One of these suckers could ruin your whole day!

DAHLGREN, VA. — The Navy set a new world record for the most powerful electromagnetic railgun when it fired a test shot here Thursday morning.

The gun fired an aluminum projectile at 10.68 megajoules. A joule is the work needed to produce one watt of energy for one second. A megajoule is 1 million joules.

Guests including Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Rear Adm. William Landay, head of the Office of Naval Research, witnessed the shot via a live video feed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren. The gun was launched from a control center after approximately four minutes of charging the electromagnetic rails. After the charge, the gun fired and witnesses saw a quick burst of flame as the projectile, traveling at 2,500 meters per second, or Mach 7, hit its target.

Damn -- that puts the lie to the old saying that "You can run but you can't hide". I do believe that running wouldn't even be an option, with the target truly being dead before it knew what hit it.

You can watch the video here -- just don't blink.

And I love the quote at the beginning.

"I never, ever, want to see a sailor or Marine in a fair fight." Adm. Gary Roughead Chief of Naval Operations

Bravo, Admiral -- and let's extend that wish to the Army and Air Force as well.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Mike Huckabee has no more chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2008 than I do. He needs to get out of the way so that the GOP base can decide who we want as president between the two front runners.

I am therefore ready to do what’s best for the GOP and the USA.

A defiant Mike Huckabee said Thursday that there is “no way” he would drop out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and he blasted the media for characterizing the race as a contest between Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

“If people think that I’m quitting, they need to get the message loud and clear. Somebody’s going to have to beat me,” said the former Arkansas governor. “There’s no way I’ll walk away.”

Do I have any volunteers to carry the stretcher after I’m done with HuckaBubba?

[NOTE TO SECRET SERVICE: This is a satire.]

I’ve made no secret I am not a fan of John McCain on many issues. I’ve said often that I think there are questions he should be pushed to answer, and positions he needs to defend. And I’ve certainly been clear over the last year that there are/were other candidates in the GOP race I would prefer to John McCain.

That said, I have to agree with the sentiments of Victor David Hanson, as expressed in the conclusion to his article about the difficulties raised by the Clintons creating an opportunity for GOP victory – and the possibility that my fellow conservatives will throw that victory away because of McCain’s tendency to stray off the ranch on some issues near and dear to conservatives.

The Democratic cat-fighters are doing their best to give away a once-sure general election, but the Republicans seem to be doing even more to ensure that they forfeit the unexpected gift they’ve been given.

If Hillary Clinton does end up winning her party’s nomination, November’s vote may hinge on whether moderates and liberals are nauseated enough by the Clintons’ brawling and character assassination to cross over and vote for a decorated Republican war hero — that is, if his own flag-waving party doesn’t destroy him first.

Does this mean that I am in the tank for McCain? Hardly – I am still firmly behind Mitt Romney, and wish that I could have ever had a realistic hope of seeing Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter get the nomination. But McCain may very well be my party’s candidate in a few months – and both party loyalty and love of country lead me to conclude that I may have to break my resolution to never vote for John McCain. After all, I may be faced with a choice between a moderately conservative candidate who takes some positions I find disturbing and unacceptable and atruly liberal one who is even less acceptable – how can I just stand by or act affirmatively in a manner that makes the less acceptable one our next president?

NOT!

ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: Senator Hillary Clinton, in an interview with ABC News' Cynthia McFadden for ABC News' Nightline, was asked about President Clinton’s controversial comments about race and Senator Obama in the past weeks. Clinton apologized for her husband.

“I think whatever he said which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone,” Clinton said, “if it did give offenses then I take responsibility and I’m sorry about that.”

"Can you control him?" asked McFadden.

“Oh of course,” Clinton replied.

She was so obviously in control in the 1990s, when she and Bill lied their way through Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Katheleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky, not to mention Travelgate. The man has no self-control, and he clearly doesn’t submit himself to the control of his wife (who should have gelded him). I guess this is just one more Hillary Clinton lie!

I’ve been following this story, but have been remiss in not posting about it.

A Houston firefighter who suffered serious injuries while fighting a Jan. 21 house fire took a turn for the worse this week, his wife said through a union Internet site.

"The doctors were thinking he was looking great over the weekend but he has taken a turn for the worse," said Irene Everette, wife of Brandon Everette, who is at Memorial Hermann Hospital. "We were told by the doctors to remain optimistic but there is no guarantee."

The message from Irene Everette was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association Local 341 Web site.

Everette and two other men were fighting a mid-day blaze at a home on Gnarled Chestnut Court near Vermont Green Trail when a portion of the ceiling collapsed on them and dislodged Everette's protective air mask.

Everette, a 5-year department veteran, has been listed in critical condition since his lungs were damaged.

This week, his wife asked people to pray for improvement.

And the Everettes are definitely in my prayers, and I hope all of you will join in on that, according to your beliefs and traditions.

The full post from Irene Everette is here.

And if you are able to help the family in a more tangible way, donations can be made to the Brandon Everette benefit account No. 232359 at shared branch credit unions, including Chocolate Bayou Community FCU; Transtar FCU; Chevron FCU; American Airlines FCU; Amoco FCU; Texas CU Service Centers; JSC FCU; Coastal Community FCU; Greater Texas FCU; First Community CU and others. For information, contact the association at 713-223-9166.

If this report is right, Romney is all-in through Super Tuesday – and presumably the convention.

Mitt Romney plans to buy TV ads in California and other Super Tuesday states, contradicting earlier reports that he was avoiding a costly campaign on Feb. 5, when 21 states hold Republican primaries and caucuses. As Romney seeks to topple John McCain’s momentum coming out of his win in the Florida primary and a host of big-name endorsements, top aides said Romney’s ad buys will be high-dollar.

The campaign will determine shortly which states it will target beyond California.
Romney’s advisers had given him several options, ranging from spending $1 million for ads to $7 million. It was not immediately clear how much money Romney was willing to spend — or whether the multimillionaire would dip into his own bank account again. He already has poured at least $40 million into his presidential campaign.

Romney will likely be the first GOP candidate on air in the Super Tuesday states, the broadest battleground of the primary season.

And that is, of course, the big question. Where does he advertise and how much does he spend. Should he focus on proportional states, winner-take-all states, and which ones does he view as competitive. Is it a small state strategy or a large state one? Lots of variables here – and we’ll know the results when nearly half the country votes in less than a week.

If this weren't Berkeley, I'd be shocked.

Heck, I'm even shocked about this crap coming from a bastion of liberal lunacy like Berkeley.

Members of the Berkeley City Council showed their opposition to a Marine Corps recruiting office in Downtown Berkeley last night.

Council members supported the two resolutions-one supporting anti-war protests and the other criticizing military recruitment practices-citing opposition to the war in Iraq, deceptive recruitment practices and the right to protest.

"By taking a stand against recruitment we are protecting the health and safety of our youth," said PhoeBe sorgen, a member of the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission. "I see the protest as taking a proud and courageous stand."

Code Pink, a national anti-war grassroots organization, will be granted a parking spot for their regular Wednesday afternoon protests and will not need to apply for a sound permit for the next six months, under one resolution.

The other resolution more directly criticizes the presence of the center in Berkeley. The city manager was directed to send a letter to the U.S. Marine Corps saying they are "uninvited and unwelcome intruders" in the city.

In addition, the city attorney has been directed to investigate whether the city's anti-discrimination laws can be enforced at the center, based on the military's consideration of sexual orientation in hiring.

While the Marines are "uninvited and unwelcome intruders", al-Qaeda and the Taiban are no doubt welcome as contributors to the city's diversity. And oddly enough, illegal aliens (who are "uninvited and unwelcome intruders under American law) don't get that sort of treatment in Berkeley. Frankly, Berkeley is an uninvited and unwelcome intruder in the United States.

So let's see -- rejection and condemnation off the troops. Opposition to their mission of protecting the country. Interference with recruitment. Granting preferential treatment to the fifth column that puts Americas enemies before Americas fighting men and women.

Yep -- damn straight I'm questioning the patriotism of the entire frickin' population of Berkeley.

And I love the fact that these morons are attempting to put a city ordinance on a higher plane than the constitutional responsibilities of the US government.

It is time for a Solomon Amendment to strip federal funds from places like Berkeley due to their official attempts to interfere with military recruiting. it is sedition, plain and simple.

And I repeat my comment from the other day -- has the time come for the United States to secede from Berkeley, and build a border fence around it to keep such undesirables out of the country?

H/T Malkin

More at Random-American, A Newt One, Diggers Realm, Leaning Straight Up, Finding Clarity, California Patriot, Say Anything
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

If it is, many of us didn't see it coming.

In a major boost for John McCain, Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney signaled Wednesday he's not ready to finance a costly campaign in the states holding primaries and caucuses next week.

* * *Several officials said that on the heels of a defeat in Tuesday's Florida primary, Romney's campaign was not attempting to purchase television advertising time in any of the 21 states on the calendar for Feb. 5.

Instead, the former Massachusetts governor's current plans call for campaigning in California and other primary states, said the officials, who had knowledge of the internal discussions. There would be organizational efforts primarily for caucus states.

I'd expected Romney to run hard to a possible brokered convention. But if this is the strategy, it appears he is preparing to concede the race after Super Tuesday -- a rather surprising development. Does the polling data show that the primary voters are going to break that sharply for McCain that the extra effort many of us (especially those of us supporting Mitt from the beginning) had expected would be superfluous? Will Tsunami Tuesday be the last hurrrah for the GOP nomination process?

That would be the big question -- and one that the Democrats need to deal with to win.

And they might have a hard time of it in states they need to win, like Arkansas and Tennessee.

Not that the GOP candidates have much positive to recommend them in the eyes of the swing voters.

Beyond Super Tuesday, there may be trouble for the Democrats. Swing voters perceive both front-runners as too liberal, though Mrs. Clinton has support in Arkansas because her husband remains popular. But here in Maury County, which has voted Democratic and Republican in the last three decades, none expressed enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton.

Similar unease was voiced in Yell County, Ark., another place that has swung back and forth, where some were quick to say that Mr. Obama’s race was not prohibitive for them personally but could well be for others.

Only John Edwards, a fellow Southerner but now considered an also-ran, met with broad approval from independents who were interviewed in the Tennessee county; in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton’s most ardent supporters in the undulating “Free State of Yell” — so called because of a history of electoral eccentricity — conceded that they knew plenty who were just as sharply opposed to her candidacy.

Former Bush voters disillusioned with the president said flatly they would not vote for Mr. Obama, while others expressed disappointment with the available choices. Meanwhile, Republicans, even those critical of Mr. Bush, said that the too-liberal Democratic choices left them more solidly than ever with their party, though none voiced great enthusiasm for the field.

Frankly, I hear stuff like that a lot this year from folks in Texas. There isn't great enthusiasm for any of the GOP candidates, but there is discomfort with and opposition to the remaining Democrats. That party has moved to the Left of the voters (something I hear from Republicans and Democrats), but the GOP candidates are all flawed and rather uninspiring.

Frankly, I think that this year we could see "None of the Above" win if that option were on the ballot -- because voters would like a different choice.

It seems like more and more careers are requiring that folks pass an exam for licensure. For example, in order to work in the securities an individual has to pass a number of tests. It takes a great deal of study and effort to pass these exams in order to advance in the securities field.

That's where Empire Stockbroker comes in. They offer Series 7 training, including classroom coursework, home study materials (such as their Series 7 Books), and an online testing program designed to help individuals pass their test the first time. They offer similar programs for other licensing tests in the field.I know I wouldn't want to have to take one of these tests more than once, especially with my job or a promotion on the line.

Each playing on the other's words to score points.

First, there was this pair of zingers from Barack Obama, tagging both Clintons.

"I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," the Illinois senator said in Denver.

"... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.

Not that liberals are particularly known for providing much in the way of progress, despite trying to hide behind the title of "progressive" instead of liberal.

But Hillary Clinton also got her jab in.

"That certainly sounds audacious, but not hopeful," said Clinton, in a play on the title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope." "It's not hopeful and it's not what we should be talking about in this campaign," said Clinton, suggesting Obama was abandoning the core of his campaign.

Not nearly as good, in my opinion -- how many people are really aware of the title of the book?

But most amusing was this comment made by the New York Senator.

n the AP interview, Clinton vowed to take the high road and warned that voters in the mega-primaries next week expect that.

"I'm going to continue to talk to people about what we need to do in our country to try to lift people up, to keep focused on the future to be very specific about what I want to do as president because I want to be held accountable," said Clinton.

Taking the high road? Being accountable? A Clinton? Since when?

That is the question I was left with after reading this little post from RickG at Lone Star Times.

A Houston Chronicle blog asks readers to vote on the question: Is Angelina Jolie pregnant?

Perhaps I have been in a coma for a decade or so and don’t realize the scientific advancements that have made online polls powerful enough to make a celebrity with child! I can only pity Brad and Angelina as they wring their hands waiting on the decision from the Chronicle.

Will tomorrow’s Chron ask whether it should be a boy or girl?

I understand that celebrity news might perk up the circulation of the local rag (which we just allowed to lapse), but this question is utterly ridiculous – hence the necessity of ridiculing it.

As well they should – these drawings are important cultural monuments to freedom of expression.

Denmark's national library is to risk re-opening an international political storm by housing the cartoon images of the prophet Muhammad that provoked violent convulsions throughout the Islamic world two years ago.

The royal library in Copenhagen - founded in the 17th century by King Frederik III and home to many historic treasures - has declared the drawings to be of historic value and is trying to acquire them for "preservation purposes".

The library, widely acknowledged as the most significant in Scandinavia, has agreed to take possession of the caricatures on behalf of the museum of Danish cartoon art, a spokesman told the Art Newspaper.

Congratulations to Denmark for taking a stand for freedom once again. They are standing before the surging barbarian horde, intent upon remaining free men and women rather than submitting to yoke of those who would enslave them.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, , Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, A NEWT ONE- PLEASE UNITE NOW!, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One- bloggers rountable, Celebrity Smack, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Expulsion? For this? You must be kidding!

But not if you are dealing with zero tolerance.

Two teenagers have been kicked out of school for kissing on a school bus, and now their families are challenging the decision.

Dominique Goyner and his girlfriend were expelled by the Richland County District Two school board in October for the rest of the academic year.

School officials told Jody Free her son was being removed from school for "sexual misconduct."

But Free saw the tape and says it showed the pair kissing for maybe two minutes. Had it been anything different, she said she would have supported the school's decision.

Her son said he knew he was breaking a rule but was shocked by school's response. He says he hopes the expulsion won't stop him from attending a military academy after graduation.

Was the lip-lock inappropriate. Yeah, probably. But an expulsion? That is insane! But I guess consensual kissing is the equivalent of forcible rape in the eyes of this South Carolina school board, and so the offenders need to be removed from school for the safety of their classmates.

Looks to me like the Richland Taliban Party has won control of that school board.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, , Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, A NEWT ONE- PLEASE UNITE NOW!, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One- bloggers rountable, Celebrity Smack, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Reality has sunk in.

John Edwards, the progressive Democratic candidate who made a populist, antipoverty message the centerpiece of his campaign, announced his exit from the presidential primary race on Wednesday, saying he was stepping aside “so that history can blaze its path.”

Mr. Edwards announced his decision at the same place where he began his candidacy in January 2006 — the Ninth Ward neighborhood in New Orleans — using a row of homes that had been badly damaged from Hurricane Katrina as his backdrop. He did not endorse either of his two chief rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, but he said he had spoken to them by phone and asked them both to continue drawing attention to the primary themes of his campaign.

The no endorsement strategy is interesting – it will likely boost Obama, while allowing Edwards to negotiate with Clinton for a possible position in the cabinet. Rumor has it that Obama has previously offered him the Attorney General slot in a future administration.

On the other hand, as we knew last night, Rudy is out of the race as well.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the combative New York City mayor who rose to national prominence during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, formally ended his presidential campaign on Wednesday and declared that he would throw his support to the candidacy of Senator John McCain.

“John McCain is the most qualified candidate to be the next commander in chief of the United States,” Mr. Giuliani said. “He is an American hero.”

Mr. Giuliani made his announcement at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., just hours before the candidates took the stage there for a debate. His decision, on a day that also saw the Democratic contender John Edwards bow out of the race, followed a devastating defeat for Mr. Giuliani in Tuesday’s Republican primary in Florida. After a series of early primary losses, Mr. Giuliani had made a great effort to win over Florida voters, but finished in a distant third to Mr. McCain in the polling.

Standing next to Mr. McCain at a podium in the library, Mr. Giuliani said that “it is appropriate to make this announcement hear at the Reagan library because President Reagan’s leadership remains and inspiration both for John McCain and myself.”

I have to wonder what prompted the endorsement -- is Giuliani the presumptive VP candidate or Attorney General (or Secretary of Homeland Security, for that matter)? His place in the Republican coalition makes it imperative that McCain find someplace for him in that administration. Then again, I can't imagine any GOP administration following this election that did not include Giuliani -- something I cannot say for John Edwards on the Democrat side.

I refrained from making a prediction about Florida because I was uncertain how it would break. Polls were in flux, and it appeared that late-deciders were going hither and yon as the campaign swung into its final days -- in part due to misleading and/or false attacks on Mitt Romney by the McCain campaign.

And most importantly, I expected the final margin to be no more than two points.

Which is why I am shocked by the results of yesterday's voting -- McCain by 5 points.

Senator John McCain defeated Mitt Romney on Tuesday to win the delegate-rich Florida primary, solidifying his transformation to the Republican front-runner and dealing a devastating blow to the presidential hopes of Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Republican officials said after Mr. Giuliani’s distant third-place finish that he was likely to endorse Mr. McCain, possibly as early as Wednesday in California. They said the two candidates’ staffs were discussing the logistics of an endorsement.

The results were a decisive turning point in the Republican race, effectively winnowing the field to Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney, two candidates with very different backgrounds who have little affection for one another but share a similar challenge in winning over elements of the party suspicious of their ideological credentials.

This was a pretty decisive victory, and I have to agree that it does narrow the field to only two significant candidates. As noted above, reports indicate that Rudy Giuliani will be withdrawing today, while Huckabee's fourth-place finish likely shows him to have been a flash-in-the-pan, despite his plan to soldier on through Tsunami Tuesday next week.

What does this mean for the GOP race? A couple of things, as I see it.

First, John McCain is the obvious front-runner, and Mitt Romney needs to do spectacularly well in a week to regain his momentum and avoid becoming this year's Ted Kennedy to McCain's Jimmy Carter, carrying a hopeless fight to the convention floor.

Second, the endorsements that McCain has been lining up seem to be creating a pool of potential VPs and Cabinet choices. Either Thompson or Giuliani would be a good choice for VP (perhaps Thompson to appeal tot he conservatives), while the other would be a fantastic Attorney General -- assuming he didn't tap Ted Olson for that spot.. Duncan Hunter would make a fine Secretary of Defense.

However, all is not lost for Romney. He is running a credible campaign this year, and is not out of it yet. A strong showing on Tsunami Tuesday could revers the momentum shift of Florida -- and propel him to the Presidency. And he has been a strong enough candidate this year to be a force in 2012 if he does not win the nomination in 2008, which might well be a better place for Romney if he has presidential ambitions that extend beyond this November. Maybe he is this year's Reagan to McCain's Gerald Ford.

But it does not fit the approved narrative, so the media has not played it up.

After all, to do so would show that the only lie in "Bush lied us into war" is coming from the mouth of those defaming the President. The folks at Washington Hotlist make the case.

[U]nfortunately, many liberals have either ignored the story or have simply refused to put a legitimate portion of thought into what it alleges.

Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

But wait, I thought George W. Bush made up those pesky rumors about weapons of mass destruction?  After all, he needed to even the score for his daddy, whilst securing rich oil reserves.  Right?

Typically, I’d have my doubts about the political slant coming from CBS, but now that Dan Rather is gone, I’ll take my chances.  According to a CBS report, Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he did not anticipate a U.S.-led invasion over the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction.

<According to FBI agent George Piro, “For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam.  He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq.”

But, the most telling portion of the article:

“He told me that he initially miscalculated…President Bush’s intentions.  He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998…a four-day aerial attack.  He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack,” Piro said.

So, not only did Hussein spread and then maintain his own lies about weapons possession, but also he was willing to place his people in danger pending a small-scale aerial attack.  All for the sake of power and pride.

And what of that four-day attack in 1998?  In political terms, the ineffectiveness of the preemptive strike Hussein recalled – and its very real and literal power to embolden Hussein (after all, it was the sole reason he believed the U.S. would wimp out) proves that many Democrats (cough, cough – Clinton) have no backbone when it comes to dealing with international criminals and their governments.  Had Clinton actually done his job properly, we wouldn’t even be talking about this right now.  Instead, he chose to start a job he didn’t intend to finish.

But wait, there’s more:

“Hussein had the ability to restart the weapons program and professed to wanting to do that, Piro said. 

“He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program.”

If you are sensible, you will take the following away from the aforementioned details: Saddam Hussein successfully tricked the American people (and portions of the international community) into believing that he had reignited his weapons program.  He did so for political purposes, although he did actually hope to one day possess weapons he would have no doubt used against his enemies (America, included).  Then, when the U.S. bought into his insanity and just so happened to have a president with enough sense to stop taking Hussein’s threats for granted, America reacted.

Unfortunately for the left, this debunks many mistaken notions.  Bush did not lie or manipulate information.  He simply worked with the same evidence that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and other leading Democrats consulted.  They, too, voted for the war (not Bill, of course) based on the same intelligence information.  And not for anything, but if they are going to allege being manipulated by a man whose intelligence they regularly degrade and belittle, then they are even more absurd than I previously thought – and consequently even more foolish then they claim Bush is.

Now lets look at that.

Saddam wanted the world to believe he had (or was working to acquire) WMDs. Saddam was willing to risk a Clinton-style bombing attack on his nation because he had become convinced that the United States lacked the will to do more, based upon the repeated weak-kneed response of Bill Clinton to his provocations during the 1990s. What's more, it was his goal and his intent to restart the WMD programs, and he was just waiting for the opportunity.

Now remember -- those are the assertions of Saddam to his interrogator -- words which exculpate George W. Bush, a man for whom Saddam had no love. They do a great deal to explain why EVERY MAJOR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD believed Saddam was seeking WMDs.

So you can make the claim that "Bush lied" -- but only if you want to willfully ignore the facts.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, , Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, A NEWT ONE- PLEASE UNITE NOW!, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One- bloggers rountable, Celebrity Smack, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

After the horrific Baby Grace case, Galveston now has another body of a dead baby simply abandoned by those who took the child’s life.

The body of a baby boy was discovered this morning in the grass near the side of a Galveston road, police said.

The body, described as a child between 4-months and 6-months-old, was discovered about 10 a.m. near Seawall Boulevard and Ferry Road, Lt. Jorge Trevino said.

"A couple was driving on Cherry Hill and saw what they thought was a doll," Trevino said. But something looked odd and they stopped and discovered the body next to a child's car seat, he said.

Trevino said it appeared that the child may have been thrown from the car while sitting in the car seat.

I cannot fathom how one could kill one’s own child – much less dump the body like a bag of litter along the side of the road. There are so many of us who would love to hold that child and call him (or her) our own. I pray that the authorities quickly locate the responsible parties, and that they are soon sentence to death for this heinous crime.

What a life!

Margaret Truman, the only child of former President Harry S. Truman who became a concert singer, actress, radio and TV personality and mystery writer, died Tuesday. She was 83.

Truman, known as Margaret Truman Daniel in private life, died at a Chicago assisted living facility following a brief illness, according to a statement from the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum in Independence. She had been at the facility for the past several weeks and was on a respirator, the library said.

Living 83 years has to be called a good long life – and this lady made the most of it. She crossed every facet of the entertainment industry during her lifetime, becoming a noted author of a series of entertaining mystery novels at an age when most folks are starting to slow down and contemplate retirement.

But my favorite story is this one – one which reminds us that every president is human, and that it is human nature for a parent to defend a child.

She made her professional singing debut with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra in 1947 and gave her first Carnegie Hall concert two years later. Critics generally praised her poise but were less impressed with her vocal talent.

When Washington Post critic Paul Hume wrote after a 1950 concert that she ''is extremely attractive on the stage ... (but) cannot sing very well. She is flat a good deal of the time,'' her father fired off a note on White House stationery scolding Hume for a ''lousy review.''

''I have never met you, but if I do you'll need a new nose and plenty of beefsteak and perhaps a supporter below,'' the president wrote.

The note made Page One news -- but was not the sort of publicity an aspiring artist seeks. Years later she was able to laugh about it: ''I thought it was funny. Sold tickets.''

Yes, she was truly “Daddy’s little girl”.

To her surviving family, I offer my condolences on this great loss of a true lady.

Looks like it, according to Fort Bend Now.

State Sen. Kyle Janek (R-Houston) has called a press conference tomorrow (Jan. 29) in Austin at which time, sources say, he will announce that the he is resigning his seat in the Texas Senate.

Janek’s sprawling District 17 takes in much of eastern Fort Bend County, including most of Sugar Land and Missouri City, as well as parts of Harris, Brazoria, Wharton, Galveston, Chambers and Jefferson counties.

When contacted Monday afternoon, Janek would not comment other than to say that the press conference would involve his future plans. Two state capitol sources, however, confirmed to FortBendNow.com that Janek has told some fellow senators of his plans and that he will give up his seat in the upper chamber effective March 10.

“He’s notified some of his (senate) colleagues and the state GOP leadership of his intention to resign,” one source who asked not to be named said. “He’s going to make it official tomorrow at the press conference.

The same source said that speculation is rampant about what Janek will do in the future.

This is a reasonably conservative district. It should stay Republican -- but the question comes down to when there will be an election to fill the vacancy. And since the district is more conservative than Janek, we should see a conservative win the seat.

And, of course, what Janek's plans are now that he is leaving office. This one is quite curious.

UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle has more.

Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, who moved his family to Austin several months ago, will announce on Tuesday that he is resigning from the state Senate on March 10.

His resignation will require Gov. Rick Perry to call a special election to fill the remainder of the term, which runs through January 2011.

The governor's office declined to comment, but the next uniform election date would be May 10, and a number of candidates could file for the seat in the heavily Republican district, which includes parts of Harris County and five neighboring counties.

Former Harris County Republican Chairman Gary Polland, who unsuccessfully challenged Janek in 2006, and state Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, said Monday they are considering the Senate race.

Howard said his first goal is winning the March 4 primary for his own House seat over two GOP challengers. Win or lose, he would be free to run for the Senate in a special election two months later.

But still no word on why, or his future plans.

And interestingly enough, not one Democrat mentioned as a possible challenger for the seat.

The heated rhetoric is flying in Florida, ahead of today's primary.

Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney traded blistering attacks in Florida on Monday morning, a day before the state’s Republican primary.

Mr. Romney questioned Mr. McCain’s commitment to conservatism, citing a series of bipartisan bills Mr. McCain sponsored with Senate Democrats, while Mr. McCain accused the former Massachusetts governor of flip-flopping on major issues.

Mr. McCain, speaking at a shipyard in Jacksonville, swatted aside Mr. Romney’s charge that he is a “liberal Democrat” by saying: “He is consistent. He has consistently taken both sides of every major issue. He has consistently flip-flopped on every major issue.”

He cited Mr. Romney’s support as governor for a regional greenhouse gas emissions control program, for a lenient policy toward illegal immigrants and for campaign finance revisions, all positions he has reversed as a presidential candidate. “People, just look at his record as governor,” Mr. McCain said. “He has been entirely consistent. He has consistently taken two sides of every major issue, sometimes more than two. So congratulations.”

Now this sort of stuff has got to be dialed back and toned down if we are to have any sort of chance at unifying the party. Charges and counter-charges can't be papered over today like they were in decades past -- anyone with a modem can find them all on the internet, and I'm sure that the Democrats are archiving a great many stories full of juicy quotes. We need to let the Democrats continue their self-destructive race between Hillary and Obama while unifying around a consensus candidate -- and possibly a ticket with both of these men on it.

For years, Houston has had its own race-baiting, poverty-pimping counterpart to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, in the form of Quanell X. Indeed, much of his rhetoric has been uglier than that which has come out of those two national figures.

But I want to offer some praise here. We may be seeing some growth on his part as a human being.

The date was Oct. 15, 1995, the place Washington, D.C. On the eve of the Million Man March, a rally organized by the Nation of Islam, the organization's youth minister was ready with rhetoric and venom.

Angered by Jewish protests over a conference dedicated to "the black Holocaust," 24-year-old Quanell X told the gathering that offended Jews "can go straight to hell," then expounded on his sentiments to a Chicago Tribune reporter.

"The real deal is this: Black youth do not want a relationship with the Jewish community or the mainstream white community or the foot-shuffling, head-bowing, knee-bobbing black community," Quanell said. "I say to Jewish America: Get ready ... knuckle up, put your boots on because we're ready and the war is going down."

A dozen years later, Houston's best-known black activist says he has changed. He is not only older but wiser, no longer beholden to revolutionary politics or an angry young man's immature view of the world.

Now Quanell has something else to tell Jews: He's sorry. He was wrong, he says. And though it may anger some in his community — perhaps to the point of threats to his safety — he wants to make amends.

Toward that end, he toured the Holocaust Museum Houston on Monday afternoon in the company of its executive director and chair-elect. He appeared moved by what he saw and learned, much of it for the first time. Quanell later expressed sorrow that he would have chosen remarks offensive and threatening to people who endured the horrors of Nazi concentration camps.

"I apologize to every Jewish (Holocaust) survivor that may have heard anything I have ever said," Quanell said at the end of his tour, which culminated with his placing a stone at an outside memorial, a Jewish custom at a gravesite. "How could I say anything in a vile, malicious or repugnant manner to anyone who has been in one of these camps? I should have never threatened like that.

"I seek the forgiveness of every survivor who has heard the words I've said," he continued. "I did not say them in the proper manner to make the point I was trying to get across. I can see and understand how they might be utterly paranoid (of) a person such as myself."

I'm willing to presume the sincerity on the part of Quanell X. I'm willing to respect the words here and the possibility that thy are from the heart. And while I do not understand how a man can reach his mid-thirties in this country without an awareness of the fundamental facts of the Holocaust, I'm prepared to believe that he has learned something of value and has begun a process of change.

But I wonder -- when will we hear an apology for his armed body guards shoving a WWII vet to the ground for daring to question Quanell (or is it Mr. X? I'll follow the Chronicle's stylisic lead here) about his rhetoric and positions? When will he make amends (from his nice suburban home) for his public revocation of the "ghetto pass" of a Houston politician who dared to vote against the demands of Quanell X and his radical constituency? When will we get an apology for this call to violence against whites?

"If you feel that you just got to mug somebody because of your hurt and your pain, go to River Oaks and mug you some good white folks. If you’re angry that our brother is put to death, don’t burn down your own community, give these white folks hell from the womb to the tomb."

It is my hope that Quanell X has turned over a new leaf and is out to promote harmony. But you have to understand my feelings, and those of many in this community, that we will have to "trust but verify" on this one.

Somebody explain where Jabba the Drunk (D-Chappaquiddick) gets off anointing a new generation of leadership?

Senator Edward M. Kennedy implored Americans on Monday to “reject the counsels of doubt and calculation,” as he extended his endorsement and placed the aura of his family’s name around the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.

“It is time again for a new generation of leadership,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking over a crowd of cheering supporters here at American University. “It is time now for Barack Obama.”

Let me do some math. I turn 45 in a few weeks. During my lifetime, there has never been so much as one second that Teddy Kennedy has not been a serving member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he assumed office a full sixteen weeks before my birth. He is part of a family that has turned dynasticism and nepotistic privilege into an art form.

I'll take his "new generation of leadership" comments seriously when he demands that all members of the Kennedy Klan, starting with himself, resign from public office and retire from public life.

Proving that there is a blog on virtually any topic that you could imagine, I came across “Slice” today – a blog devoted to pizza.

And what a post I was directed to by Andrew Sullivan -- a rather thorough listing of various varieties of pizza, classified in so complete a manner as to virtually have them classified with phylum, genus, and species.

Last week on Serious Eats, community member HeartofGlass asked: "How many different kinds of regional varations of pizza exist?"

I figured I'd compile a list of all the styles I've eaten or heard or read about. Sorry it took so long, HeartofGlass. It's a long list, and it appears after the jump.

I’ve got to tell you – the listing itself is mouthwatering, with enough variety to fill a couple of weeks of dining pleasure (assuming you could do all the travel necessary to eat them all).

My personal favorite? The Stuffed Pizza.

Stuffed Pizza

Another Chicago specialty that is often confused with deep dish because of its similarity. It's assembled and cooked in a similar manner to deep dish, but it has a top layer of crust and is usually taller and more densely packed with toppings.

You’ll sometimes encounter this with a layer of toppings on top of that top layer of crust, for a great gastronomical experience. And the Deep Dish Pizza right above it in the listing is a near second in my book, and is done admirably down here in the Houston area at J. Christopher’s on Atascocita Road in Humble and Northpark Road in Kingwood, as well as at their sister restaurant, O’Brennan’s on Marina Bay Drive in League City (near Kemah).

And then there is this pizza heresy, a cursed concoction that I pray never to be confronted with again – Saint Louis-Style Pizza.

Saint Louis–Style

Might be mistaken for a Chicago thin crust at first, just on looks—and maybe for the fact that Saint Louis and Chicago are only a few hundred miles apart. But this style's very thin, crackerlike crust is unleavened. And it's topped with a special three-cheese blend (provolone, Swiss, white cheddar) called Provel that's used in place of mozzarella (and sometimes, but not often, in addition to mozzarella). Like Chicago thin crust, it's usually done party cut. Imo's Pizza is thought to be the originator.

Let me add that it is every bit as awful as it sounds, and is one of the few things that I do not miss about my years living in the St. Louis area.

Anyway, folks – dig in to your favorite!

By virtue of his own words and actions.

Andrew McCarthy points out that John McCain is permitted to go on television and make all the false attacks he wants against Mitt Romney free from legal penalty, but that it would be a crime for American citizens to buy a television ad to refute McCain.

I'm starting to think Sen. McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates' names within 30 days before a primary. I mean, he levels an allegation about Romney that's just flat not true, and if some organization wanted to run an ad calling him on it, they would be in violation of his "reform" of campaign finance regulations. What a racket!

Yeah, it is a scam – protecting politicians from the consequences of their own words and actions during the time period when citizens deserve the maximum possible information about them.

You get situations like this one in San Antonio.

A former San Antonio police officer set to be sentenced this week for allowing his live-in girlfriend to deal methamphetamine was hired by the department in 1994 despite being rejected two years earlier for reasons including a drunken driving conviction, a newspaper reports.

Background investigators also concluded that Joseph Anthony Evans tried to hide a criminal trespass arrest, a hit-and-run conviction and an internal investigation of sexual misconduct at a corrections officer job. He'd also been rejected by Austin, Dallas and Fort Worth, the San Antonio Express-News reports.

San Antonio police had also originally denied Evans a badge because polygraphs showed deceptive or inconclusive answers to questions ranging from illegal drug use to stealing from employers.

"Joseph Evans is not San Antonio Police Department officer material," investigator Ignacio Cantu wrote in a 1992 memo recommending rejection.

Good grief! Upon what basis would any police department ever hire this guy?

Oh -- maybe this one.

Two officials involved in the hiring of Evans, who is black, say other applicants recommended for rejection during the administration of Chief William O. Gibson also were let onto the police force when the department was under pressure to meet affirmative action goals.

Sandoval, who retired in 1997, said he overrode other rejections from applicant screeners amid political pressure from City Hall to hire more black and female officers.

* * *

[Former police academy commander Larry] Birney said he remembers none of the episode. But he did recall that Evans wasn't the only rejected minority applicant whom Sandoval hired over his objections.

"I wouldn't say it was common but it wasn't uncommon, either. I can tell you horror stories," said Birney, who declined to talk further on the record.

See what happens when one puts the color of someone's skin over the content of their character. You loose the latter to get the former -- and in the process do harm to the very institution you were trying to improve.

In the midst of an election campaign where the Mormon faith has been front and center on the political scene, that religion is likely to be brought to the forefront again in a different, sadder context. President Gordon B. Hinckley, the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has died at age 97.

Gordon B. Hinckley, 97, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and an energetic grandson of pioneers who led his denomination during a period of great expansion in membership and facilities, died last night at his home in Salt Lake City, a church spokeswoman said.

In 1995, after many years in leadership posts in what is often called the Mormon church, Hinckley became president. He was the 15th person to hold that post.

The president of the church is held in special regard by the members, who see him as a prophet of God "in the same way they revered the prophets of scripture," according to material posted on the church's Web site.

Hinckley underwent cancer surgery in 2006, but church spokeswoman Kim Farah said last night that "the cause [of his death] was incident to his age."

Despite his age, Farah said, Hinckley had remained active and was coming in to the office as recently as last week.

The church said it did not expect a successor to be formally chosen until after Hinckley's funeral "within the next few days."

One need not be a Mormon to respect the work that this man did on behalf of his church. During his tenure the number of temples around the world more than doubled -- indeed, it is said that Hinckley personally dedicated some 95 of the church's 124 active temples during his lifetime (some prior to assuming the leadership of the LDS Church, due to the age and health of his predecessors).

And yet what I find interesting about this man is the great love for this man held by the young people of his church, a love that I am told was widely reciprocated. When I visited the home of some dear friends who recently married, my wife and I noted that they had a small picture of Hinckley on their wall, along with a large plaque that included a list of several traits for upright living. I didn't make a connection between the two until my wife asked about the latter, and our friend told us that the plaque was a list of traits that Hinckley had advised young people to cultivate in their lives. It was profound in its spiritual simplicity, rather in the spirit of St. Francis of Assisi.

1. Be grateful. Express appreciation to everyone who does us a favor or assists us in any way.
2. Be smart. The Lord wants us to train our minds and hands to become an influence for good.
3. Be clean. We live in a world filled with filth and sleaze. We cannot afford to let it touch us. We should not be disrespectful of the body which the Lord has given us.
4. Be true. Let us be loyal to the Church under all circumstances. The authorities of this Church will lead us in paths of happiness.
5. Be humble. The meek and the humble are those who are teachable.
6. Be prayerful. Look to the Lord for understanding and guidance, and walk according to His precepts and commandments.

As I've said in the past, I am not a Mormon and find myself in stark disagreement with much of its distinctive theology. But for all that, I am saddened by the passing of Gordon R. Hinckley, who by all accounts was a good and decent man, and I offer my condolences to his family and the members of the faith he led with great dignity and love.

I don’t want you to have to ever use the services of this company.

Unfortunately, some of you may need to. Indeed, the day may not be far off when my wife and I find it necessary to do so as she loses her mobility..

I’m talking about the services of Mobility Works, a company known nationwide for their fine work in providing handicapped-accessible wheelchair vans for those who need them.

With locations in seven states, Mobility Works can help get you into the van that you or your loved one needs to make travel a practical possibility again. So if you have the need for such a vehicle, I urge you to visit their website at MobilityWorks.com for more information.

Clearly illustrated in this article.

More than half the states holding presidential contests next month on Super Tuesday allow unaffiliated voters to participate, giving millions of independents a chance to shape what is usually an insider affair among Democratic and Republican loyalists.

Two of those states -- California and New Jersey -- together have nearly 6 million unaffiliated voters who will be allowed to cast ballots. Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts and Alabama are among other prized catches with millions of independents eligible for the Feb. 5 contests.

The open voting is widely considered to benefit Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain, who have fared well among independents in recent polls and primaries. It also is reflected in Obama's words, from his outreach to Republican voters to his recent credit to Ronald Reagan in the context of elections that represent shifts in political direction.

"Obama's trying to do two things at once. On the one hand, energize the liberal base, but also attract independents who are looking for a bipartisan problem-solver," said Jack Pitney, a former deputy research director for the Republican National Committee and a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "That's a very difficult balance, and (Hillary) Clinton is trying to highlight the contradiction there."

Pitney and others said turnout will probably be high among independents because of the wide-open contests in each party. But it's tricky to predict the impact, they said.

I don't believe in open primaries. Call me old-fashioned, or just wedded to logical thinking, but it has always seemed to me that the nominee of the Republican Party should be picked by Republicans and that the Democrat nominee should be picked by Democrats. You know, just like the Libertarian nominee is selected by Libertarians, the Green nominee is selected by Greens, and the Communist nominee is selected by Communists (though today not the ones in Moscow). Independents, who are not committed to a party or its principles, don't belong involved in selecting a party's nominees. Members of one party should not be able to cross over with the intent of sabotaging the nominating process of an opposing party.

Why are closed primaries to be preferred? because party labels used to mean something much more significant that they do today. All too often, American voters complain that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the candidates put forward -- and that is largely because of the involvement of undiffused independents in the process. Rather than campaigns based upon wedge issue, a system of closed primaries would offer mores stark, substantive differences (and therefore choices) on policy matters. And that, in turn, would help end the current system in which matters of style matter more to voters than matters of substance.

Besides -- it is we partisans who are the backbone of any campaign. We should be making the decision for our parties, not those without a commitment to it.

That was my first thought after reading this headline.

Ted Kennedy embraces Obama

And despite their attempts to deny it, it appears the Clintons fought hard for this endorsement.

Rejecting a personal entreaty from President Bill Clinton, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president in a joint appearance on Monday, Democratic sources said.

The embrace provides a dramatic rocket for Obama to ride into the frantic, nationwide campaigning ahead of the spate of Super Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5, the biggest day for nominating contests in U.S. history. Caroline Kennedy, the senator's niece and the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, will also appear at the rally, the sources said.

Democrats said the endorsement will help Obama with traditional Democratic groups where Clinton has been strong — union households, Hispanics and downscale workers.

And to think of all that Bubba and Jabba the Drunk have in common failed to sway him to support Hillary!

This may not make the Clinton campaign crumble, but it may make matters more interesting for a while.

Two Clinton lies for the price of one.

First, Hillary Clinton.

Matt Lauer: "You have said, I understand, to some close friends, that this is the last great battle, and that one side or the other is going down here."

Hillary Clinton: "Well, I don't know if I've been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this — they have popped up in other settings. This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Of course we now know that the only conspiracy out there was one by the Clintons to lie their way out of Bill Clinton's infidelity and perjury, and to recast anyone who was concerned about the integrity of the presidency and the judicial process as involved in a conspiracy to bring down her husband (who had a government employee going down on him on government time).

And then that evening we got this lie from her husband during the State of the Union Address.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf war. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.

I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

President Bill Clinton
January 27, 1998

Wait -- you mean that wasn't a lie? But I thought it was a lie -- after all, Democrats (including both Clintons) have accused George W. Bush of "lying the nation into war" for using the same intelligence (and more) to reach the same conclusion as Bill Clinton had reached five years before. That means that we are stuck with the conclusion that Bill Clinton was lying to us in 1998 -- or that the Clintons and other Democrats are lying to us now for partisan advantage, damage to our national security and trust in the institutions of government be damned. You decide -- and realize that either way you have to conclude that Bill Clinton is a liar.

But we already knew that.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, 123beta, Stuck On Stupid, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Pursuing Holiness, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, A Newt One, A Newt One- blog talkradio show tonight, Right Voices, Stageleft, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Just one more similarity between John McCain and the Clintons -- a willingness to ignore the facts and lie outright when it is politically expedient to do so.

John McCain accused Mitt Romney of wanting to set a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, drawing immediate protest from his Republican presidential rival who said: "That's simply wrong and it's dishonest, and he should apologize."

* * *

First, he slapped at Romney without naming him during a question-and-answer session with Floridians, saying: "Now, one of my opponents wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."

Minutes later to reporters, the Arizona senator was more direct: "If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher."

Asked about the comment in Land O' Lakes, Fla., Romney bristled.

"That's dishonest, to say that I have a specific date. That's simply wrong," he said. "That is not the case. I've never said that."

The former Massachusetts governor added: "I know he's trying desperately to change the topic from the economy and trying to get back to Iraq, but to say something that's not accurate is simply wrong — and he knows better."

Later in Sun City, Fla., McCain stuck to his assessment and said: "The apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform."

Utterly despicable, Senator, as not even your own campaign can produce a single statement by Gov. Romney calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Such claims on your part are disgraceful, and a sign that you are so desperate to destroy your only significant opposition for the GOP nomination that you are willing to stoop to Clintonian tactics to win. Even your lackeys in the media recognize that you are being disingenuous.

What Mitt Romney has said, clearly, consistently, and in concert with every patriotic American (which apparently excludes both you and the majority of Democrats). Indeed, the closest that one gets to urging a set date for withdrawal is a comment by Romney that the US and Iraq need to set milestones and timetables -- but that these are not for public consumption. And as a former military officer like McCain knows full well, planning for any military operation includes such milestones and timetables -- but that such plans are subject to revision based upon the facts on the ground as one engages the enemy, not set in stone via public declarations by politicians in search of votes. As such, Mitt Romney was advocating appropriate military and diplomatic strategy, not calling for retreat and surrender.

Even McCain supporters/defenders are calling on him to apologize for his lie.

And Ed Morrissey points out who has implicitly called for withdrawal if benchmarks and timetables aren't met -- John McCain.

[He] said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

And when he made that statement a year ago, Democrats trumpeted it as a sign that Republicans were coming around to their position on troop withdrawals. So who owes an apology to the troops, Senator -- as well as to his opponent?

UPDATE: Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt notes that even the McCain-endorsing New York Times is calling this charge "misleading".

The charge appears to be misleading. The McCain campaign pointed to remarks Mr. Romney made last year in which he said he believed that President Bush and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq should have “a series of timetables and milestones” that they discussed among themselves but did not announce publicly.

But Mr. Romney has not called for setting a date for withdrawal. Mr. Romney has said he supports the president’s current strategy, although he has said he anticipates more and more American troops moving into a support role in Iraq in the next year — similar to what Gen. David H. Petraeus outlined in his testimony before Congress last year.

It's rough when even your friends are calling you on your lies.

Everyone except for McCain and his surrogates are saying this charge is false. Interestingly enough, John McCain says he was there when Mitt Romney made a call for a timetable for withdrawal. So we are either looking at a question of honesty or one of mental fitness. Neither option is particularly pretty. (Daffyd at Big Lizards notes a third option -- that McCain wishes to maintain the current troop level,160,000 servicemen and women, permanently.)

UPDATE II: Looks like HuckaBubba has gotten into the act, too -- but without even a recourse to a quote to back him up.

Mike Huckabee sided with John McCain Sunday, saying GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney did back a set calendar for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is battling Huckabee and McCain for the Republican presidential nomination, called McCain dishonest for saying he once supported a troop withdrawal timetable.

Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, said on "Fox News Sunday" that while he disagrees with McCain, the senator from Arizona, on issues from time to time, he has never seen him utter something "just blatantly untrue."

"The reason that I'm aware of Mitt Romney's statement about the secret timetable is because that was originally proposed by a senator from my state, Sen. Mark Pryor," Huckabee said. "And there are published reports that I've witnessed and seen, more than one, in which Mitt Romney did, in fact, talk about support for not a public timetable, but a secret timetable that would be held by administration officials, members of Congress."

Re. Huckabee, would you care to square this statement with Exodus 20:16 and Deteronomy 5:20? Or do you perhaps need to reacquaint yourself with these two verses? Clearly we need to apply Deuteronomy 19:19 to both you and Senator McCain -- in the interest of squaring matters with God's law, of course.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, 123beta, Stuck On Stupid, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Pursuing Holiness, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, A Newt One, A Newt One- blog talkradio show tonight, Right Voices, Stageleft, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

On Meet the Press -- today.

In other words, he'd still go for amnesty given the opportunity.

So much for his conversion to the "secure the borders first" cause.

UPDATE: Or maybe not.

I guess I'm confused. If he recognizes the bill he sponsored was wrong, why would he sign it -- especially if the American people. as he repeatedly states, want the border secured first? I don't see how you can reconcile the two positions.

Perhaps it is a vain plea, that a thief would return items he has stolen. However, certain items have a value greater than money.

A car burglar made away with a Greek Orthodox bishop's religious items — including a jeweled crown of gold and silver.

Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, bishop for the Northwest region of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, was dining with others at a restaurant in Arlington on Friday when the break-in occurred. He was visiting Dallas-Fort Worth area parishes.

The bishop, who ministers in many states, including Texas, said the car was parked in a brightly lit spot.

"We came out at 10 o'clock, and the window was smashed," the bishop said.

Someone took his symbolic crown from the back seat, along with his New Testament, veil and cell phone.

Isaiah, who served in the Marines, said a black fabric bag was also stolen. The bag has special meaning, having been given to him years earlier by the widow of another Marine.

He estimated that replacing the crown would cost between $6,000 and $10,000. The bishop offered a four-digit monetary reward if the crown is returned without damage.

"That was the first gift I received as a bishop 22 years ago," he said. "I feel lost without it."

At a vespers service on Saturday night, he was the only priest with no head covering.

"I just hope and pray that those who took it will have a change of heart," he said.

Whoever you are, you did not steal money. You stole something sacred, something loaded with memories for the owner and significance to his followers. Have the decency to return the stolen items to Metropolitan Isaiah. Take the reward if you must -- but the even better choice would be to accept the grace that comes of repentance.

But of course, the left-wing citizens of Berkeley aren't disloyal to America. They just hate the troops.

In response to a Marine Corps recruiting office established in Berkeley last year, local activists are trying to make it more difficult for future recruiting centers to open in the city.

If passed by a majority of Berkeley voters, a proposed initiative would require military recruiting offices and private military companies in Berkeley to first acquire a special use permit.

To obtain this permit, a business must hold public hearings and a public comment period.

If the initiative passes, recruitment offices could not be opened within 600 feet of residential districts, public parks, public health clinics, public libraries, schools or churches.

Currently, a recruiting office is held to the same standards as most other businesses, which do not require a public hearing or have limits on where offices can be established.

The author of the initiative, Berkeley-based lawyer Sharon Adams, modeled the initiative after current zoning law that restricts the location of adult-oriented businesses.

"In the same way that many communities limit the location of pornographic stores, that's the same way we feel about the military recruiting stations," said PhoeBe sorgen, an initiative proponent and a member of the city's Peace and Justice Commission. "Teenagers that really want to find them will be able to seek them out and find them, but we don't want them in our face."

I'm curious -- does the city actually have the legal ability to impose such a restriction upon the location of federal government offices? And if it does actually put such a measure in place, what will be the response of the federal government? Will they withhold federal funds from Berkeley? Perhaps require that all federal offices open in the same zones as the recruiters -- in effect closing all government offices, including post offices, in the city?

But in the end I have to wonder -- has the time come for the United States to secede from Berkeley, and build a border fence around it to keep such undesirables out of the country?

H/T Michelle Malkin

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this is going to become the new standard in pro rodeo.

It takes Big Bucks an average of 3.64 seconds to throw a cowboy off his back.

And he keeps getting better. Last season, the 7-year-old, 1,350-pound bull shaved his time to 3.48 seconds; this month, he trotted out of Madison Square Garden as the top-ranked bull in the 2008 Versus Invitational, the opening event in bull riding's major leagues.

But these days, with steroid scandals clouding many top sports, doubts waft in the bullring, too, and Big Bucks finds himself facing a question about what makes him a winner:

Is it the Mexican fighting bull in him, the Brahman influence, his Texas upbringing — or something else?

Big Bucks hasn't ducked the question — instead submitting to a needle-wielding veterinarian and making history in the process as the first bucking bull to be tested for anabolic steroids under the Professional Bull Riders' plan to keep the sport clean.

Dogged by internal rumblings that bull owners seek an advantage in the arena by injecting the creatures with steroids, the association recently decided it was time for the truth.

Steroids, I guess they are everywhere, in every sport. I had never thought about injecting one of these behemoths with the stuff, but I suppose it would have an impact. I hope we don't find that this has been going on -- especially given the likelihood that a bull with roid rage could kill someone.

A medical treatment that could have cured Colette Mills' cancer exists. The problem is that the UK's National Health Service wouldn't pay for the drug due to its cost -- and when Mills offered to pay for the medication, she was told that she would be required to pay cash for all treatment, not just the portion NHS was unwilling to fund. After all, they wouldn't want to set a precedent of creating a two-tier health care system.

So now Colette Mills' breast cancer has advanced to the point that a cure is not an option.

A WOMAN suffering from breast cancer has run out of time to benefit from a potentially life-extending drug which the National Health Service (NHS) denied her, even though she was prepared to pay for it.

Colette Mills has been told by doctors that in the four months since she asked for the drug the disease has taken such a hold in her body that the cancer will no longer respond to the treatment.

* * *

Asked about her future prospects, Mills said: “They are not hopeful of halting it. They will give you no promises. I didn’t ask and he [the doctor] didn’t say. It is not something I want to know just yet.”

In other words, Colette Mills is going to die because the principle of guaranteeing only a minimum of medical treatment for all is more important than actually saving the lives of the critically ill.

And now there are those who want to bring that system to America.

Which means that, if they succeed, effective treatments will be denied to people because they are too expensive, even if they wish to pay for that treatment themselves. Or if the patients are old. Or fat. Or smokers. Or otherwise deemed unworthy by the government.

Would someone tell me why anyone would support such a fundamental change in our system, when the cost will be measured in human lives?

"Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."

President Bill Clinton
January 26, 1998

An astute observation from Andrew Sullivan regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton.

This couple really do corrupt everything they touch.

And some things have not changed in 10 years.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been giving America the finger for the last 16 years. Let's return the favor.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, 123beta, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Pursuing Holiness, A Newt One- The Truth Surge, Nuke Gingrich, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Michelle Malkin and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Which means, of course, that Obama stands to pick up a big chunk of delegates, closing the gap between him and Hillary Clinton in the totals gong into Tsunami Tuesday in 10 days.

The size and scope of the win seems quite overwhelming.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) scored an overwhelming victory over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in South Carolina's Democratic presidential primary with strong support from black voters, according to network projections. The win sets up a full-scale clash between the two candidates on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

Obama, the first black candidate regarded as a legitimate contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, appeared to win African American voters by a four to one margin -- numbers that nearly replicated his performance among blacks in Iowa and Nevada. But unlike in those states, where blacks make up a small percentage of the overall electorate, more than 50 percent of Democratic voters in today's South Carolina primary are black, according to preliminary exit polls.

Clinton finished second and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina placed third, according to NBC and CNN. Among white voters, the candidates ran far closer, with Clinton and Edwards running neck and neck while Obama lagged slightly behind. But among black voters, Clinton's showing was modest and Edwards's showing was negligible.

Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton appears not to have won a single county in the state, though John Edwards at this point has two in his column. That could change as results come in, but it does signal that the support for the junior Senator from Illinois is not concentrated in any one spot in the state, but is spread widely. And it is also interesting to note that Obama leads in virtually every demographic group by race, gender, and age.

And interestingly enough, we get solid evidence of the fact that Hillary's campaign is being treated as a surrogate for another term for Bill Clinton -- from the former President's own mouth.

8:15 p.m. | Bill Time Bill Clinton is speaking in Independence, Mo.

Again, interesting tag-team strategy from the Clintons — Mr. Clinton goes on television so Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have to.

Mr. Clinton says that Mr. Obama “won fair and square,” but added: “Now we go to Feb. 5th and millions of Americans will finally get in the act.” That drew a big applause. Now Mr. Clinton seems to be addressing the TV pundits who are all questioning his value on the campaign trail. “I think I know something about what it takes to put together a successful presidency” and he refers to his “post-politics” career. Yes, that’s all about him, but he says he was just setting up his point: Even if he hadn’t been married to Mrs. Clinton, he would still support her!

I find it interesting that the Clinton campaign has issued a statement in Hillary Clinton's name, but that the candidate herself has yet to have the class to step up to the microphones and cameras and concede defeat. It is pretty tacky to send Bill out first -- in another state -- to do that on her behalf. Doesn't look very presidential to me. [UPDATE: She did speak -- roughly 90 minutes later, after waiting for John Edwards to concede first.]

Ed Morrissey notes this little swipe at Billary by Obama.

"The choice in this election is not about regions or religions or genders," Obama said at a boisterous victory rally. "It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

* * *

"We are up against conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose — a higher purpose," Obama said.

I don't agree with the platform Barack Obama is running on. That said, I'd have to argue that he is a much more inspiring, positive political voice than Hillary Clinton could ever be, even on her best day. Heck, I'd even say that he out performs her husband -- and I didn't need exit polling data to reach that conclusion.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit points out how thoroughly Obama drubbed the Clintons in South Carolina.

** Obama won a majority of blacks (80%) and one quarter of white vote. ** Obama won one half of white voters under the age of 30. ** Obama won 66% of the youth vote compared to 25% for Clinton. ** Obama also won 58% of democrats! ** And, Obama also won a majority (51%) of higher income voters to Clinton's 26%! ** Hillary Clinton did well with less educated and elderly democrats.

If I played games like the Democrats do, I could make the argument that only the only segment of voters that the Clintons appeal to are the old and the stupid -- but I won't go there.

More At Michelle Malkin

Could be, according to the folks at Fort Bend Now.

You may not want to throw that “Kinky for Governor” poster away just yet; former independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman is weighing another run for governor, this time as a Democrat.

In an exclusive interview with Fort Bend Now, Friedman said that is seriously considering throwing his trademark black Stetson into the ring again for the 2010 governor’s race.

“The signs are very positive,” Friedman said. “We’ve got to get the wooden horse inside the city somehow.”

As for running as a Democrat, Friedman said that he has been a Democrat all his life, and if he would have run as a Democrat the last time, the odds are good he would be in the governor’s mansion right now.

“I would have done better than Chris Bell and could have run stronger against grandma (Carole Keeton Strayhorn),” Friedman said.

In the 2006 election, Friedman polled 546,689, or 12.43 percent of the popular vote, for a fourth-place finish behind Gov. Rick Perry, Bell and Strayhorn. He said that he believes he can benefit from what he called the “Dolph Briscoe” effect.

Yeah, Kinky would have been a heck of a lot better candidate in 2006 than Chris Bell was. For that matter, he would have been a heck of a lot better candidate than Rick Perry, who immediately reneged on campaign commitments and tried to usurp the role of the legislature so he could play doctor with the little girls of Texas.

Heck, we could do worse than Kinky -- and may have.

I realize that some folks prefer to see the Second Amendment as antiquated and irrelevant, but I disagree strongly. And every time I see stories about a school shooting, i wonder if things might have been different if trained faculty members had been permitted to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And in situations like what we saw last year at Virginia Tech, I think of how quickly the murdering scumbag could have been dispatched if even one of his victims had not been disarmed by government edict.

That's why I find legislation like this to be a good sign.

Two Mesa lawmakers are drawing up legislation to give teachers — and some students — a chance to carry firearms on campus. The proposals by Sen. Karen Johnson and Rep. Russell Pearce would allow anyone who has obtained a state permit to carry a concealed firearm to bring it onto public-school campuses, something now a crime under state law. It also would overrule similar policies at community colleges and state universities.

Yeah -- teachers and college students would be treated like adults. And lest you think this statute would let just anyone come onto campus packing heat, the law is very specific about who can do so.

In limiting the measures to those with concealed-weapons permits, they would require that those given the right to bring guns onto campuses undergo background checks, be fingerprinted, go through state-mandated training in laws governing when they are allowed to use deadly force and prove they can handle their firearms.

In other words, trained individuals from a subset of the population repeatedly demonstrated to be unlikely to misuse that weapon would no longer be arbitrarily banned from exercising the concealed-carry privilege.

This proposal resonates with me because I teach. School shootings make me wonder what I could do to protect my students in the event there were a gunman on campus -- and the answer right now is nothing except cower with them in a corner with the lights out and the door locked. There ought to be something more, and I hope that such a law is considered and passed here in Texas.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Liberal Fascism by Done With Mirrors, and Bylines of Brutality by Iowahawk.  Here are the full results of the vote:

On balance, I thought the competition this week was pretty good. And while I was disappointed by the failure of my piece on the Rosenthal/Medina situation to receive even a single vote, I understand that a local story of that nature sometimes doesn't necessarily get the sort of response from my fellow members of the Council that a national or international story does. But on balance, I cannot argue with the outcome of the vote because of the obvious strength of the winners. Good job, guys!

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits

Article 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Article 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

In 1947, the United States Congress engaged in an act that rivaled the deposition of Pope Formosus in its wrongness. Figuratively digging up the corpse of FDR, it passed what would become the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, in order to guarantee that no President could ever ignore the precedent by George Washington. It was, in my eyes, an unwise move, and one contrary to the spirit of our founding document. Indeed, the limitation has been repeatedly criticized by later presidents, historians and political scientists as undemocratic and creating the problem of a lame duck presidency from the first day of the second term.

Which leads us to 2008.

At this time, one of the major candidates for president is the wife of a former president. Hillary Clinton has unleashed her husband, former president Bill Clinton, as a surrogate for her on the campaign trail due to his effectiveness as a campaigner and continued popularity nearly eight years after he left office. Indeed, we are once again hearing the “two for one” rhetoric of the 1992 campaign, with this being seen as one of Hillary Clinton’s qualifications for office.

But this begs the real question – do Americans wish to see Hillary Clinton elected President, or are they really pining after Bill Clinton? And if so, why should the American people be forced to settle for Hillary – an abrasive figure who lacks he husbands charisma and actual experience in office?

Personally, I believe “We, the People” should not be required to settle for a substitute when the real thing is available. If the American people believe that Bill Clinton is the most qualified individual to lead our country in these times, the American people should have the right to have him take the reigns for a third term – and a fourth or fifth if that is the popular will.

Of course, I find the notion of allowing either Clinton in the White House to be nauseating. I would actively campaign against him were he running, as I fully intend to do with his wife. But if my fellow citizens would prefer him in office to any other American, I will gladly bend to their will – and would feel safer with him running the country than I would with his wife. So let’s act, after the election, if not now, to eliminate the Republican’s revenge on the deceased Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Twenty-Second Amendment should be repealed.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, A Newt One- The Truth Surge, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

In the dispute between St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke and St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus, is is clear that someone doesn't understand the First Amendment -- and that person is Majerus, not Burke.

After all, it is the place of a Catholic Archbishop to speak out forcefully and assert Church teachings when a prominent representative of a Catholic institution takes positions contrary to the teachings of the Church.

But Majerus doesn't get that point. Instead, he has said this.

"These beliefs are ingrained in me," Majerus told the paper. "And my First Amendment right to free speech supersedes anything that the archbishop would order me to do. My dad fought on Okinawa in World War II. My uncle died in World War II. I had classmates die in Vietnam. And it was to preserve our way of life, so people like me could have an opinion."

And Archbishop Burke has never argued that you don't have a legal right to your belief. He's never argued that you don't have a right to your opinion. But he does note, rightly, that you don't have a right to use your platform as a public face of a Catholic university to contradict Catholic teaching. You have a right to free speech -- but not to a be basketball coach at a Catholic institution.

After all, the Archbishop is the ultimate teaching and doctrinal authority for the Catholic Church in St. Louis. If you are going to publicly support abortion, expect to receive a technical foul -- and perhaps an ejection from the game -- as a result.

Not that it really makes a difference.

Democrat Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second, long-shot bid for the White House as he faces a tough fight to hold onto his other job — U.S. congressman.

In an interview with Cleveland's Plain Dealer, the six-term House member said he was quitting the race and would make a formal announcement on Friday.

"I will be announcing that I'm transitioning out of the presidential campaign," Kucinich said. "I'm making that announcement tomorrow about a new direction."

Kucinich has received little support in his presidential bid; he got 1 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was shut out in the Iowa caucuses. He did have a devoted following.

So the UFO-spotting crazy guy with a hot, much younger wife is gone -- and with it the only chance of seeing Tom Cruise on a national ticket. Maybe Kucinich can get a gig pushing Scientology along with Cruise after he loses his House seat. After all, they are both equally in touch with reality.

Andrew Sullivan notes this observation from Wendy McEwan at Shakespeare's Sister.

Probably the only people who do care at this point are Chris Matthews and the rest of the morons in the Boys' Club, who will no longer be able to leer over his wife like the disrespectful, perv-brained douchehounds they are.

Personally, I've never leered over her -- just wondered what an attractive woman like her is doing with a little troll like Dennis.

Fortunately, the voters of Florida seem disinclined to take the advice of the New York Times.

Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Barack Obama are leading in their respective parties' upcoming primaries, according to two new state surveys.

But a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that their rivals — John McCain and Hillary Clinton — are ahead nationally, with Clinton leading Obama by 15 points and with McCain moving from fourth to first in one month.

Still, it appears that what this race is going to come down to is a battle for delegates. Romney will increase his lead in the delegate count if he picks up the large bloc of votes in that state -- further stretching his lead in a race where Mitt already has nearly twice the delegates of his closest rival, John McCain. And as Romney is seen as succeeding, his national support will likely increase. After all, McCain got a big boost after his win in South Carolina (with the media ignoring Romney's impressive win in Nevada).

And what about Obama? Will he be able to overcome Hillary's sizable lead?

It's interesting that the New York Times chose today to endorse the two candidates who conservatives most dislike as their endorsees for the Democrat and Republican nominations.

First the Democrat -- not so much because of Hillary Clinton's qualifications but rather because they don't think Obama is "ready"

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

But then they go on to talk about how Hillary Clinton, part of a power couple that breeds and thrives on negativity, needs to change to project a more positive tone -- the very thing that Obama has done all along. I guess they expect the leopardess to change her spots. Not that such a thing will happen, given that the Clintons are the two most divisive political figures of my lifetime, and the architects of the divisive politics that have dominated the last decade and a half. In the mean time, Barack Obama, the real uniter, is expected to step to the back of the bus.

And then there is the nominee for the GOP -- the conservative party is encouraged to nominate the least conservative candidate, and the one most likely to take positions amenable to the Democrats. But I especially love this opening.

We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

In other words, we are against everything it means to be a Republican, but we still feel that Republicans should give a damn what we think. It is followed by this.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

In other words, the Republicans should nominate John McCain because of all the positions he holds that are out of step with the GOP and in step with the eventual Democrat platform. Conservatives should embrace the candidate that the New York Times sees as most likely to implement the policies that are anathema to conservatism.

In other words, the New York Times would see us choose between a bad choice and an echo.

More At Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Cao's Blog, Soccer Dad, Pat Dollard

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, A Newt One- The Truth Surge, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I don’t know enough about Dutch politician Geert Wilders’ politics to know if I would support his policies or not, but I have to agree with this assessment of Islam.

As Dutch police prepared for a weekend of riots and Mr Wilders was told by the authorities that he would have to leave country, he launched a new attack on "intolerant" Islam while announcing that his 10-minute film attacking the Muslim faith would be postponed for two weeks.

"If I had announced that I was going to make a film about the fascist character of the Bible would there have been a crisis meeting of Holland's security forces?" he wrote to the Volkskrant newspaper.

"Would I have received as many death threats as I have done since announcing I was making a film about the Koran? Of course not."

And yet this is the faith that is repeated referred to as a “religion of peace”. Do critics of Judaism have to go into hiding? Do governments attempt to silence such criticism and make concessions to Christian groups to stop expected violence when Christians are offended? Or course not – and because of the necessary differences between the responses of adherents of the two great Abrahamic faiths and the Mohammedan counterfeit we can ascertain that one fails to live up to the standard set by its alleged theological siblings.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Pet's Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This is what it really comes down to for me in deciding whether or not I can support the man.

For the 10 years he was governor of Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was at war with much of his party.

Now that Mr. Huckabee is seeking the presidential nomination, many Arkansas Republicans warn that he could wage a bruising battle with the national party, too.

"One can hardly argue that the Republican Party has thrived," said former Rep. Jim Hendren, who was House minority leader and ran for state party chairman in a bitter 2001 race won by a Huckabee surrogate. "We thrived as we were an opposition party and standing on principles as the Republican Party. But unfortunately, when we got some power, particularly at the state level, we began to fight among ourselves."

The former Southern Baptist pastor-turned-politician took control of the governor's mansion in 1996 with expectations that he would lead the kind of Republican ascension in other states of the Deep South. But he left office last year by turning over the governorship to a Democrat and with Republicans bitterly divided over his legacy for his party.

"He destroyed it," said Randy Minton, a former state representative whom Mr. Huckabee worked to help get elected but who later clashed repeatedly with the governor. "We had one U.S. senator, we had two congressmen, at the tops we had 37 out of 135 legislators in the House and Senate. Now I think there's 32 in the legislature, we have no U.S. senators and we have one congressman."

We are a divided, weakened party in 2008. We need to rediscover our principles and focus around them to redevelop the strength to lead effectively. It appears that Mike Huckabee lacks the skill set to do that – and may actually be adept at destroying that unity and sapping the strength we have. In other words, he may or may not be a great guy, but he is certainly the wrong guy for the GOP.

Is John McCain mentally competent to be President? This makes me wonder.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he's "absolutely astonished" that Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to surrender to the enemy in Iraq.

In an indication of how the campaign may evolve once the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates go head to head, McCain told Fox & Friends Thursday morning, "After all the sacrifice we've made in this surge, which everybody knows is succeeding, she wants to surrender and bring the troops home and set a date for withdrawal."

McCain said he hopes national security will be a big point of discussion at tonight's Republican debate in Boca Raton, Fla.

"If we do what she wants to do...al Qaeda will tell the world that they've defeated the United States of America. I have never, never in American history heard of a leading candidate for president of the United States that wants to surrender to the enemy."

McCain said snatching defeat "from the jaws of victory" would undermine the sacrifice of brave young Americans.

After the last few years of Democrats trying to undercut American efforts to stabilize Iraq, I can’t understand why anything any Democrat says about undermining the troops or unilaterally retreating in the face of victory would cause so much as a blink. That McCain is “astonished” does lead me to ask if he has been paying attention to these people – or if he has the mental acuity to adequately serve as commander in chief.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Pet's Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Another activist, jailed for a year without charges.

Now it isn't clear exactly what this man has done -- but it does seem to violate Saudi Arabia's own laws.

A prominent Saudi political activist and academic remains in solitary confinement "without charge and without access to counsel" a year after he was arrested, his lawyer said Wednesday.

Saud Mokhtar al-Hashemi, 45, was among 10 men arrested last February and accused of illegally collecting funds and sending fighters to Iraq. His lawyer and supporters say the detentions were a government attempt to silence demands for democratic reform in Saudi Arabia.

"This prolonged detention without charge and without access to counsel is illegal and in violation of the country's rules," the lawyer, Bassim Alim, said in an interview. "It is as if there is emergency law. If there is proof against them, it should be presented."

In Saudi Arabia, detainees have a right to counsel and public trials and can be held up to six months without charge. An Interior Ministry spokesman, Gen. Mansour al-Turki, said the men remained behind bars because the case is "still under investigation."

Now if Hashemi is guilty of those things of which he is suspected, I have a problem with his actions. Indeed, I believe those actions are probably illegal and worthy of punishment -- if he is, in fact guilty of them. But a full year of detention without any access to counsel or charges is pretty excessive -- and certainly is more shocking to the conscience than the weight-gain and medical treatment camps for actual terrorists at Gitmo. Where are the outcries of human rights activists in this country to this much more offensive situation? No doubt they are being "sulturally sensitive" in their refusal to protest real human rights violations.

By the way, this case is connected with that of Foaud al-Farhan, who I wrote about earlier. His offense seems to be calling for the Saudi government to follow its own laws in this case, though he also has been held incommunicado with no attorney or charges.

You can contact the Saudis about this case.

Ambassador Adel A. Al-Jubeir
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia
601 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037

You may also call the Embassy at (202) 342-3800.

There is also a contact form on the Embassy's website.

Oh, come on! Ron Paul more popular than Rudy Giuliani? Based upon the Nevada caucus results? You must be joking!

Ron Paul, the Texas congressman frequently dismissed as a long shot candidate with no real chance at winning the Republican presidential nomination, has won nearly twice as many total votes to date as Rudy Giuliani, a candidate still widely viewed as a strong contender.

With his second place finish in Saturday’s Nevada caucus, where Paul defeated Giuliani in every county in the state, the Texas congressman has now received 106,414 votes to 60,220 for Giuliani. Both candidates have collected zero actual delegates.

Now mind you, Giuliani hasn't really mounted a campaign in ANY of the early states, including the couple where "pressing the flesh" is key to the outcome. And as important as I think Nevada was, the reality is that you would also have to conclude that John McCain (who won in South Carolina the same day) is also equally in trouble if you were to use Nevada as the yardstick for measuring viability.

But consider this -- Ron Paul has campaigned vigorously in all of the states so far, in contrast to Giuliani's "wait until Florida" strategy. And Ron Paul still has won no delegates, even in states where he claims to have some strength.

Now I've been very clear that I think Ron Paul needs to be defeated for the presidency AND congress this year because of certain bizarre positions and outrageous statements over the years. But at the same time, I believe that there are some philosophical points worth taking away from his campaign. However, Ron Paul is definitely NOT it -- and I suspect that the relative performances in Florida and on Super Tuesday will demonstrate that he is not candidate with broader and deeper support than Rudy Giuliani.

Except, of course, this one works in reverse. He won't sing if you pay him off.

José Canseco, the former major league slugger and admitted steroid user who exposed other players in his 2005 best-selling book “Juiced,” offered to keep a Detroit Tigers outfielder “clear” in his next book if the player invested money in a film project Canseco was promoting, according to a person in baseball with knowledge of the situation.

Four people in baseball confirmed that referrals were made from Major League Baseball to the F.B.I. regarding Canseco’s actions relating to the six-time All-Star outfielder Magglio Ordóñez, who was not mentioned in Canseco’s earlier book or in any other report on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. All four insisted on anonymity because they said they didn’t have authority to speak about the events.

The F.B.I. did not open a formal investigation because Ordóñez said he did not want to pursue the complaint.

Canseco denied that he — or any associate of his — ever asked Ordóñez for money to keep his name out of a book titled “Vindicated.”

“Absolutely not,” Canseco said in a telephone interview Wednesday. He also said he had not been told about being the subject of F.B.I. referrals.

This strikes me as the sort of thing that should be pursued by the FBI regardless of Ordóñez desire to pursue the matter. Given some of the disputes that have gone on recently over steroid abuse allegations, there ought to be some clarity as to the accusers and their motives. It seems that there are some credibility problems at work here. And with no fewer than four different sources bringing the information to the attention of the government, I think that we have a prima facie case that something happened.

Good Lord! Here is a name -- and a stunt -- that takes me back to my teenage years in the Chicago area. Steve Dahl, the granddaddy of shock jocks, has arranged a contest for some lucky(?) woman to win a date with Drew Peterson.

His fourth wife has only been missing three months, but Drew Peterson appears ready to plunge back into the dating pool.

“Win a Date with Drew Peterson” is scheduled to air at 8 a.m. Thursday on Steve Dahl’s morning show on WJMK-FM (104.3). Peterson agreed to the stunt when he appeared with his attorney on the show this morning.

Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, told Dahl his only caveat with the date was “no three-way stuff.” Dahl said he would likely send a chaperone on the day “just to be on the safe side,” before adding, “I’m kidding.”

Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy vanished on Oct. 28 from the couple’s Bolingbrook home. Drew Peterson said the mother of two young children left with another man. Police have called her disappearance a possible homicide investigation and labeled Drew Peterson a potential suspect.

Drew Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, was found dead in a bathtub at her home after the couple separated. Police are reinvestigating her death in the wake of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

It's sick.

It's tasteless.

It's classic Steve Dahl!

After all, this is the guy whose obituary will begin "Dahl, a longtime mainstay of Chicago broadcasting, is best remembered for causing the Chicago White Sox to forfeit a game due to a riot cause by his 'Disco Demolition Night'." Setting up a date with someone who probably has killed two wives is right up his alley. I'm just surprised that Peterson's attorney went for it -- after all, it won't look good to the jury in either murder trial.

Political spouses have traditionally filled the role of supporting player in a candidacy. They are not usually the focus, and when they are (Jackie Kennedy) it is not as a policy figure. But as usual, Bill Clinton is breaking all the rules.

Maureen Dowd makes a good point here, one made by many others recently.

If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.

If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it.

The Clintons — or “the 2-headed monster,” as the The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada — always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party.

Bill’s transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.

Now given that Clinton's legacy can best be summed up with the phrases "blue dress", "semen stain", "impeachment" and "perjury", I don't know how much lower seamier and damaged his legacy can get -- but he certainly is trying. And in doing so, I believe he harms his wife's candidacy for office.

Indeed, that phrase I used above is precisely the source of the harm. -- "his wife".

Hillary Clinton wants to be President of the United States. She is running for the office. She needs to be out front, and HER spouse needs to be in the background, even if he is the immediate past president. If elected, this will be her administration, not his, and she will have to be making the tough calls and being the public face. Unfortunately, Bill has taken center stage much of the time, serving as hatchet man. And it is an unbecoming role. More importantly, it makes Hillary look weak, as if she has to hide behind her husband when the going gets tough. that may not actually be the case, but it is the perception.

I think Peggy Noonan made an interesting related point over the weekend on Meet the Press.

MS. NOONAN: Can I say, on the campaign trail, one of the things I find jarring the past few weeks is that Hillary Clinton is the first major party woman running for president of the United States. She is a woman. She's running for president. She's running for head of the United States, chief executive officer. And she has to send her husband out to yell at the neighbors? It's like she's, she's saying, "You go out there, you fight for me. My husband's going to tell you off!" There's something strange, jarring, unbecoming and even unfeminist about it.

MS. GOODWIN: I doubt that she's sending him out. I think he's going out on his own.

MS. NOONAN: You think he's just on his own. Oh, my goodness, it's her campaign. If she didn't want him out there wagging his finger, turning red and arguing with reporters and bringing a level of temper and heat to the proceedings, if she did not want that, I'm sure she would stop it. And if she cannot, we should all just stop and take a breath.

If Hillary is hiding behind Bill, she is showing a level of weakness that is unbecoming in a president. But if, as some are saying (and Maureen Dowd is implying) Bill is in control here, then Hillary is equally unfit for the Oval Office, having shown an inability to control her own campaign and set her own message. Until and unless she can make her finger-wagging, purple-raging spouse fade into the background, she is showing why she is really not the best choice for the White House.

For Hillary Clinton to succeed, she must eclipse Bill Clinton, because his status as former president has the ability to do great damage to her administration on a policy level if she is not front and center and the clear voice of that administration. She needs to demonstrate that as a candidate if she is to prove herself worthy of victory in the primaries and the general election.

You know, I think it is sad that a talented young man like Heath Ledger is dead. And while I was not a particular fan of his work (I have a hard time naming a single film of his that I have seen, other than The Patriot), I recognize the loss to the entertainment world in terms of the potential that was snuffed out yesterday.

At 3:31 p.m., according to the police, a masseuse arrived at the fourth-floor apartment of the building, at 421 Broome Street, between Crosby and Lafayette Streets in SoHo, for an appointment with Mr. Ledger. The masseuse was let in to the home by a housekeeper, who then knocked on the door of the bedroom Mr. Ledger was in. When no one answered, the housekeeper and the masseuse opened the bedroom and found Mr. Ledger naked and unconscious on a bed, with sleeping pills — both prescription medication and nonprescription — on a night table. They attempted to revive him, but he did not respond. They immediately called the authorities. As the news reports spread quickly, throngs of people gathered in the neighborhood.

The police said they did not suspect a crime. Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the office of the city’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Charles S. Hirsch, said that employees of the office were at the apartment and that an autopsy would be conducted on Wednesday. Around 6:30 p.m., city workers rolled Mr. Ledger’s body, in a black body bag on a stretcher, out of the building.

Again, heartbreaking -- one more entertainer dead of an overdose at a young age. We've seen this story too many times in the past to even be surprised.

But let's consider the amount and the prominence of the media coverage of Ledger's death. With all that is going on in the world -- war, economic problems, the presidential race -- did this death really merit the sort of coverage that it got from the media? I mean no disrespect to the deceased, but is his death important enough to knock those stories from the front page and the lead position on the news broadcasts? Have we in this country become so celebrity obsessed that this story matters more than those other stories?

I suppose this could have something to do with it.

More than a dozen people at North Shore High School have tested positive for exposure to tuberculosis after a student was diagnosed with the infectious disease last month, Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services officials said Tuesday.

Nineteen out of 150 students and faculty tested had a positive skin test result, indicating they were exposed to TB, said HCPHES spokeswoman Sandy Kachur. Those tested were considered to have had prolonged contact with a teen diagnosed with the disease in December, Kachur said.

As a result, I expect a bit of a freak-out from some of my students today. After all, while we are on the 9-10 campus rather than the 11-12 campus where this is taking place, many of my students have siblings on the other campus. Many more have friends there. And while the odds are quite small that any of our students have the illness, the fact that one out of every eight folks tested have had a positive skin test will likely alarm many of the kids and their parents.

Because Islam has appropriate the prophets of Christianity and Judaism as its own, sharia restrictions have been placed upon pictures of them by Malaysian authorities -- even in Christian materials intended for a Christian audience.

Malaysian authorities confiscated Christian children's books, claiming the illustrations of prophets such as Moses and Abraham violate Islamic Shariah law.

The independent news agency Malaysakini reported the Internal Security Ministry confiscated the literature from bookstores in two cities and one small town in mid-December.

The Malaysian Embassy declined to comment on the news service's Jan. 11 report.

The Rev. Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Malaysian Council of Churches, confirmed the report and accused the government of persecuting Christians.

"The officials have offended the sensitivities of Christians because their publications and depictions of their Biblical personalities have now become targets of unscrupulous Muslim officials bent on curtailing religious freedom in the country," Mr. Shastri said.

"Immediate steps should be taken to amend administrative rules and regulations, especially in the Internal Security Ministry, that give a free hand to enforcement officials to act on their whim and fancies," he said.

Religious oppression of Christians and other religious minorities continues in Malaysia, and has been increasing in recent years. When will the world community get around to denouncing such violations of human rights by the Malaysian government? When will the rights of Christians receive even 10% of the concern that the rights of Muslims receive from international bodies?

Involving a degree granted the governor's daughter, despite a dearth of evidence of her actually earning it.

It started with a phone call from a newspaper reporter in October seeking to verify the academic credentials of Gov. Joe Manchin III’s daughter Heather Bresch. But in less than three months, the inquiry has mushroomed into a controversy that risks casting a shadow of cronyism over this state’s flagship university.

Officials at the college, West Virginia University, have been accused of rewriting records last fall to document that Ms. Bresch had earned an executive master of business administration degree in 1998. An investigation by The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette concluded that she had completed only 22 of the required 48 credit hours.

The university has begun an investigation of its own into the matter.

Ms. Bresch, 38, works for Mylan Inc., the world’s third-largest generic drug company, which employs 2,000 people in Morgantown. The company’s chairman, Milan Puskar, is a major campaign contributor to Governor Manchin, a Democrat, and is the university’s largest donor, having given it $20 million in 2003. Ms. Bresch has insisted that she earned her degree, and university officials have blamed a failure to transfer records for nearly half of her course work to the appropriate office for the situation, as documents were moved to electronic format from paper. But so far, the university and Ms. Bresch have not produced copies of her transcripts, receipts or other proof of her having paid for course work, or documents from the courses where grades seemed to have been entered years after “incompletes” were given.

If, as claimed, there are paper records that were not transferred to the electronic system, it should be easy enough to prove. Just produce the records. Surely there are records to justify the changing of grades YEARS after the fact.

Or are there?

Or is there just Daddy's political pull and the aid of one of the state's largest employers, which gives millions to the University?

And that is a step forward for Saudi women.

Women in Saudi Arabia can now stay in a hotel or a furnished apartment without a male guardian, according to a government decision that comes as the country faces increasing criticism for its severe restrictions on women.

The daily Al-Watan, which is deemed close to the Saudi government, reported Monday that the ministry issued a circular to hotels asking them to accept lone women — as long as their information is sent to a local police station.

Yeah, and I wonder what will happen with that information once it gets to the police? Will they be contacting parents, brothers, and husbands -- which will potentially enable continued physical abuse or honor killings of women trying to escape abusive situations?

But they still can't drive or be alone with an unrelated man -- which leads to the question of how these women will get to a hotel in the first place. But then again, there are reports that the driving ban may be lifted by the end of the year.

The level of ill will among the leading Democrats is pretty high, as shown in the most recent debate.

In the most intense and personal exchange of the presidential campaign, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama assailed each other’s integrity and voting records during a televised debate on Monday in South Carolina, the site of a critical primary in five days.

If the debate was full of memorable moments — Mrs. Clinton accusing Mr. Obama of associating with a “slum landlord,” Mr. Obama saying he felt as if he were running against both Hillary and Bill Clinton, the two candidates talking over each other — the totality of the attacks also laid bare the ill will and competitive ferocity that has been simmering between them for weeks.

“You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern,” Mrs. Clinton said, drawing a chorus of jeers from a crowd at the Palace Theater in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Mr. Obama shot back that Mrs. Clinton was conducting a brand of negative politics that, he suggested throughout the night, she and her husband had perfected: “comb my 4,000 votes in Illinois, choose one, try to present it in the worst possible light.” He added that he had sought to maintain “a certain credibility” in the race.

Interestingly, Barack Obama is saying the same thing that Republicans have been saying for the last 16 years about the Clinton machine. Now that Hillary is facing the possibility of being denied her anointing as queen the Democratic nominee, she is willing to use every arrow in the Clinton quiver to destroy a fellow Democrat.

Contrast that with the relatively amicable relations between the GOP candidates. The debates have been much less personal. Could this signal that the GOP will emerge from the process much more united than the Democrats, with the same sort of divisions we saw after the Carter/Kennedy struggle in 1980 again afflicting the Democrats? And will the Democrats, as in 1988, supply the Republicans with all the ammo they need to take down the eventual Democrat nominee?

If the reports of layoffs are true, there probably will be quite a few.

Yahoo is planning to lay off hundreds of employees in an effort to increase its profitability, prop up its deflated stock price and narrow the focus of its sprawling Internet portal to a smaller number of crucial areas, people close to the company said Monday.

The final number of layoffs from Yahoo’s work force of about 14,000 is yet to be determined and is likely to be announced around the end of the month, perhaps during Yahoo’s conference call on Jan. 29 with analysts after it reports fourth-quarter results, these people said.

Company executives are still trying to determine exactly which areas will be cut. One person close to the discussions said a final plan, or perhaps a few alternative plans, would be submitted to the board at a coming meeting. The plan’s final shape may be influenced by the company’s fourth-quarter performance, this person said.

Yahoo declined to comment specifically on any plan for layoffs. In an e-mail statement, a company spokeswoman, Diana Wong, said: “Yahoo plans to invest in some areas, reduce emphasis in others, and eliminate some areas of the business that don’t support the company’s priorities. Yahoo continues to attract and hire talent against the company’s key initiatives to create long-term stockholder value.”

Some blogs have reported a 10-20% reduction in force, but analysts are viewing that as unlikely. However the report of "hundreds" being laid off could still be a reduction of 5% -- a significant amount indeed. WIll other tech companies follow suit?

And perhaps one day the dream will become a reality.

Until then, we will be stuck with affirmative action programs and racial set-asides that judge by the color or one's skin, not the color of one's character.

When, oh when, will this nation live by the prophetic words of the man this day was set aside to honor?

Quick -- tell me what this Houston Chronicle editorial leaves out.

On the federal holiday that honors Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights leader's legacy has become the subject of a presidential campaign controversy.

It shouldn't be.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, seeking to make the point that action speaks louder than words, dreams and visions, noted that passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act required the signature of President Lyndon Johnson as well as the leadership of King. Her analogy was not well-taken. King famously had a dream of a colorblind society, yet he also acted, organized, preached, mobilized and suffered the persecution of authorities in the segregated South.

As Joseph Califano Jr., an aide in President Johnson's White House, wrote in an article in Sunday's Outlook section, passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination in employment, education and public accommodation required a political partnership — King's stirring leadership and Johnson's mastery of Congress. King knew that the realization of his dreams needed presidential initiative. He asked Johnson for it, and Johnson complied, taking the risk that the South would move for generations into the Republican column.

The end to segregation followed the actions of thousands of lawyers, judges, freedom riders and civil rights workers, and more than a few martyrs.

One could argue, perhaps perversely, that the brutality of police officers in the South, captured by television cameras, hastened the end of segregation by searing the grotesque injustice and oppression on Americans' psyches.

When King was assassinated in 1968, Johnson called on Congress to pass the Fair Housing Act as a tribute King's life and work.

King's role is open to interpretation, but arguing whether he or Johnson was more instrumental in the battle for civil rights is a faulty dilemma. Both played their parts. Today's mock controversy over Clinton's remarks is silly, yet it serves to remind Americans that King's legacy survives and matters.

Did you catch it? You didn't? Really?

Nowhere does this editorial mention the contribution of the party that provided overwhelming support for the 1664 Civil Rights Act AND the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Nowhere is mentioned the party that sought a stronger civil rights bill in 1957, and had in fact been at the forefront of civil rights legislation for nearly a century -- including being repeatedly frustrated in its attempt to pass anti-lynching legislation.

And which party was that? The Republican Party, of course.

The Democrats opposed every civil rights law in American history before 1964. And as it was, the Republican party voted by an 80% majority in favor of the legislation, while Democrats could barely muster a 2/3 vote despite all the arm-twisting of a president of their own party seeking reelection.

More trouble in the dead-tree media.

The top editor of The Los Angeles Times has been forced out for resisting newsroom budget cuts, executives at the paper said Sunday, marking the fourth time in less than three years that the highest-ranking editor or the publisher has left for that reason.

The removal of the editor, James E. O’Shea, by the publisher, David D. Hiller, mirrors the odd spectacle of a little more than a year ago, when the previous publisher, Jeffrey M. Johnson, was fired for refusing to eliminate newsroom jobs as directed by the paper’s owner, the Tribune Company. In each case, a longtime Tribune executive was expected to rein in costs at the paper, but instead sided with the newsroom and lost his job for it.

The departure of Mr. O’Shea appears to contradict statements by Samuel Zell, the Chicago real estate magnate who took over the company last month and is now its chairman and chief executive. Mr. Zell has repeatedly criticized the previous regime of the financially troubled company for trying to improve the bottom line by cutting costs, and he has said that he thinks the path to profit lies in finding new revenue, not paring costs.

Calls to Mr. O’Shea, Mr. Hiller and a spokeswoman for Mr. Zell were not returned. A Tribune spokesman referred inquiries to Nancy Sullivan, a spokeswoman for The Los Angeles Times, who said, “I don’t have any comment for you.”

Fewer readers equals fewer dollars equals fewer staffers. O'Shea couldn't accept that, and so he had to go.

Frankly, papers like the LA Times need to accept that, as part of major media conglomerates, they need to pool their reporting across the sister publications. In that sense, they will operate like local affiliates of the major television networks do, packaging national news with their local reporting -- and sharing their local reporting with other network affiliates.

An interesting development -- and a well-deserved posting.

The Pentagon is considering Gen. David H. Petraeus for the top NATO command later this year, a move that would give the general, the top American commander in Iraq, a high-level post during the next administration but that has raised concerns about the practice of rotating war commanders.

A senior Pentagon official said that it was weighing “a next assignment for Petraeus” and that the NATO post was a possibility. “He deserves one and that has also always been a highly prestigious position,” the official said. “So he is a candidate for that job, but there have been no final decisions and nothing on the timing.”

The question of General Petraeus’s future comes as the Pentagon is looking at changing several top-level assignments this year. President Bush has been an enthusiastic supporter of General Petraeus, whom he has credited with overseeing a troop increase and counterinsurgency plan credited with reducing the sectarian violence in Iraq, and some officials say the president would want to keep General Petraeus in Iraq as long as possible.

In one approach under discussion, General Petraeus would be nominated and confirmed for the NATO post before the end of September, when Congress is expected to break for the presidential election. He might stay in Iraq for some time after that before moving to the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, but would take his post before a new president takes office.

And if a Republican wins in November, we are likely to see General Petraeus head the Joint Chiefs of Staff before his career ends. Expect significantly less respect from a Democrat President, given the insults directed towards the general last fall and the accusations of treason from Democrat surrogates.

Interesting, isn't it, that we keep finding ways that nature is responsible for phenomena associated with global warming?

Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica's glaciers: volcanoes.

In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.

"This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet" in Antarctica, Vaughan said.

Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.

Unless, of course, there are volcanoes on the other side of the continent causing melting there -- and don't forget that the water released by the volcanoes will help raise the temperature more generally.

But regardless, we find AGAIN that there is a natural phenomenon resulting in one of the "proofs" of global warming. And yet somehow the faith of the acolytes of than new religion remains unchanged.

I recently found got a great Logo Design software package. LogoCreator 5.0 from Laughingbird Software available at http://