PSoTD

Wow. If there was ever a case that the Republican Party is now devoid of any future meaning in politics, here it is:

Their interpretation of John Kerry's speech - a man not even running for office - is the issue they are coalescing around for the election.

Good luck on riding that until next Tuesday!

I'm sure the marching orders to promote the "Bush Economy" as a last gasp are out. Of course, the big story here is the increase in the cost of benefits. Hello, healthcare...

I think the scariest thing about the White House Web Site today is that they think that taxpayer money should be spent on building and distributing such things as:

Carve Your Own Pumpkin
Spooky Word Search
Barney Jigsaw Puzzle
Halloween Coloring Pages

It is pretty obvious that the White House folks have lost track of what the White House web site should be. A place for parents to find online Halloween activities for their kids? NO. What a bunch of hollow weiners they have making the web site content decisions.

It's amazing how if the Democrats get even a small majority in just one house of the Congress, how easily the Republicans are expected to roll over, including George W. Bush. Apparently, Republicans believe Bush will sign just about anything sent to him.

Under Speaker Pelosi and/or Majority Leader Reid, we will see tax cuts rolled back and government spending increased (a GOP-controlled Congress would also increase spending, but that's a separate issue). Economic policy under a Democrat-controlled Congress will certainly not favor the continuation of the current robust economy. In two years, this will be evident.

What a public betraying of the secret lack of confidence in Bush by various Republican writers...

Jim Wallis was standing in front of about 200 people at a Harry Schwartz bookstore in Milwaukee this week snapping his fingers.

He had just mentioned that every day in the world, about 30,000 children under the age of 5 die from preventable diseases. That's one every 3 seconds.

He snapped his fingers. Waited 3 seconds. Snapped them again. Waited 3 seconds. Snapped them again.

The buzz in the bookstore stopped. Then Wallis continued.

"I find it hard to believe that with that going on, a same-sex marriage amendment in Wisconsin would be Jesus' top priority," he said to affirmative nods.

Wallis was in Milwaukee as part of a tour for the paperback release of his 2005 best seller, "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It." It is a book credited with helping moderates and progressives in religious communities feel they could have a place in a political arena dominated by the religious right.

Any public official caught stealing campaign lawn signs ought to be fired - that's an abuse of trust.

Add Dick Armey to the growing number of Republican voices that claim the Republicans are likely to lose the November election because they... turned into Democrats!

Armey fails to see the problem. It isn't that they turned into Democrats, it is that they turned into power-hungry money machines, which is how the system in Washington is set up to work when one party remains in power. Armey's complaint is with the system, but he's certainly adverse to changing that, because he's a product of it.

I don't have anything really to say about O'Reilly's comments, it was just more misleading spin.

But Letterman, I believe, was on to something. I think he really illuminated the average American's thoughts about the War. A la Gauche has the transcript, and here's what I think is valuable going forward.

Well, you know in the beginning, here is my position in the beginning and I, I think I - I sort of felt the way everybody did, we felt like we wanted to do something, because something terrible had been done to us. We did not understand exactly why, all we knew was something terrible, something heinous, something obscene had been done to us. So while it didn't necessarily make sense to go into Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like yes, we needed to do something. And as the weeks turned into months, years and one death became a dozen deaths and hundred deaths and a thousand deaths - then we began to realize you know what? Maybe we're causing more trouble over there than the whole effort has been worth.

O'Reilly: Possible, but do you right now? Do you want the Untied States to win in Iraq?

Letterman: First of all, I don't -

O'Reilly: It's an easy question, If you don't want the United States to win -

Letterman: It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful.

[applause]

Letterman: How 'bout that? That was a good one.

O'Reilly: That was great, Dave. You get paid for those.

Letterman: No, but uh - I, uh, What I would like would be uh, for uh, uh Americans to stop dying. And for there to be stability in that part of the world. Now if that means an American victory, ok. But I'm not sure that you can have stability in that part of the world with or without an American presence now, uh, so I would do whatever it would take to stop Americans dying.

Letterman's reasoning appears to be:

After we were attacked we needed to do something to respond. The President said we needed to do this. So we agreed. The President turned out to be wrong. Americans are dying. We haven't made things better. There doesn't seem to be much chance to improve things while there. We made a big mistake. So why are we continuing with this mistake?

And then he hits the final note:

O'Reilly: The show's not gonna be on the air - Alright look, do you actually think we're a bad country for doing what we did? And Bush is an evil man? Is that what you're putting forth here?

Letterman: I, I, I don't know that I think he's evil. I think he's misguided. I, I, I think that in the beginning, like I said, we needed to do something. People wanted to feel like we were doing something, people wanted to feel like the attack was going to be accounted for. Well, to my way of thinking, the attack hasn't really been accounted for. And beyond that,

O'Reilly: It hasn't been accounted for in the sense that we - Look everybody says -

Letterman says that justice for the original attack has been lost in the shuffle, and that he feels it has been neglected. And O'Reilly agrees!

That, I believe, is what the majority of America thinks about the Iraq War and Bush's administration of it. And in the end - O'Reilly actually agrees, although he quickly retreats from that point.

But, no. Bush is a conservative and a Republican and there's no fucking way any liberal would want ANYTHING to do with him. You dry-humped him for three elections, he's yours.

Poor David Safavian. His 18 months will be over before Bush starts handing out pardons to all the rest of the members of his administration.

The process of drafting eminent domain legislation:

A new draft bill aimed at avoiding significant reformation of the state's eminent domain laws is already drawing criticism from some quarters.

Rather than compose its own draft legislation, an interim legislative committee on Thursday accepted a bill drawn up by leaders of several energy and agriculture groups.

The substitute bill was drawn up over the course of two meetings among leaders of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, the Wyoming Wool Growers Association and the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, among others.

Not involved in that process was the Landowners Association of Wyoming, which has collaborated with those groups and others on eminent domain reform.

Leaders of the energy and agriculture groups said theirs was the true collaborative effort that represented compromise and a much more palatable work-in-progress, specifically excluding several key provisions that the interim committee had left on the table. Those included early notification to landowners of intent to develop, compensation triggers and a certification process as a prerequisite to exercising eminent domain.

From ADN:

Should Alaskans judge a politician by the company he keeps?

Rep. Don Young probably hopes not.

He stood by three corrupt, disgraced fellow Republican congressmen -- even after their troubles were well-known.

Using funds he raised through his own political action committee, Rep. Young sent thousands of dollars to help three colleagues who already were under criminal investigation. All resigned this year. As reported in Tuesday's Juneau Empire, Rep. Young gave a total of $12,500 to help Reps. Tom DeLay of Texas, "Duke" Cunningham of California and Bob Ney of Ohio.

Former House Republican Majority Leader DeLay is under indictment for money laundering. He's charged with hiding the source of money he used to achieve the Republican takeover of the Texas Legislature and then gerrymander Texas congressional districts to elect more Republicans. Cunningham went to jail for taking bribes from defense contractors. Ney was the congressman who lobbyist Jack Abramoff admitted bribing.

This wasn't a case where Rep. Young helped fellow Republicans who later got into trouble. Rep. Young sent them the money after their legal problems were widely known.

And it looks like the Democratic Party challenger to Young, Diane Benson, has made some considerable progress in the polls over the past week. Bad timing for Young to be seen with his pals in Alaska's newspapers.

Whee!

It's so great we have to pay taxpayer money for this.

Many active duty, reserve, and guard service members are concerned about the war in Iraq and support the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to their Congressional Representative and US Senators to urge an end to the U.S. military occupation. The Appeal messages will be delivered to members of Congress at the time of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January 2007.

As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.

Courageous of them, courage to them.

Selma, 2006:

Selma Mayor James Perkins Jr. gave an impassioned plea during Monday's City Council meeting for the citizenry to obey police and not to resist arrests.

Such a request would seem peculiar; however, Selma residents are operating with more knowledge and precedence set when three former police officers were found guilty several weeks ago of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Perkins said it has to stop “before someone gets seriously injured.”

A Dallas County jury awarded three men a total of $310,000 in damages after an incident six years ago outside a Selma night club, when jurors said police overreacted to a distress call sent out by two inexperienced officers. During the trial their attorney, Faya Rose Toure, brought to the attention of the court an individual's right “to use reasonable force to resist what they know to be an unlawful arrest.”

Perkins said the police department has since reported an abnormally high number of charges for resisting arrest and officers have been attacked. He urged citizens to comply with the law, and not try to determine what's unlawful while in the streets.

Thanks, Chris Bowers.

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert

I see the odds of the return on this project to be approximately such:

50% chance that the Federal Government is completely wasting money on something that will never be utilized.

50% chance that the Federal Government is spending money on something that will be abused against political opponents of those in power.

I'm sure all of our blog archives will be priority subjects of scrutiny for Natural Language Processing Research.

It seems that the closer we get to the election, the less eyeballs visit political blogs. Check out the views and visitor graphs for the following blogs:

Eschaton

Daily Kos

Instapundit

Michelle Malkin

Let's Play the Dick Morris campaign advertisement game.

Here's one possible ad: We see and hear a wiretapped conversation, with a famous political consultant now columnist revealing his worst plans to a hooker - and, inadvertently, to government eavesdroppers, too. Then, when he's about to spill the beans on when and where the next party is going to be, the line should go crackly, with a man's voice saying "Get this address, we should get some photos for future reference."

The announcer can then say, "If the Republicans win, the National Security Agency can still find out about your little dirty secrets."

Wow, the Democrats could play the "silly scary game" too!

Jeff Jacoby really struggles to miss the major point of his own commentary.

WAS IT a mistake to go to war in Iraq? The latest voice to say so is that of conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online's shrewd editor-at-large and, until last week, a supporter of the war.

Goldberg hasn't become a John Murtha clone; he still believes that a precipitous American withdrawal would hand the jihadis a victory, and that finishing the job is preferable to bugging out and leaving Iraq a shambles.

But he has concluded that invading Iraq was the wrong choice, however well-intentioned. ``The Iraq war was a mistake," he writes, ``by the most obvious criteria: If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003."

Is that really how this war — or any war — should be judged?

Jacoby then goes on to make comparisons to the War of 1812, and World War II, and at the end throws the Civil War into it as well...

The point isn't that the violent mess in Iraq today is analogous to the Civil War in 1863, or to the Ardennes in 1944, or to the burning of Washington in 1814. The point is that we don't know.

Lessee...

War of 1812 - America was under siege by Great Britain.
World War II - Germany declared War on the United States.
Civil War - The Confederate Army attacked Fort Sumter.

And that's the big difference between the Iraq War and the rest of these wars, which makes his comparisons invalid. Iraq was a choice, not a response to an attack or declaration of War. Oh, and it was an attack on their sovereignty, not on ours. Jacoby compares three wars in which choice was relatively limited by the enemy to a war where choice was completely limited by the thinking capacity of the American President.

Comparing the thinking process behind the decision to go ahead with the Iraq War to the processes involved with these three other wars is an insult to American history and our predecessors who had shaped this nation. This is twitcraft, and a shame that it wastes paper.

Again mocking their own conservative base:

If you suspect there are forces eager to suppress Republican turnout, you are right. Rarely has the press echoed Democratic themes as relentlessly as it has in the closing weeks of the 2006 campaign. And the main theme is that Republicans are about to be blown away. The question now is whether this message will persuade Republican voters to stay home on Election Day. It shouldn't, so long as Republicans--and especially conservative Republicans--act like adults, not like petulant children angry over one thing or another that didn't go their way.

You have to wonder if people like Barnes and Limbaugh are transferring traits they see in conservative bloggers to their own voting bloc...

Bush says Lieberman was purged from the Democratic Party.

This summer, we saw what happens when a Democrat rejects his party's doctrine of cut and run. Senator Joe Lieberman, a three-term Democrat from Connecticut, supports completing the mission in Iraq, supports victory in Iraq. And for taking this stand, he was purged from his party. Think about what that means. Six years ago, the Democrats thought Joe Lieberman was good enough to run for Vice President of the United States. Now, because he supports victory in Iraq, they don't think he's fit to be in their party. There's only position in the Democrat Party that everybody seems to agree on: If you want to be a Democrat these days, you can be for almost anything, but victory in Iraq is not an option.

I'm all for purging Lieberman, not because of his position in Iraq, but because of his refusal to play by the election rules as he understood them from the get-go simply because he lost. But it's time for Lieberman to either say Bush is right, or full of shit. The press needs to ask.

Just caught about a half an hour of Limbaugh on the car radio. It seems he has decided that the best way to deal with a deflated Republican base is to mock them. He's put together a fake radio ad that cheers on the "cut and run" Republicans who won't be at the voting booth this year if there's even just one thing the Republicans did that they don't like, and of course, throws George Soros' name as the sponsor of the ad.

I've wondered what the "wuss percentage" of Rush Limbaugh's audience might be - those susceptible to AM bullying - but apparently Limbaugh feels it is high enough to make it worth spending air time to hector his own listeners.

Clueless.

They know who you are, what you do, how many people are in your family and where you live.

They are political operatives and as more and more voters are turned off by politics with each passing year, they have been exploring new technologies and techniques to win them back.

Borrowing from private-sector marketing techniques, political operatives are increasingly relying on sophisticated databases, whiz-bang Internet sites and blogs to supplement their traditional big-media campaigns.

"Things have changed from the old days," said Sam Rodriguez, political director for the California Democratic Party. "Technology has provided us new tools to pinpoint the voter in the household that would be supportive to our Democratic ticket and just talk to that voter."

Political analysts say such techniques are critical to counteract voters' growing disenchantment.

Technology and techniques are NOT the answers to recover disinterested voters. Anything that the hierarchy of the Republican or Democratic Party might say could be an answer to disinterest or disaffection is to be taken at face value: the viewpoint of one of the two major brands that clog a "marketplace" with a variety of two flavors, and the mixing of those two flavors, to their own advantage.

Imagine going to a Friendly's Ice Cream store, and being told the ice cream choices were vanilla and chocolate. Oh, and vanilla chocolate, and vanilla vanilla chocolate, and chocolate chocolate vanilla, and vanilla vanilla vanilla, and chocolate chocolate chocolate, etc. Unless you REALLY liked vanilla and/or chocolate to the exception of any other potential flavor, would you keep going back?

The secret to interesting voters back to the election process is to provide more options. I don't think there's any way a two-party political process is going to do much better than we do today as far as drawing back the disinterested.

The rules need to change to allow other political parties to do more than provide token participation in elections. This relates to the access to money and the access to process. For example, on process, redistricting is always looked at as benefitting either Republicans or Democrats. That clearly is to the deficit of any possible third or fourth party. This is just one example of how the two party system uses the process to blunt the opportunity for additional parties - and also how it creates "safe districts" which promote disinterest in campaigns and voting in even the two party marketplace.

So... when somebody tells you that technology and technique by a party will re-interest disaffected voters into voting, I say bullshit. Horrible mistakes, such as most of the Bush Administration, will re-interest voters to correct a problem, and exciting opportunities will do so also. If it turns out that voting numbers increase in 2006 over 2002, you will undoubtedly hear both technology and technique discussed for increasing the numbers. Me, I'll believe it's pretty much about the disaster of Iraq.

And because of that disaster, I'll be surprised if voting numbers increase, because as motivated as those horrified by our situation in Iraq are to vote, that motivation is considerably diminished by those who generally would support a Republican but find the past four years repugnant.

Bush was confused. I'm sure he was thinking that it was more commonplace that he signed items that costs lives. But he was wrong yesterday, per usual:

THE PRESIDENT: Welcome to the White House on an historic day. It is a rare occasion when a President can sign a bill he knows will save American lives. I have that privilege this morning.

I guess I might expect someone who had never been President to say that. But Bush should be signing legislation that he knows will save American lives several times a year, which hardly makes it rare. Does the Coast Guard portion of the Homeland Security budget save lives? How about the defense spending bill? The SAFE Port Act? What about this emergency funding bill?

The fact is, he does sign such legislation, pretty regularly. He just doesn't realize the impact.

I think my head would have exploded.

DeLay, Ney, Foley, Cunningham, Weldon, etc., etc...

Maybe Gerrymander ought to consider a Republican Corruption Advent Calendar.

There's an updated story from the Associated Press on the Curt Weldon investigation that says the feds actually raided six sites today — not just the home of the Delaware County Republican's lobbyist daughter and Delco GOP powerhouse Charlie Sexton but also two other sites in the Philly area and two in Jacksonville, Fla.

I guess I'm kinda wondering about the timing of all this, and in an optimistic way. I'm assuming the FBI could time the public release of the Weldon investigation after the election. But for whatever reason, they chose to do this now, at a point when it could most greatly effect the Congressional election - not only of Weldon, but other Republicans as well - another log on the corrupt Republican fire. Could there be a desire by some in the FBI to bring back executive branch oversight by the Congress? Wouldn't getting rid of rubber stamp Republicans - particularly the corrupt ones - be a means to that end? Is it possible the timing is political as well as prosecutorial?

I do wonder. And it strangely makes me optimistic.

There is such a thing.

When I was in college, I had a course on non-verbal communication, and I did a video project on how institutions use clocks (or did not use clocks) to non-verbally communicate time-involved goals. Some day I'll post about it, I found it pretty interesting.

Institutions can use the calendar in a similar way. The Advent Calendar is just an example of how to use the calendar to enhance messages by an institution.

It seems to me, as we get closer to election day, that the Democratic Party needs to be focusing some more message focus on the calendar.

The national web site has on a secondary page - but not on the front page - the following image:

I think the 100 Actions site, and the countdown graphic, are great, but the countdown needs to be more promoted. For most folks, the ONLY action they will be taking is to vote. I'd like to see some ten second spots, or even 30 second spots, on television that reinforce how many days until election day and the opportunity to vote for change. The goal isn't to remind people so much when election day is as to build expectation and readiness to act when that day comes. I'd like to see more of this.

From a conservative blogger:

The WashTimes hightlights several GOP campaigns that are flogging the tax issue hard, and I think this has a pretty good chance of making a dent in the polls.

That's not the point of this post. One of the comments is:

They already get enough of my money, thank you very much.

Honestly, if that was the case for all of us, would this be the case? Who has the responsibility of paying this down beyond rhetorical number games?

Conservatives have the wrong focus. Their problem is with spenders, not with taxers. Republicans have proven that we don't have to have pro-tax policies to have out-of-control spending. If conservatives don't vote out the Congress that has been so actively increasing the debt the past 4 years, they should shut up about taxes, because they're being irresponsible about spending. It's time to put the ballot where their mouths are.

Comparing the official state trips and public speaking opportunities for candidates taken by one President George W. Bush during the last mid-term election in October, and what he has done to date this month (listed at the White House web site):

October 2002:

October 4, 2002 - Massachusetts Victory 2002 Reception
October 5, 2002 - Manchester, New Hampshire Welcome; John Sununu for Senate Reception
October 8, 2002 - Van Hilleary for Governor Luncheon (TN); Tennessee Welcome
October 14, 2002 - Thaddeus McCotter for Congress Dinner (MI); Michigan Welcome
October 18, 2002 - Rochester, Minnesota; Springfield, Missouri
October 22, 2002 - Pennsylvania Welcome; Bangor, Maine Welcome
October 24, 2002 - Alabama Welcome; Charlotte, North Carolina Welcome; Columbia, South Carolina Welcome
October 28, 2002 - Colorado Welcome; New Mexico Welcome
October 31, 2002 - West Virginia Welcome; Indiana Welcome; South Dakota Welcome

October 2006:

October 4, 2006 - Bob Beauprez for Governor and Colorado Republican Party Reception; Rick Renzi for Congress Breakfast

Tsk, tsk, nobody's invitin' the President anywhere these days.

Visit more Republicans. C'mon. Do it. Make America's Day.

Time has an article entitled: Why Did Mark Warner Quit?

Warner claims he wants to spend more time with family. Why isn't that good enough a reason - for anyone? American should be trumpeting this - at a time where politicians are doing anything they can in DC to hold onto power, here's one that claims he'd rather pursue happiness.

I'm not sorry that Warner dropped out of the race, and I think America should support his reasons, wholeheartedly. In fact, I think America should force those reasons on most incumbents up for re-election in Congress next month. Congressional incumbents have earned a retirement with their families. Voters could do far worse than to send them home.

The pride of Republican political thinking.

It would be useful to see some of the underdog House Democratic Party candidates use this question the next few weeks. Because the Administration is planning for it, and a Republican Congress will enable it.

I tend to agree, good news for John Edwards. Another interesting point:

As for HIllary, this is a double-edged sword. She loses the one candidate who probably could've gone toe to toe with her on the money front, and the one who had easily built up the most innovative, competent campaign team. But, Hillary will do best if the field remains cluttered with a ton of men. That way, she can win primaries with 30 percent of the vote. If the field narrows quickly, she'd be in trouble. (Of course, I'm still not convinced Hillary is running...)

Yesterday I spotted a conservative blog posting about his fear of Republicans staying home on election day, and giving Democrats the Congress.

What about Republicans planning to vote for Democrats, though? Is there a benefit now for the Democrats to find prominent Republicans who are willing to state that they plan to support a Democrats for Congressional races? Is it that hard to find a Republican that is willing to say they plan to vote for Casey over Santorum in Pennsylvania, or Tester over Burns in Montana, or any other Democrat over a Republican anywhere in the U.S.? If the election rout is on (and that's a big if, one that I don't believe at this point), shouldn't the Democrats find ways to encourage Republican Party pre-election introspection?

I'm sure there are lots of conservative bloggers that would appreciate that.

With gas prices down almost a dollar a gallon since August, it's enough to make Americans want Republican incumbents to be at risk of losing re-election all year long.

C'mon, don't we have better looking equipment to use for calling the President of China?

Not surprising. Still depressing.

North Korea's test could also unleash a nuclear arms race in Asia, with Japan and South Korea feeling pressure to build nuclear weapons for defensive reasons.

Yet a number of senior U.S. officials have said privately that they would welcome a North Korean test, regarding it as a clarifying event that would forever end the debate within the Bush administration about whether to solve the problem through diplomacy or through tough actions designed to destabilize North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's grip on power.

Typical. This administration prefers NO OPTIONS. This administration prefers HARD LINE REQUIREMENTS.

This seems like a pretty useful set of guidelines for Homeowners Associations...

The more they decide to get rid of you. It's not a good time to run for re-election as part of Republican Congressional Leadership...

This conservative blogger isn't one of them, but I'm wondering how many Republicans might be considering voting their Republican Congressional incumbent(s) out of office so they can get representation from the GOP that they feel actual enthusiasm for...

Mark Foley is eventually going to be coming out of "rehab" and will have to face the cameras and the phone calls and the constant pressure of the press to find "things" out, whether that be truth or lies.

Meanwhile, the Republican leadership is attempting to construct a new reality covering up a coverup. They're having some major problems with that, starting with a general lack of credibility for Republican Congressman and greatly enhanced by the publicly laughable bureaucratic stature of men like Denny Hastert and Thomas Reynolds.

Mark Foley, being on the loose, presents considerable problems for the Republicans, particularly if Foley gets out after 30 days, which would be right before election day.

So... what are the Republicans planning to promise Foley, to either stay in rehab past election day, or to support their Winchester Mystery House-style constructed scenario? There's obviously interest in a deal from both sides. The news media ought to be investigating communications that occur now - in real time - between Republicans and House Leadership and Foley and his family.

We have a new meaning for the term.

An aide to top White House political adviser Karl Rove resigned in the fallout over a congressional report showing many White House contacts with ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a spokeswoman said on Friday.

Last week's report by the U.S. House of Representatives Government Reform Committee said Rove aide Susan Ralston had passed inside White House information to Abramoff while she was also accepting his tickets to as many as nine sports and entertainment events.

...

Ralston submitted a letter of resignation to Bush on Thursday in which she said after "almost six years (at the White House) the time has come for me to pursue other opportunities."

I wonder if that means "testifying".

Don't name your son Robert.

Why the voters of the IL-14 Congressional District wouldn't find John Laesch a lot more impressive than Denny Hastert. Besides, just looking at Hastert's picture regularly has to increase your cholesterol, he's so unhealthy looking. Hastert clearly has a SABBLIR body condition*.

*Schmoozed and Boozed By Lobbying Interests Relentlessly.

To try and curb school violence, a state law maker is proposing arming school staff.

At the beginning of next year Lasee plans to introduce a bill that will allow school staff to carry weapons.

Yes, let's teach the kids that everyone needs to bring a gun to work, regardless of the risk. That's brilliant.

Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for the political party in power in this country.

We're about to see House Republicans do their imitation of billiard balls on a break as the polling news about Denny Hastert sinks in.

I mean, he's really avoiding an opportunity to be a responsible Republican here. The odds are, this is going to get even uglier, and he's clearly determined to paint the rotting Hastert firewall.

Missed this one: Thou Shalt Be Conservative.

How can anyone possibly know if they have the facts, when new details come out each day?

Three times in the past week America has been sickened by attacks on schools. The Amish school attack may have been the most disturbing, if only because it proves that any school in America could be the site of such a horror. There's no immunity in rurality, there's no protection via space. Anyone that is a parent with kids in school has been reminded of that several times in the past week.

So how does society stop these rampages of people like Charles Carl Roberts IV? What can we do, as a national community and as local communities, to keep this from happening? These are incredibly cowardly acts. How do we protect our kids from the angry violent cowards in our midst?

I don't know, but I sure think it's worth the national conversation on prevention. Perhaps there's too much attention to the actual crimes in the news media, and not enough attention to what we can do to prevent them. And at some point, we, as a nation, have to decide that anger management is a required skill that all citizens have to master.

Top contributors to Mark Foley for 05-06 period, courtesy of OpenSecrets.org:

MARK FOLEY (R-FL) Top Contributors

1 Florida Turbine Technologies $13,400
2 Oxford Management Services $11,500
3 AFLAC Inc $10,000
3 Carpenters & Joiners Union $10,000
3 Every Republican is Crucial PAC $10,000
3 FPL Group $10,000
3 Sheet Metal/AC Contractors Assn $10,000
3 United Parcel Service $10,000
9 Mortgage Bankers Assn of America $8,500
10 Gruss & Co $8,400
10 Prescription Plus $8,400
10 Royal Wolff Ventures $8,400
13 American Resort Development Assn $8,330
14 DEG Capital Partners $8,200
14 Gold Coast Beverage $8,200
16 Charles Stewart Mott Foundation $8,000
16 Flo-Sun Inc $8,000
16 Huizenga Holdings $8,000
16 Thunderhead Productions $8,000
20 Morgan Stanley $7,750

3 transactions this candidate made to all other committees.

BOB NEY FOR CONGRESS
06/28/05 $1,000.00

FRIENDS OF GEORGE ALLEN
06/29/05 $2,000.00

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
07/27/06 $100,000.00

Interesting to see George Allen's name on this short list.

More on the Foley case:

Foley's supporters, struggling to put their dismay into words, said the scandal hints at not just a human failure but a systematic letdown.

"It's a failure to uphold the standards to which we profess our government to be all about," said Tom DeRita, a Palm Beach Gardens Republican who said he has raised millions in campaign cash for Foley.

Here's a thought for those in Florida that may want to donate to Republicans - avoid giving to those who raised money for Foley. If someone was out pitching you for money for a startup business - a startup business that went along for a while but eventually was discovered to be an utter fraud - for example, saying it made money selling Christmas cards but was really a front for selling porn - would you continue to invest with that frontman who pitched the business?

Or would you do much better diligence next time?

I keep reading these conservative blogs that talk about the Mark Foley scandal, and they like to bring up the name of Gerry Studds, but they never bring up Daniel Crane, Republican of Illinois, who was censured at the same time as Studds for having sex with an underage Congressional page. Isn't that odd?