You screwed up at every turn, Larry -- you just need to stand by your statement from Saturday.

Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening.

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," said Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital.

"We're still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight—and stay in the Senate."

Just go away with what little dignity you have left.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

I never thought we'd find a member of the Kennedy family with lower ethical standards than Senator Teddy the Hutt (D-Chappaquidick).

Now we find out his son does.

Maybe he needs it to pay his rehab bill.

Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy said Tuesday he's not returning $6,600 in donations he got from Norman Hsu, a prominent Democratic donor whose criminal past was recently revealed.

Several top Democrats, including 2008 presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Kennedy's father, Sen. Edward Kennedy, have said they will return Hsu's donations or give them to charity.

Rep. Kennedy will keep the money because there is no indication that Hsu's contributions to him were illegal, according to his chief of staff, Adam Brand.

"We are complying with all applicable (Federal Election Commission) rules and regulations with regards to campaign contributions," Brand said. "If something changes with respect to those rules, we'll take appropriate action."

Let's see -- a felon on the lam give you money and is suspected of illegal campaign activities, but you see nothing wrong with keeping the cash?

What was your position on Abramoff donations to those not accused of wrongdoing, Congressman?

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

Q: Who said this?

"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."

A: Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)

And the Democrats want to claim that conservatives want to mingle religion and politics?

Wouldn't you love to hear this one expanded upon by this latter-day Balaam's ass?

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll be honest – I don't like what Mike Rogers does. I believe it is dangerous and, indeed, at least as hypocritical as the things he exposes. And yes, I still hold a grudge over the harm he did to an old family friend, Congressman Ed Schrock, a couple of years back.

On the other hand, when a student needed legal assistance when faced with discrimination based upon his sexual orientation, Rogers was gracious in his willingness to direct the young man to resources and organizations.

So I'll be honest – I've got mixed emotions about the man. But I cannot deny that he has promoted himself into a power position in the blogosphere.

Rogers, sitting on a club chair in his Northwest Washington apartment, is basking in the attention. For three years now, he's been a feared one-man machine, "outing," he says, nearly three dozen senior political and congressional staffers, White House aides and, most damagingly, Congress members on his blog. On Capitol Hill, a typical phone call from Rogers -- "Are you gay?" he'd ask -- is "a call from Satan himself," says a former high-ranking congressional staffer whose name is on the list.

Rogers reasons that there's justice behind his tactics -- "odious," "outrageous" and "over-the-line" as they might seem to his detractors.

In Rogers's mind, if you're against gay rights in your public life and you live a secret homosexual life, all bets are off.

The problem, of course, is that Rogers is every bit as much of a fundamentalist "true believer" as some of those he attacks. And his actions are based upon a rather arrogant assumption – that homosexuals must share a certain set of political and social beliefs to be entitled to what the gay community claims for itself – the right to sexual privacy, and to be let alone.

So if a gay politician who opposes gay marriage (or a gay staffer for such a politician) – or the extension of hate crimes legislation to include crimes against homosexuals – is "anti-gay" and a hypocrite. Under this theory, one's sexual orientation must be the guiding factor in one's political and moral beliefs. And failure to at all times live up to these beliefs – what the Christian faith would call sin – is in his eyes "plain, hate-filled hypocrisy."

And therein lies my problem with Mike Rogers. It is the hypocrisy that permeates his activity. He does not out "friendly" closeted homosexuals, so it is clear that a more solidly pro-gay Mark Foley, for example, could have actually followed the route of former Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds and engaged in sex acts with a page safe from any possibility of Rogers would have acted against him. Instead, a series of creepy emails were sufficient for Rogers and others to tear the Florida Republican down last year (though they held the emails for nearly a year to ensure maximum political damage to the GOP, proving that they didn't give a damn about the pages).

But more to the point, Rogers seeks to use the very prejudices he claims to want eradicated to destroy those who do not hew to his agenda. In that, he is the equivalent of the kapos in the concentration camp, or a southern black who would cooperate with the Klan. And just as such morally corrupt individuals may have thought their actions were acceptable, history has judged them harshly, as I believe it will ultimately judge Rogers and his ilk harshly.

After all, this is the many who tried to get one blogger fired for daring to criticize his outing campaign, and temporarily got another's site shut down with false accusations against him. In that, Rogers is very much what those bloggers labeled him – a gay terrorist (or at least a gay McCarthyite), not a gay activist.

MORE EXCELLENT COMMENTARY AT Patterico.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 723 words, total size 7 kb.

I've always liked, or at least respected, Phyllis Schlafly. Her record on conservative issues is one to be admired. However, she has gotten herself caught up in the North American Union conspiracist nonsense, and today produced a column that is quite sad in its nuttiness.

The three-nation summit at Montebello, Quebec, was held behind closed doors, well guarded behind an intimidating fence and plenty of police, but the news conference that followed on Aug. 21 revealed more than the three heads of state had planned.

President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon all refused to deny that the Security and Prosperity Partnership is a stepping stone toward a North American Union.

The $64,000 question was posed by Fox News reporter Bret Baier. He asked all three heads of state, "Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union?"

Their response was positively sensational. Not one denied that SPP is leading to a North American Union. The White House transcript of the news conference allows us to assume that the elites of the three countries are, indeed, moving toward North American integration.

Bush insulted the questioner and those who want an answer by accusing them of believing in a "conspiracy." Bush twice said he was "amused" by such speculation, but as Queen Victoria of England famously said, "We are not amused."

Instead of addressing the crux of the question about plans to integrate the three North American countries, Bush resorted to ridicule. He sneered at his critics as "comical," and accused them of engaging in "political scare tactics" and wanting "to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples."

Harper and Calderon were equally dismissive of the notion.

Somehow, in the mind of Phyllis, ridiculing the ridiculous confirms its truth. But the reality is that there is no North American Union in the offing, simply a continuation of the principles contained in NAFTA. Indeed, the creation of the so-called NAU would require both treaties and Constitutional amendments that would never pass.

So settle down, Phyllis, and the rest of you folks – the NAU black helicopters are not coming to get you. You are dismissed.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

On the Democrat side, it looks like the DNC can start printing up the Hillary! posters. But among Republicans, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the party's candidates.

Interviews with dozens of Republicans across the country this Labor Day weekend found that despite the already lengthy campaign, which started almost a year ago, many candidates have made either no impression or a negative one, and many voters are still chewing over their options.

Now this doesn't trouble me terribly -- historically, presidential nomination fights are usually just beginning at this point, and I think many Republicans are simply not making a decision yet. Sure, we have been in campaign mode for some time now, but as recently as six months ago none of us had any idea that there would be a Fred Thompson candidacy. A year ago, it looked like a Giuliani/McCain race. Today we see things still up for grabs because voters are taking their time.

If things stay as they are, though, this could lead to something very interesting -- a convention that actually means something as the ticket is hammered out in Minneapolis. This would bring about excitement among the American populace, and show that the voice of the people is being heard.

Besides -- any GOP candidates stock wil rise in the face of a Democrat ticket headed by Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Greg at 09:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 1 kb.

I mean, on the heels of the Hsu problem, now there is another dirty donor to the Clinton campaign.

Sant S. Chatwal, an Indian American businessman, has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns, even as he battled governments on two continents to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens.

The founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers" while they press to raise record amounts.

Chatwal's case reached from his native India to New York City. The IRS pursued him for approximately $4 million in unpaid business taxes, while New York state placed a lien seeking more than $5 million in taxes. He forfeited a building to New York City on which he was delinquent on property taxes and was sued by federal regulators seeking to recoup millions of dollars in loans from a failed bank where he served as a director.

Across the ocean, three Indian banks forced him into U.S. bankruptcy, and he was charged with bank fraud. He was out on bond when he showed up in India in 2001 during a visit by his longtime friend Bill Clinton.

Yet none of the legal and financial woes -- occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents -- raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation. Chatwal recently said he plans to help raise $5 million from Indian Americans for Clinton's presidential bid.

But none of this caused any concern to the Clinton campaign. I guess they just have low standards -- or maybe, like Hsu, Chatwal was really trying to buy a Marc Rich-style pardon and the Clintons knew it.

Of course, John Edwards has had problems, too.

Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) faced such questions last week when federal prosecutors in Michigan indicted Geoffrey Fieger, the lawyer famous for defending assisted-suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, accusing him of channeling $127,000 in illegal contributions into Edwards's 2004 presidential campaign. Edwards's aides said, and prosecutors confirmed, that the activity was concealed from Edwards and that the candidate cooperated once he learned of problems.

As has Obama.

Similarly, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) gave to charity more than $30,000 in donations from Illinois fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his associates after Rezko was indicted in a federal corruption case. "We do our best to go through the hundreds of thousands of people who give to make sure there aren't problems," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. "I wouldn't say it's a perfect process, but we are as vigilant as possible."

But the bulk of the dirty money seems to be headed to Hillary. Could this be a case of (jail)birds of a feather flocking together?

More At Captain's Quarters.

Posted by: Greg at 05:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.

A number of Dem congresscritters seem to think so.

Many of the Democratic congressmen who ousted Republicans in marginal House districts last year privately express concern about the impact on their re-election prospects if Hillary Clinton is nominated for president.

Because of the strong possibility that Clinton indeed will be the party's candidate, these congressmen will not openly express their fears. But they dread her impact from the top of the ticket.

Clinton's opponents don't raise the question in public. But there is such underground talk in Iowa, the state opening the battle for convention delegates, questioning her ''electability.''

The prospect of another Clinton in the White House will fire up the GOP base. After all, we still hold Billzebubba in contempt, and the nation is still paying for his foreign policy failures. The Clinton team clearly does not deserve a second chance.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

According to this analysis, it most certainly does.

Does denying Florida delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention violate Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act? This Section essentially requires the U.S. Department of Justice to review - before it becomes operational - any change in any law, regulation, standard or procedure that might adversely affect minority voting rights in a covered jurisdiction like the Sunshine State. This "pre-clearance" process makes those advocating the change prove their proposed action will not have the effect of leaving minority voters worse off in terms of voting strength. Until recently, Florida's minority voters had the power to help choose the next Democratic presidential nominee. Historically, these citizens are overwhelmingly Democrat and have used the party's quadrennial presidential primary to express their view on which individual should be the occupant of the Oval Office. But recently, the Florida State Legislature pushed-up the date of the Democratic presidential primary. In turn, the rules and by-laws committee of the Democratic National Committee voted last month to strip the Sunshine state of it's 2008 convention delegates for violating the agreed-to national primary schedule. Assuming this decision is backed by the full DNC membership, it will be an unprecedented dilution of minority voting in the Democrats presidential primary system, in terms of Florida or any state, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act 42 years ago.

As they say in the law, this is Res ipsa loquitur: "The thing speaks for itself." Assuming neither Florida or the DNC backs down, the state's minority citizens will be subjected to the ultimate voter dilution. But what change is to blame, in terms of the Voting Rights Act? Taking away the Sunshine state's convention delegates punishes the wrong people: the voters, including millions of minority citizens protected by the most storied civil rights law passed by the Congress in American history.

According to this analysis, the Justice Department could order either the state or the DNC to give way on this one. And in one persuasive part of the essay, the author notes that since the decision to move the primary disenfranchised nobody (and was rationally related to increasing voter turnout by connecting it to another election) while the decision to strip Florida delegated explicitly disenfranchises voters, the easiest action would be to require the DNC to overturn its decision.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

For those of you who think that government-paid and managed healthcare would be great, consider the power that bureaucrats would have under John Edwards' plan.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal healthcare proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

''It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,'' he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. ``If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.''

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat ''the first trace of problem.'' Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory healthcare plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

''The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death,'' he said.

Got that. The government will decide when you MUST see the doctor.

So yes, ladies, you get that Pap smear and mammogram -- in fact, you MUST get that Pap smear and mammogram. And I'll be REQUIRED to see the podiatrist to check out my feet since I'm diabetic. No longer will Americans be responsible for their medical decisions -- some bureaucrat will tell you what doctors visits you need to make, and presumably when and where you have to go.

No telling what the penalty will be for not keeping to the governmentally-dictated medical regime.

I don't know about you, but it appears that the only decision that the government won't be intruding upon is the liberal sacrament of abortion -- after all, they tell us that's a medical decision to be made between patient and doctor.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters, Don Surber and Liberty Papers, Betsy's Page, RWN, Poliblog

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 4 kb.

Will this decision put those two states in the GOP column in November of 2008?

The Democratic candidates have signed a pledge that would forbid them from campaigning in states such as Michigan and Florida that have sought to move their presidential primaries into January 2008.

Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the four states that had been designated by the Democratic National Committee to hold early primaries, demanded in letters Friday that the candidates not participate in the early primaries of other states. The candidates either had to sign the pledge or risk annoying officials in those key states.

Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, signed the pledge within hours on Friday. By yesterday, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, had joined them.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton's campaign said in a statement. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

The best thing for the GOP to do at this point is to step aside and announce that it will not penalize the early states at the convention. It would then be very important for the GOP candidates to actively campaign in Michigan and Florida, indicating that they actually value the voice of the people of those states. That is part of a strategy for electoral victory in 2008 -- because after all, would you vote for any presidential candidate so beholden to special interests that he or she would refuse to even ask for your vote?

And while I agree with the NY Times that something needs to be done to rationalize the process, disenfranchising and ignoring voters is not the way to do so.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 03:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Frankly, I think it is way too soon for a book like this to be published. Such reflections are more appropriate after a president's term ends, now with 16 months left in his presidency.

But there is a quote that some folks are making great fun of in the BDS-afflicted left-o-sphere that I think illustrates something quite interesting about the nature of the modern presidency.

Then he said, "We'll have a nice place in Dallas," where he will be running what he called "a fantastic Freedom Institute" promoting democracy around the world. But he added, "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

Now the leftards have been having fun with that three-word "fantastic Freedom Institute" excerpt (wouldn't you like to see the whole quote -- I bet it is significantly more substantive), what strikes me is the latter part of that paragraph.

I think the quote illustrates something very important -- the presidency, for all its power and perks, is a gilded prison. It strips the ability to be normal from the occupant of the Oval Office.

How many of you can decide that you want to make an impromptu road-trip on the weekend because you are bored or stressed? Probably all of you. What you see in Bush's statement is his yearning to be able to do exactly that.

I live here in Houston. I'm a teacher, not anyone of great social importance. And yet I see George & Barbara Bush at community events on a regular basis. They have a freedom to come and go as they choose that they lacked for the dozen years of his Vice Presidency and especially his Presidency. I believe their son is looking forward to that.

Some will argue that Bush's weakness is being exposed here. I'd argue that we are getting a glimpse of his humanity in a way that we have never seen the humanity of a president before.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

I can only assume that the Democrats will start a little housecleaning of their own.

Bruce at GayPatriot offers some suggestions.

These are in the order of importance based on the damage they have done to the Congress and our nation as a whole.

1 - Jay Rockefeller. For illegally leaking classified intelligence material to the news media due to his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Such acts constitute treason in a time of war.

2 - Nancy Pelosi. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For conducting illegal foreign policy with a sworn enemy of the United States (Syria).

3 - Harry Reid. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition.

4 - John Murtha. For slandering the United States Marines in a time of war for accusing them of murder and rape in the Haditha incident where no charges were filed at the time, and where now most all charges have been dropped, and by all military investigatory accounts — no crimes were committed.

5 - Ted Kennedy. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For violating Senate ethics rules by serving in the US Senate for 30 years following his drunk driving murder of a young woman.

6 - Dick Durbin. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For slandering the US military in a time of war by equating them with Nazi storm troopers.

7 - William Jefferson. For blatant corruption in office and abuse of power during the Katrina disaster.

Might I add Patrick Kennedy for his DUI incident, Patrick Leahy for leaking classified documents and getting a US operative killed, and Dianne Feinstein for steering contracts to her hubby's firms.

Feel free to add more.

UPDATE: Some additional observations from Gateway Pundit.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

According to reports, Senator Larry Craig will resign from the Senate today.

Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, plans to resign his seat on Saturday after Republican leaders put intense pressure on him to leave in the aftermath of an undercover sex sting, Republican Party officials said Friday.

Through intermediaries and unusually harsh public statements and actions, party officials made it clear they wanted Mr. Craig to quit before Congress returned from its summer recess next week, hoping to quickly conclude an embarrassing episode that threatened to complicate an already difficult election cycle for Senate Republicans.

Republican Party officials said Friday evening that they had been notified of Mr. CraigÂ’s intention to give up his seat as of Sept. 30 and that Gov. C. L. Otter, a Republican, would name a replacement.

Let me say for the record -- Craig's resignation is probably a good thing, and I think it should be immediate, not effective in a month. That said, I think it is necessary only because of Craig's poor choices in handling his arrest in an airport restroom.

Craig should not have entered a guilty plea to any charge -- at most, he should have entered a nolo contendere or Alford plea. In addition, as Captain Ed points out, there is a serious question as to whether any conduct Craig engaged in constitutes criminal activity and whether the plea was coerced with political threats. Indeed, does the mere act of seeking gay sex constitute criminal activity in the post Lawrence v. Texas world, where consensual sodomy has been held to be a constitutional right? This is especially true if, as in this case, there was no exchange of money, no indecent exposure, and no actual sexual contact in a public place. Are shoe-bumping and hand gestures actually barred under disorderly conduct statutes?

This is not to say that I approve of Larry Craig's actions in that lavatory, if he was, in fact, seeking sex. I just wonder where the crime is -- and how homosexual activist groups can stand by and not argue that arrests such as this one are legally wrong. Is the greater hypocrisy being a homosexual or bisexual opposed to homosexual marriage, homosexuals in the military, and the inclusion of homosexuals in hate-crime laws, or in objecting to the criminalization of homosexual activity but remaining silent while a political opponent faces criminal charges that in other circumstances you would argue are legally and constitutionally dubious? I'd argue it is the latter.

And let me add that while I oppose homosexual marriage and certainly reject the notion that the 14th Amendment or any other provision of the US Constitution or the constitutions of any state that requires homosexual marriage, that does not indicate an antipathy toward gay individuals -- I simply believe that the authors of any of those documents had any intention of legalizing that which they all condemned. And while I reject the holding in Lawrence v. Texas as flawed, I personally stand with the view expressed by Justice Thomas that laws like the statute struck down in that case should not be on the books because of the nonsensical restriction on individual liberty they impose -- but they do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. And while I oppose including homosexuals under hate-crime laws, it is because I oppose the very notion of hate-crime laws and believe that such statutes undermine the notion of equal protection of the law and potentially impact First Amendment rights if used to restrict so-called "hate speech". But as I have said in the past, I am fully supportive of removing any restriction on military service based upon sexual orientation, and I have see no reason to legally restrict individuals from any profession based upon their sexual orientation.

And as for the issue of homosexuals holding public office, I have no objection to it. I have supported candidates I have known to be gay in the past, and will do so in the future. All other things being equal, I'd be supportive of keeping Larry Craig in office as an open homosexual. But the pattern of conduct -- especially in the face of the investigation into his activities by the largest newspaper in his home state -- shows a profound lack of discretion and judgment. That, my friends, is why Larry Craig has been so damaged by this incident, and why he needs to leave the Senate.

Early speculation has already begun about Craig's eventual replacement in the Senate.

A slightly different perspective at The Van Der Galiën Gazette.

UPDATE: Craig has announced his resignation, effective September 30.

Early word is that Idaho Gov. Butch Otter will appoint former governor and current Lt. Gov. Jim Risch as Craig's successor

If Jim Risch becomes the U.S. Senate's newest member, expect him to hit the ground running.

"I don't see him sitting around and saying, ‘I better learn the ropes here and take it easy and see how things are going,'" said Albertson College of Idaho political science professor Jasper LiCalzi.

"It will be interesting to watch him in a different legislative body," Boise State University professor emeritus Jim Weatherby said. "He's been so effective in the state Legislature, but he goes in as senator No. 100, as an appointed senator.

"But knowing Jim Risch, he is going to make the most of it."

Sources told reporters Friday that Gov. Butch Otter had chosen Risch, a fellow Republican, to succeed Sen. Larry Craig, who is expected to resign this morning. An Otter spokesman said that wasn't true, but Risch makes a lot of sense to Statehouse watchers like LiCalzi and Weatherby.

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Amy Proctor

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1032 words, total size 10 kb.

A man who never should have been US Senator has now announced he is leaving the US Senate after three decades in office.

John William Warner, who was best known for marrying actress Elizabeth Taylor when he entered the Senate 28 years ago but who grew into an elder statesman and Republican maverick highly regarded for his expertise in defense matters, announced his retirement Friday.

Warner, 80, chose the north steps of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia, where he studied law a half-century ago, to reveal his widely anticipated decision not to seek a sixth term next year.

"So I say that my work and service to Virginia as a senator . . . will conclude upon the 6th of January, 2009, when I finish . . . my career of . . . 30 years in the United States Senate," Warner said. The former Navy secretary and past chairman of the Armed Services Committee said he wrestled with the question, coming to closure only "in the last day or two." He postponed a decision, he said, until completing a trip to Iraq last week. Warner has been a leading GOP critic of the Bush White House's war policy.

The rigors of Senate service as he enters his 80s and the importance of letting the next generation of Senate leaders step up drove his choice, he said.

"I'm going to quietly step aside," he said as his third wife, Jeanne, stood at his side.

Warner's departure triggers a round of political jockeying that will change the political landscape nationally and in Virginia.

Some view this departure as a negative for Republicans. I do not. And not just because of Warner's mushy moderation in recent years. At age 80 and finishing his fifth term in the office, Warner needs to step aside so that a new generation of Republican leaders can step to the lead.

For my own part, I have mixed emotions about John Warner.

I met his several times, the first when I was twelve and he visited Guam during the Bicentennial celebrations, which he headed up under President Ford. Later, as a student at Warner's alma mater, I met Senator Warner at a number of GOP events while I was active in the College Republicans. And in the years since, I've encountered him a time or two. My mpression is one of a decent man who has been a competent public official -- but whose views I don't always agree with.

And I remember, too, that he was not the man who should have become US Senator from Virginia in 1978. Only the unspeakable tragedy of August 2, 1978 allowed Warner to become the GOP candidate for US Senate in 1978, when Dick Obenshain the man who can rightly be called the father of the modern Virginia Republican Party was killed in a plane crash. I knew Obenshain's son, Mark Obenshain, several years later through the state College Republicans, and have always wondered how the presence of his more consistently conservative father in the Senate would have changed the face of America.

And yet that historical reminiscence and speculation is today less important than determining how we as a party can hold on to the Senate seat Warner is vacating next fall.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.