to the map are due by July 14. Oral arguments were scheduled for Aug. 3 in Austin.

This should be interesting -- because the likely result is the loss of one Hispanic-influence district, because by removing 100,000 Hispanic Democrats from CD23 and placing them in CD25, the GOP-controlled legislature created an additional Hispanic-majority district and the Supreme Court has effectively ordered them back into CD23.

The real question is how many districts will have to be redrawn, how major the changes are, and whether or not there will be new primaries required in some or all of them.

Posted by: Greg at 03:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

The novel legal theories of corrupt Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle were the basis for dismissal of charges against some political associates of Tom DeLay this week -- and that could ultimately be the basis for the dismissal of the rest of the charges against the former congressman.

A state district judge threw out a felony indictment against the Texas Association of Business on Thursday, ruling that the group's ads in the 2002 legislative elections did not expressly advocate the defeat or election of candidates.

The ruling is probably a significant blow to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's prosecution of the state's largest and most powerful business lobby.

The group's ads "severely test, but do not cross" the line into "express advocacy," Judge Mike Lynch ruled.

In 2002, the business group spent about $1.7 million on what it deemed "issue ads" in legislative races, supporting Republican candidates.

* * *

Because the business group's ads didn't use the words such as "support" or "oppose," the group's lawyers said the ads did not have to disclose who paid for them. The indictment accused the Texas Association of Business of breaking state election law that prohibits spending corporate money in campaigns.

Now, given that the exchange of funds in question is based upon a similar interpretation of the use of corporate funds, and given that the conspiracy requires that one bizarrely construe a statute which did not extend to offenses under the election code so that it extended to the election code, as well as the fact that Earle has completely redefined the notion of money-laundering, it seems to me that Mr. Earle might find his case collapsing -- because Texas judges are tired of his bullshit.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.